Waste against one alleging that he had felled certain oak trees growing in a wood and also hazels, thorns and willows only in ten acres of land adjoining the wood. He had committed waste by cutting down all the hazels, worth twelve pence each, and also uprooted all the roots and also he had felled all the thorns and willows, each worth four pence, and uprooted all the roots; also he had committed waste in one acre of land by digging and grave under the land and selling it.
Kirkton. He has counted that he has cut down etc. and also uprooted the roots of the hazels and thus he has assigned two causes of waste in a single tree and so we ask that he choose one (and this was not allowed).
Kirkton. As for the two hundred oak trees we only cut down thirty for the repair of buildings; and as for the ten acres these were full of oaks and the hazels, thorns and willows were underwood and by the deed which is here he granted us the right to cut down underwood and make our profit from it and we cut it etc. and we ask for judgment whether this is wrong. As for our uprooting of the roots he ordered us to do this and we did this by agreement etc. and so we ask for judgment; as for the acre of land etc. we tell you that we dug and grava underneath for repair of the buildings and we allowed what was over to lie on the ground without selling any of it, as we are ready etc.
FINCHDEAN, J. If you dug and gravastes more than you needed for the repair of the buildings you committed waste etc.
Kirkton. The fact is that this acre is a valley which is full of water and to drain it we dug there and put part to the repair of the buildings and we left the rest lying on the ground.
FINCHDEAN, J .That is the first you have said of that and so plead that against the other party.
And Kirkton did so.
Finch’. You sold one hundred cart-loads of this and more which you did not use for repair of the houses as we are ready etc. (And the others to the contrary). And as to the oaks he uprooted two hundred more than he used for rebuilding etc. And Finch’ as to that which you said about having uprooted the roots etc. by our assent etc. what do you have to show our assent?
Kirkton. Nothing other than your word and that is enough etc.
Finch’. We did not assent, as we are ready etc.
Kirkton. That is no issue.
FINCHDEAN, J. You should be satisfied that he has offered that averment and so accept it etc. (Implying that if he had demurred for judgment that the defendant would have been convicted of waste).
And so Kirkton says that he did assent, as we are ready etc.
Finch’. As to that which he says about that being underwood etc. we will prove that those ten acres are full of hazels, thorns and willows growing there and there are no other trees there, as we are ready etc.
Kirkton’. We are already at issue on the uprooting of the roots and if verdict is given in our favour that we who are plaintiffs did it with your assent then we will be discharged of waste done on the main trunks of the trees and so it will be in vain to take issue on the felling and so we ask to be discharged of this issue.
And the court discharged him etc.
Citations:
[1367] wast 82, [Co. Litt. 53a (k)]
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196939