SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 109

evidence in any case as a witness; or by a defendant who is incapable of
making oath.

* On discovering, at the hearing, that a party had failed to take some 126
material testimony, the case was, on affidavit, continued, and a
commission issued to take the evidence.

shon. Ibid, 437: Nicodemus v. Nicodemus, 41 Md. 538. It is not necessary to
aver m words, that the injury is irreparable, but the facts showing it to be
so must be stated in the bill. White v. Flannigain. 1 Md. 543, 550.

Applications to restrain party claiming title to land from cutting down
trees refused, because remedy at law sufficient. Green v. Keen, 4 Md. 106;
Powell v. Rawlings, 38 Md. 239. Refused because plaintiff's right of posses-
sion insufficient. Dean v. Brown. 23 Md. 11. Acts which would result in
"the destruction of all the timber on a man's home plantation, where wood
and timber are necessary to the enjoyment of the property in that character,
are sufficient to authorize an injunction to restrain the cutting of such wood
and timber. Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 132. The destruction of ornamental and
fruit trees will be prevented by injunction, on the ground that it is an irre-
mediable mischief, going to the destruction of the estate in the character in
which it is enjoyed. Shipley v. Ritter, 7 Md. 408. When there is no dispute
as to title and the land is plaintiff's dwelling plantation, and a portion of it
is in timber, valuable for protection and ornament, and the defendants have,
without authority, cleared up part of this timber land and converted it into
pasture and are continuing to clear up the rest, it is a case of irreparable
mischief which equity will restrain by injunction. Ibid. Injunction granted
to restrain destruction of limber until the land could be sold for the benefit
of those entitled Fulton v. Harman, 44 Md. 232.

Application by a tenant against his lessor to restrain demolition of the
building refused, it not appearing from the bill that the complainant had
performed his covenants, under the lease. Johnston v. Glenn. 40 Md. 200.
Where after the filing of a bill praying that the defendant be enjoined from
the use of a division wall between his lot and that of the complainant, the
latter sells his property, the injunction will not issue. Lanahan v. Gahan,
37 Md. 105. A. obtained an injunction to prevent B from tearing down the
end wall of his house. B. stayed the operation of the writ by an appeal
bond and completed the tearing down of the wall and erected on his lot a
house, one of the walls of which was, built upon the space formerly occupied
by the wall be bad pulled down. Held, that if the right of A. to an injunc-
tion were afterwards established he would be permitted, by an amendment
of his bill as to parties and prayer, to obtain such relief as he might appear
to be entitled to under the change of circumstances produced since the origi-
nal injunction by the act of B. Hiss v. McCabe, 45 Md. 77. But as it ap-
peared that A. had not the legal title to the 9 inches of ground in question
at the time of filing the bill, the injunction was dissolved and the bill dis-
missed. Ibid.

Upon a bill by a widow to whom land had been devised for life and her
children to whom the remainder was limited, charging the defendant with
an unlawful and violent entry upon the land, taking the products thereof,
and depriving the complainants of their means of support and praying that
he may be compelled to surrender the land sued for. an injunction and re-
ceiver pendente lite, it was held, 1. That the facts charged in the bill do not
show that the defendant was committing irreparable damage to the property,
to prevent which an injunction was necessary. 2. That the case presented
by the bill is proper for redress at law, where the remedy is ample, by action