Exception — That this action was given in England by the Statute of Marl bridge, 52 Hen. 3d, which does not extend here. To which it was answered, that true said statute does not extend here; yet it is reasonable there should be a remedy in such cases, for the reversioner to recover his damages, and that reason was universal and ought to govern here. Judgment — Declaration sufficient. See Rose v. Hays, action of waste against tenant by the curtesy. New Haven, January Term, A. D. 1791.