#### Linus Dickinson *versus*John Boyle.

Where an act complained of is admitted to have been done with force and to constitute a proper ground for an action of trespass *vi et*armis, all the damage to the plaintiff of which such injurious act was the efficient cause, and for whiui tne plaintiff is entitled to recover in any form, may be recovered in such actir% although in point of time such damage did not occur till some time after the act done. If special or peculiar damages are claimed, such as are not the usual or natural consequences of the act done, it is proper to set them forth specifically in the declaration, by way of aggravation, that the defendant may have due notice of the claim.

Where the defendant broke and entered the plaintiff’s close lying adjacent to a river, dug into a bank near to a dam across the river, and carried away some gravel, in consequence of which a flood in the river, which took place three weeks after-wards, carried away a portion of the close, and a cider-mill, &c., belonging to the plaintiff, it was held, that the plaintiff might recover damages for the whole of such injury, in an action of trespass *quare clausum Jregit*.

.Trespass *quare clausum fregit.*The declaration ret forth, that the defendant, on October, 9, 1833, with force and arms, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, lying adjacent to Westfield river, in Russell, and broke up and removed the plaintiff’s soil, and by means thereof caused the water of the river to carry away and destroy three acres of the close, the plaintiff’s cider-mill there standing, twenty barrels of cider, &c.

The trial was before *Putnam*J., upon the general issue. The plaintiff proved, that the defendant entered the close, dug into the bank near the dam that had been built across the river, took away some gravel and undermined some trees. The flood which carried away the plaintiff’s soil, &c., came on about three weeks after the defendant had dug into the bank.

The defendant objected, that the action should have been trespass on the case for the consequential damage, inasmuch as such damage did not follow immediately and directly from the original act of digging into the bank ; which act was admitted to be a trespass on the part of the defendant.

The jury found, that the act of the defendant in digging into the bank caused the water to break through the earth or sand round the end of the dam, and to carry away the soil, &c. ot the plaintiff; and they assessed damages for the con sequential injury.

*79If such assessment was erroneous the verdict was to be amended, and nominal damages inserted ; and in such event, the plaintiff was to have an action of trespass on the case for the consequential injury, if he chose. If the action was well brought in trespass, for the whole injury, the judgment was to be according to the verdict.

*I. C. Bates, Mills*and *Boise,*for the defendant,

cited *Leame*v. *Bray, 3*East, 593 ; *Smith*v. *Rutherford,*2 Serg & R. 358 ; *Cotteral*v. *Cummins,*6 Serg. and R. 343.

*W. G. Bates, R. A. Chapman*and *Ashmun,*for the plain tiff, were stopped by the Court.

*Per Curiam.*

Where the act complained of, is admitted to have been done with force, and to constitute a proper ground for an action of trespass *vi et armis,*all the damage to the plaintiff, of which such injurious act was the efficient cause, and for which the plaintiff is entitled to recover in any form, may be recovered in such action, although in point of time such damage did not occur till some time after the act done. Where special or peculiar damages are claimed, such as are not the usual or natural consequences of the act done, it is proper to set them forth specifically in the declaration, by way of aggravation, that the defendant may have due notice of the claim.

*Judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.*