ANDRADE V. SAMUDIO AND ARIAS.

could not wilfully enter upon anddestroy property and then defend themselves against suit for damages by acknowledging title to the lessor unless it were shown that the lessor had a lawful right to the possession of the disputed property and that defendants acted under the lessor's orders.
As was well said in an early case in the courts of North Carolina: Wretched would be the policy which required the title to be shown in every instance where the peaceable possession was disturbed by an intruder who has no right. It would tend to broils and quarrels, and the possesser would resort to force to defend his possession if the law afforded him no redress.
Myrick v. Bishop, 8 N. C. 483.
"No principle is more firmly established" said the court in Mallete v. White, 52 Conn. 30, "than that mere possession of land, however recent, is a sufficient title to support an action of trespass against one who has not a better right."
(See also cases cited in "Waite's Actions and Defenses.") (Title "Trespass"; Subheading, "Title in a Third Person".) Vol. 6, 9. 90.
In the case before us, however, the Government of the United States, the lessor, through its agent, appears to have disclaimed possession of the banana field in question and there is no suggestion that the defendants, while committing the alleged tortious acts were acting under the direction ol such lessor.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that the evidence of the witness Cooke and the other evidence referred to and relating to the intention of the parties to the lease should have been considered by the trial court, not as varyi ig the terms of the written lease, concerning which there is no dispute between the parties thereto, but as competent, material, and relevant evidence with respect to the question of the appellant's possession of the banana field.
The respondents have argued that even it the trial court erred in the regard herein pointed out, nevertheless there should be no reversal of the judgment for the reason that appellant could not recover in any event, having failed to fence the alleged banana field in a manner substantially conforming to the laws in force on the Canal Zone at the time of the alleged trespass. The record contains evidence to the effect that employees of the respondents not only cuL down bananas on the banana field but that under the direction of the defendants' foreman, drove the defendants' cattle into and upon the banana field, which was partly fenced, and that the cattle destroyed the banana plants. It is, therefore, to be

323