Hasbrouck & others against Schoonmaker

Hasbrouck & others against Schoonmaker. A plaintiff recovering at the circuit for a trespass under the statute, (1 R. L. 525-6, 3. 29) a sum which, when trebled, amounts to less cntitied°to cover treble A justice has iuehan^otionf Semble,theredoes’not necessanly involve a question of title to land, In trespass for cutting timber, contrary to the statute (1 R. L. 525, 526, s. 29,) the plaintiffs had recovered damages to $6 ; and C. H. Ruggles, for the plaintiff, moved for treble damages and treble costs. He said, this did not depend upon the general statute of costs. Treble costs result from the stat-which inflicts treble, damages. This means treble the gUpreme Court costs. ■ Beekman v. Chalmers, (1 Cowen's Rep. 584) must have gone upon this ground. It denies any eff*ect to the general statute, (sess. 41, ch. 94, s. 5) providing that in actions cognizable before a Justice, the plaintiff shall not recover costs, unless his damages exceed 50 dollars, Another ground of the application is, that a Justice has ns „ 11 cognizance of this action. It is true that the statute gives him, in terms, jurisdiction of trespass on lands ; but not of trespasses committed under this statute. Again, he has no power to try an action, where the title comes in question. In this action, is it not necessarily in question ? It has been holden at the Circuit that, in an action for a statute trespass, it is not enough for the plaintiff to shew himself in possession, as he might in trespass quare, &c. at the common law. The penalty is for cutting timber, treble the value of which is to he recovered ; and possession must be foliowed by proof of title. A reversioner or remainder man might maintain this action, even against the tenant in possession. (Vid. Wickham v. Freeman, 12 John. Rep. 183.) [MAJORITY — Sutherland, J.] Sutherland, J. We have frequently had the question before us, and never entertained a doubt that this action may be brought before a Justice; and Per tot am Curiam, (without hearing J. Sudam, who was to have argued against the motion,) the motion for trebling the damages was granted, but denied as to the costs. Rule accordingly.