¶1 This was an indictment for removing crop without notifying the lessor. The indictment set out an agreement to raise the crop on the land of one Godfrey. In the proof it appeared that the title to the land was in another person who rented to Godfrey, who in turn sub-rented to the defendant. His Honor properly held that this was no variance. As to the defendant, Godfrey was landlord and vested with the right to the possession of the crop and unless the rent was paid it could not be removed without notifying him as required by The Oode, 1759.
¶2 The testimony was that Godfrey managed the entire *768 business of renting and looked after the whole matter himself. There was no evidence that he had any agent. The second exception, “because there was no evidence that notice might not have been given to some agent of God-frey’s,” is without merit and not supported by any evidence.
¶3 No Error.