
    Crane against Comstock.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1814.
    In an action of tfepvOT jntii, plaintiff If', “ oT‘ sin h«M or title to tbn Uud c. iiies in ca?ihi...rluv.vr pc;- v. -í; *n ef!; f & (Wes not fwf ff tiie nui^e, ho-for-1 v’livn, the r-r .i- - v.-as tri ed, tint ilie willh'r.md ml Ibices, so as to entit m the plaintiff to cost». The i'roly l>'e-
    THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for forty dollars, damages,anü n’ie judge, before whom the cause was tried, certified the trespass to have been wilful and malicious. The question was, 'whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs, or must pay costs to the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The act concerning costs, as it now stands, (1 N. R. L. 343. sess. 36. c. .6.) does not authorize a certificate that the trespass was wilful and malicious. The plaintiff, to eufiilu himself co costs, must recover above the sum of fifty dolsars> Im*ess freehold, or title to the land, comes in question. The recovery, therefore, being under fifty dollars, the defendant is entitled to costs. 
      
       1'he eighth section of the forme act, (sess. 24. c. 170.) is omitted in the reñssá act»
     