fhort Time oi Expiration ; his Executor enters into the Land, and the
Commiffioners charge him with the whole, and the Years immediately
after expire: The Executors brought a Certiorari. Brampitone Ch. J.
faid that here are 5 Points, ift, Whether the Covenant mall extend to
this new Wall. And Brampfton and Heath J. held, That the Covenant
extends well to this new Wall, and that the Making it in a new Form viz.
of a Horfeihoe, is not material, fo as it be adjoining to the Land, as here
it was ; for that may be order'd according to their Difcretions. And
Brampfton faid, That it is a Rule in Law, that every Man's Covenant
(hall be conftrued ftrongeft againlt himfelf; and tho' in this Cafe the new
Wall be not Parcel of the Premifles, as it was at the Time of the Cove-
5 P nant.
422
Sewers.
nant, becaufe that was a ftraight Wall, yet according to the Words of
the Covenant, this Tax is towards the Reparation of the Premifles ; and
ihould it not extend to this new Wall, the Covenant would he vain and
idle: And clearly, the Meaning of the Parties was, that it ihould ex-
tend to all new Walls. Mar. 196. 199. pi. 241. Pafch. 18 Car. Com-
mies v. MaHam.
4. Another Point was, Whether this Collateral Covenant be within
their Juril'ditiion. And as to this, Bramplton and Heath held that ic
was: And Heath conceived the Lelfcc bound by it, becaufe it is pre-
sumed that the Lefiee has confiderable Benefit by it, and that the Com-
miffioners might take Notice of it. And he faid, That tho' the Cove-
nant Ihould nut bind the Lefiee, yet for his Part he would not revcrfe
the Decree for that, becaufe w here they have Jurifdict-ion they may
proceed according to their Difcrctions ; and he covenanted to pay all
faxes concerning the Premiffes, and here this concerns the Premifles, not-
withstanding the Wall be in a new Form. And Brampilon laid, That
true it is, as it is faid 28 H. 8. That Contracts are as Private Laws be-
tween Party and Party ; but he obierv'd that by their Cammi/pon they
charge every Man according to his Tenure, Portion, and Profit â– , And tho'
he that is bound by Cultom or Prefcription to repair fuch Walls, is not
within the Words of their Commiliion, yet it is rciolvcd in the 10 Rep.
139. 140. in Kighley's Cafe, that the Commiffioners may take Notice
of it, and charge only him ibr the Reparations where there is Default
in him, and the Danger not inevitable i and by the fame Rcafon that
you may exclude this Covenant from being within their Jurildiction,
you may exclude Prefcription alio. He agiced that a Coven -rly
collateral, as a Covenant by a Stranger, to pay Charges for repairing fuch a
Wall, is not within their Jurifdiclion, becaufe he is a meer Stranger,
and cannot be within their 'Commilfion ; but here the Covenantor is Oc-
cupier of the Land. Mar. 198. 200. pi. 241. Pafch. iS Car. Commins
v. Mafiarn-
5. A 3d Point was, Whether their Power extends to an Executor, or
not ? Heath faid, That the Teltator was chargeable, and here the Exe-
cutor occupied, tho' it was only for a ihortTime, and he was an Occupier
at the Time of the Decree ; and therefore it is Reafon that he ihould
be charg'd. And Bramplton held the Executor is chargeable ; and tho'
now the Executor was faid not to have Aifets, yet they both held that he
not having allegd that before the Commiffioners, has loll that Advantage,
and cannot do it now ; and it pall be intended that he had JJfets, by his
not gainfaying it before. Mar. 198. 200. Commins v. Malum.
6. A 4th Point was, Whether the Commiffioners had jurifdifi
Damages, or not, viz,, to charge the Lejfee with the Intcrcjl of the Money.
And Health held clearly that they had, becaufe they had Jurifdiclion
of the Principal. And Brampilon laid that he at firft chielly doubted of
this Point, but he now holds that it is within their Jurifdiction; and put
the Cafe that one in extreme Neceffity, as in this Cafe, disburfe all the
Money for the Reparations of the Wall, or Sea-bank, if the Cafe had
gone no farther, clearly he lhall be repaid by;thc Tax and Levy after $ and
conceived by the fame Reafon they have Power to allow him Damages
and Uie for his Money ; for if it Ihould not be io, it would be very in-
convenient; for who would after disburfe all the Money to help that
imminent Danger and Neceffity, if he ihould not be allowed Uie ibr his
Money ? And the Leilee here is only charged with the Damages for the
Money collected, which he had in his Hands, and converted to his 1
Ufe i and therefore it is reaionable that he ihould be charg'd with all the
Damages: Belides, they having Comifancc oj the Principal, lave Conuftnce
of the Acccfjary, as in this Cafe of the Damages. Mar. 199. 201. Co.ffins
v. Mailam.
!7. B.
ers. 423
n The Court was moved to quafti an Order made by theCommiffi-
oners of Sewers, charging the Inhabitants ot Weitham in ElTex for e-
rcllin* of a fumbling Bay (to prevent an Inconvenience occajtoned by London-
Lock which in the very Order is laid to have been eretted for a private
Benefit) and of a Lock to prevent the Damage which the fumbling Bay wottfd
ifioHto the 'Navigation. The Court was ot Opinion, That the Order
could not be maintained ; becaufe it was out of the Power ot Commifli-
oners of Sewers to charge Inhabitants for finding an Expedient, how a
Thine ere&ed for a private Benefit may be continued, and yet be no
Nufance- their Bulinefs mould have been to have abated the Nuiance.
10 Mod.' 159. Patch. 12 Ann. B. R. The Inhabitants ot Weitham s
Cafe
^8 Commiffioners of Sewers have no Power to make a River Naviga-
ble' nor even to improve the Negation of a River, beyond what it was
bet'ore Ptcferve it they may in the State it was, by removing Objhttttions,
and other Natural Ways* but they cannot even help the Navigation by
erectin- Locks, or any fuch Artificial Method. 10 Mod. 159- Patch.
12 Ann. B. R. The Inhabitants ot VVeftham's Cafe.
1.
S.
was
(E) Commiffioners punifhed. How, and for What. feggvit:
COmmiflioners of Sewers upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. a fifed a Fine
upon the Village of D. and appointed it to be levied by f. S. andW.
I upon the Cattle of the Plaintiff, and they to fell them tor the Fine which
wis done : H. the P 'Jai nt 1 ff brought his JcJion againit them in this Court,
and had Judment. The Commiffioners called him betore them, and im-
portuned him to releafe the Action, which he refilling, they committed
him to the Gaol , and the Warrant to the Gaoler was, To take and keep
the faid H without Bail or Mainprise, till he mould hear turther rrom
them ot iome Order taken tor his Delivery : The Court granted an At-
tachment againit the Commiflioners. Some ot them appearing were fin d I :
It was holden, That the Warrant, by them made, was in direct Oppoh-
tion to the Authority and Judgment of this Court ; and againit one ot
the Commiffioners, who being warn'd, did not appear, an Indictment
of Premunire was drawn upon the Statute ot 27 Ed. 3- cap. 1 tor his
illeo-il a&ing as a Commiflioner. But he procured the King's Pardon
which at laS was allowed of by the Court. Cro. J. 336. . pi. 5. Hill.
II Tac B R. Hetley and Sir John Boyer, Sir Antony Mildmay & al .
2 The Commiffioners of Sewers made a 2k* for Reparation ot Wap- Vent. 66.
nine Wall The Inquilition upon which the Rule was made was re- Smith's Cafe
Ud by Certiorari into B. R. fhey made a New Rate, and find the In- *%*££>â–
hibitants for net collecting it. Whereupon another Certiorari if/ued, and ncrs imprU
then a third alter which an Attachment went againit them, and being f oll - d the
thereupon brought into Court, it was objected, That by the Statute 13 Perfons as
Eltz. cap. 9. the Commiffioners ot Sewers were not bound to obey Certi- «U a .hn d
oraries out of this Court, nor to remove their Orders ; fo that nere W,^
no Contempt But per tot. Cur. The Statute does not extend to Returns of tl t , r // ; T ,_
Certiorari, but excujes them from certifying thar Orders into Chancery, as "*â„¢jk
by the Statute ot H. 8. they were to do belore to the Intent to Have the W»f«*f
Roval Aiienti whereupon they were fined 40 1. each, and committed tor ndforfteak .
the Contempt Lev. 288. Paich. 22. Car. 2. B. R. The king v. Smith ,,„ Contemp-
ts al. Commiffioners of Sew ers. J « »£?
tnWonh They were fined 40 Marks a-piece, for not obeying the firft Writ and io Marks a-pieoe
for not Obeying the fecond Writ. And Twifden J. laid, It was rclolv d in 23d. Car. That this Sni ok
or not
ft-
424 Sewers.
has no Reference to this Court, and that this Claufe extends only to Certificates and Returns into Chai
eery : the Statute (peaks of Superfcdeas &c. which iffue out of the Court of Chancery only for this"
t" \ r-Tr Kel -^ Ch - J fT- rt ^ rov , idcii b ^ h « ci.f Th«x it rir&r
to be made by the Comrm Loners of Sewers, ftould ihnd good and effectual &c. no longer than rhr
Coinmiffion endured except they were cngroffed in Parchment, and certified under thefr Seals into
the King s Court of Chancery ; And then the King's Royal Allan to be had to the fame &c But ba°
v. ,s altered by this of 13 Efiz. whereby it is enacted, that their Laws &c. ihould ttand and continue
,n Force, w ithout any fuch Certificate to be made thereof into the Chancery; and then a Httle afteTin
this Statute follows the ( laufe which has been read, and that refers wholly 'to Certificates o Returns
to be made into Chancery, for the I'm pole aforementioned. It is plain, the Claufe refers not to this
Court, tor it fpeaks of returning their Comm.lW ; now their Commi!T,ons were never returnable into
this Court ifuGmrt cannot te cufted of its J*rifWion without Special Words ; here is the hKn Pe al
the King himfelf fits here, and that in Perlon if he pleafes, and his Predeceflbrs have ft done •S
the King ought to have an Account of what is done below in inferior Turifdi&ions It i< fW "i
ing of Oppreilions, and other Mifchiefs. Mod. 44. pi. 9 S. Hill 21 "&"z Car R R V r /
ihgly. And upon reading the Claufe in the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 9. Kelyne Ch ' T ftiH T^u"
the Statute of 23 H. S. no Orders of the Commiffionersof Sewers^ bincin^vuhcit tt Royal A?
fent .Now thiS Statute makes them binding without it, and enafts, That they lhall notb Sfef"
but by other Comnjiffioners. Yet it never was doubted, but that this Court might queftion the [ e '
gahty of their Orders notwithftanding. There is no Jurifdidtion that is uncontroulable bv rht
C ° U h &%F£ m l^ m & U * Ca r W3 tf fam ° US Ca! ' C ' and we know w hat was done n it Y
2 Hawk. PL C. 2S6. cap. 27 S. 25. fays, That a Certiorari to remove Proceeding lies to the Coir miffi
C^re:ibov'e n0tWU ndl " S theClaUfC ln tHe 15 EHZ - " P - 9 - Par - * "fftESfeSTS'S
(F) Proceedings.
I
F it be found before Commiffioners of Sewers, that fuch a Perfon ought
^ to repair a Bank &c. and this is removed into B. R. the Court
will not qaafb this Inquilition, nor grant a new Trial, unlefs the Perfon found
Guilty -will repair tt; and if afterwards he ihould be acquitted, he {hall be
retmburfed: But becauie the Party would not do it, a Procedendo was
granted. Sid. 78. pi. 2. Trin. 14 Car. B. R. Ld. Dunbarr's Cafe
2 Keb. 82. 2. By the Statute 15 Car. 2. cap. 17. It is enafted, That there fhall be
pl.80. S.C. certain Commilfioners, who lhall have Power to receive Claims con
cerning the Fenns in the Counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon &c and
to fettle their Bounds, and make and return, their Decrees into the
Petty-Bag in Chancery. After Conlideration of the Statute it was re-
folved, that no Certiorari lhall be granted, and if any be, there lhall be
a Procedendo ; lor it is a new Judicature, and abfolute in the Ccmmfjio-
ners by this New Law, with which this Court has nothing to do if thev
proceed according to the Statute ; but if not then all is void, Et coram non
judice, and the Parties are at Liberty to examine it in an Aaion at
Common Law. Sid. 296. pi. 20. Trin. 18 Car. 2. B. R. Ball v Par-
teridge.
3. A Certiorari was prayed to remove a Prefentment in Middlefex for
not repairing a Sewer, in regard they could not trv whether the Defen-
dant ought to repair or not ; but per Curiam, they may as well trv a
Nufance ataLeet; therefore, without Oath made by the Defendant that
the Commifftofiers reftifcd a fraverfe, they would grant no Certiorari efpeci-
ally being on the View, and the Defendant, on the Diitrefs lor the Fine
may try all over again here. 2 Keb. 137. pi. ti Hill. iS & 19 Car V
B. R. Commilfioners ol Sewers v. Wilmore.
4. Offly prayed a Diltringas upon the Cafes 10 Co. the Me of Ely
and to repair Sea- Walls in the County of ElTex, which the'
Court denied, there being here no fuch Judicial Writ, but only on the
Statute
Sewers. 42 5
Statuie Weft. 2. cap. ... but only in the Chancery. 2 Keb. 255. pi. 36.
Trin. 19 Car. 2. B. R. Anon. Cites 37 All. 10. Preferments Br. 9.
5 jr/w CWcr.* of Commiffioners of Sewers are removed into B. R. by But Ibid.
Certiorari, the Court does not file them, but hears Coitnfel upon the Mat- J" a â„¢"*
?er oi them, ^or« yfrV*?; for if they are good, the Court will grant a Anon.wl ere
Procedendo which they cannot do after they are filed. 1 Salk. 145. pi. the Court
6. Hill, «i fc 3. B.R. Anon: %J%
item in any Cafe, where no apparent Danger is !.
a Certiorari direftcd to the Commiffioners of Sewers, the Court (aid, That in thefe Cafes ithey only
„,akea Rule to pew Caufe, ar.d accordingly did lb in the preient Cafe. 2 Barnard. Rep. la B R. 151.
Trin. 5 Geo. 2 1732. Anon.
6. In Cafes of Sewers B. R. inquires into the Nature of the Faff before
they grant a Certiorari to remove Orders, that no Mifchiefs may happen by
Inundations in the mean 'time, but this is only zDtfcretionary Execution
of their Power j for where ever a New Jurifdiftion is erected, be it by_
Private or Publick Aft of Parliament, it is fubjecr to the Inipeaion of
this Court, by Writ of Error, Certiorari or Mandamus. 1 Salk. 146.
pi. 7. Trim 12 W. 3. B. R. in the Cafe of Cardiffe Bridge.
'7 Motion was made for a Certiorari to remove up fome Orders of There ha
Sewers and Affidavits were produced that the removing them could be of Rule in the
no Prejudice i But, becaufe there was not likewife an Affidavit of Notice j^J*
of the Auction given to the Commiffioners, the Court refufed to make even 0rder of
a Rule to ihew Caufe. 2 Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 283. Trim 6 Geo. 2.- Commoner*
itl v. , ,, D„.ior of Sewers
1 73 3. The Ring v. Butler. oughtto fo
Hied without Notice given to the Parties concerned. Alfo it is every Days Praftice of that Court, before
it will fuffer the Return of a Certiorari for the Removal of the Orders ot fuch Commiffioners to be
filed to hear Affidavits concerning the Fails whereon they are grounded ; and if the Matter fliall Mill appear
doubtful to direct the Trial of feign d lilies, and either to fie the Return, or f.perfede the Certiorari ; and
irant a Procedendo, as fliall appear to be mod reafonable for the Trial of fuch Iffiies, and ro give Cofts
againft the Profecutor of the Certiorari, if it appear to have been groundless. 2 Hawk. PI. C. 2SS,
cap. 27 S. 3 4.
See(A)p!.'
1 1.
See(C)pl.i.
at.
the
(G) Pleadings and Exceptions. \%
See
1 np Brought an Aftion of frefpafs, 1 Car. againft W. and 3. /or taking S. C Lat
• of his Goods &c. they juftify the taking ol them by Authority \g£*£
of a Cammifton of Sewers, granted by the late King J. lor a Tax aifefs d ^ [}nSb r, j,;
by Authority of that according to a Statute 32 [23] H. 8. cap. 5. And jBlsrnanD
the Bar adjudged ill ; Becaufe they do not aver, that theAfeJfment was in gfgg^
the 'Time King J. For the Commiffion is expired by the Death of the King J™^ 1 £_
And Note well the Claufe in the Statute 32 [23] H. 8. mall be intended plic - at ; „ % that
in the Time of the fame King that granted the Commiffion. And Rule was n was byJu-
given lor Judgment. Noy. 83. Trin. 2 Car. B. R. Tharsby v. Warn *-*££
and Sands. Sev. ers, does
not aid the Matter, it being on Demurrer, hut if the Plaintiff had join' dTJfue, andjx had been found with
the Dti-ndan* the Implication would perhaps avail. It was anfwered, That this Pleading is agreeable
to the It v - ds of the Statute, that it Jb all be without Expofition of the draw, fiance, and thzt the Statute â– li-
mits the Form U the Replication, and that there are many Precedents according to this F orm Doderidge
T laid That the Pica is not r ood at Common Law, nor by the Statute 1 3 Eliz. which was an Addi-
tion to 2- H 8 in two Cafes, As that when the Commiffion determines by Superfedeas, that the Laws
and Afts made before (hall continue till repeal'd by fubfequent Commiinoners. And that, when the
Commiffion expires, viz. After the End of I o Years, all Laws made &c. fliall continue for one Year
next after. But that, in this Cafe, the Commiffion is not determined by any of hole VV ays, but by
the King's Death : So that this Cafe is only upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. 5 He hkewlfe held the Plea,
ill becaufe it did not Hew when the
5 0. R S '
426
Sewers.
H S. touching Pleadings ; For that is to the frtent that the Officer Jl;all not be inforc'd to fay the particular-
lime tiler: tieCemr granted, n:r vital Ordinances in particular they make &c. But for 1
Thi ommiffien was determined Lejore -the Tax affi'Jfed, and then 1
Dlftrtfs is net good ; So tha it is a neeefiary Circumftancc, or rather a Matter of Subftance to m«i r
rite Time Ami as to 'he Objection, that it v. as laid to be by Authority of the Commiflion, and
bv it is impty'd, that it was before the King's Derriife, the Commiflion being determin'd the: v-
nd that it is a General Law whereof the Court'ihall take Notice, the Court denied it, becaufe it
riculaf touching the Commiflioners of Sewers, and the Court is not bound to ta'.e Notice of it.
But tho' the Statute it (elf were a General I ,aw, yet the Laws made by the Commiflioners are rot io.
Ant! as to the Precedents, iIkv are all df the finite King that granted the Commiffion. And to this;
[ones and Whitlock J. accorded, and Rule for Judgment, if Plaintiff would no: eonfent, that Defen-
dant Ihould alter his Pica.
2. Upon a Certiorari to the Commiflioners of Sewers, they made a
Certificate, to which divers Exceptions were taken, ift, That it appears
not by the Certificate, That the Commiffion was under The Great Heal of
England, as it ought to be by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 5. 2dly, The
Certificate does not exprefs the Names of the Jurors, norjbew that there
were 12 l\vcrn, who made the Prefentment, as by the Law it ought to be;
but only quod Prefentatum fait per Juratores, fo that there might be but
two or three. 3dly It appears by the Certificate, That it was ftefi
by the jury, That the Flaunt iff ought to repair filch a Wall, but it is not
id for what Can fa either by Reaibn of his Land, Prefcription or
otherwife. 4thly, They prefent that there want Reparations, but docs
* Exception not /hew that'll lies Within * the Level and Commiffion. ithly, There was
was taken to an AfTeflment without a Prefentment contrary to the Statute, lor it is
an Order of p n f e!ltci i that fuch a Wall wanted Reparation, and the 'â– oners a/f, â–
ne°rToTs c °v- the Plaintiff jtr Reparation of that Wall and another, for which there was
eirsin the no Prefentment. 6thly, The Tax was laid upon the Per/on. whereas by
County of t he Statute it ought to be laid upon the Land. 7thly, There was $ no
Nottingham; pj otice gjyen to the Plaintiff, which as he conceived ought to have been,
doeswl"*- b Y Reaibn oi the great Penalty which follows for Non Payment of the
pear, that the Affeffrnenti For by the Statute the Land ought to be fold lor want of
Place tote Payment. Thefe were the principal Exceptions taken by the Sollicitor.
drained was L ane ^ t he Princes Attorney, took other Exceptions, lit, Becaufe they
Comi't'u'oT afiels the Plaintiff upon Information ; lor they laid, They were credibly
that it was informed, that fitch a Wall wanted Reparation, and that the Plaintiff ought
an ancient j or f repair it ; whereas they ought to have done it upon Prefentment,
Sewer ; for and nQC upcin information, or their private Knowledge. 2dly, That they
Tlone the 11 affejfed the Plaintiff, and for not Payment fold the Difrrcfs, which by the
Court would Law they ought not to do, for that enables them only to diitrain; and
not quapit i t was intended by the Statute, that a Replevin might be brought in the
wHhcutCtr- £ a j- e lof j c j ves Avowry or J unification of a Piltrers taken, by Reafon
wat'draitd- of the Commiffion of Sewers, and there ought to be a Replevin, other-
As in Cafe of wife no Avowry ; and if Sale of the Diftrefs ihould be fuffered, then
High-ways ; that Privilege given by the Parliament Ihould be taken away, which is
& i r ty not reasonable : Keeling of the fame Side, and he laid, that it was ad-
thil is amen- judged, Pafch. 14 Car. in this Court in lptmgCC0 Cafe, That the Certi-
dable. 2 Keb. 'ficate of the Commiflioners was infufficient ; becaufe that it was not
42. pi. 85. flawed that the Commiflion was under the Great Seal of England, as by
p kh -' R S R the Statute lt ought to be. And the Judges then in Court, viz. Mallet,
The Kin'" v. Heath and Bramlton, tfrongly inclined to many of the Exceptions, but
Wright.—! chiefly to that, that there wanted the Words Yirtute Literarum Pa-
£ See pi. 5. tentium. But Day was given to hear Counfel of the other Side. Mar.
123. pi. 202. Mich. 17 Car. B. R. Anon.
3. W. brought Trover againft F. for taking his Cattle &c. by Warrant of
Commiflioners, for not paying a Tax fet by them towards the Repara-
tion of Sea Walls ; The Defendant pleads all the Special Matter, by way
of J unification; the Plaintiff demurs, and upon the Demurrer takes
(among others) thefe Exceptions to it. ill, To the fetting ibrth ol~ the
Commiflion, in that he /hews not that three of the Commiffloners were of the
â– Quorum.
o T
ewers, 427
<$ttortm. 2dlv, That in his Plea he had not fet forth the Authority of the
'Cmmiffioners. To this the Court a nf we red it was not neceffary. jdly,
That the Plea was but argumentative, which makes it naught. Jthly,
The Statute is not pleaded as it ought to be. 6thly, It does notexprefs,
that W. in whofe Occupation the Lands are, that are taxed, is the Affignec
to Lynfec the Owner of the Lands, but he may be a mecr Stranger, and lb not
taxable, nor his Beafts to be fold. 7thly, It is not fet forth, that h
fom'd hi t Warrant before h tin'd, as he ought to do. In this Cafe the
"Court firit laid. that one may diltrain, and feli the Cattle or' the Owner of
the Land tax'd, or his Aliignee, for Non-payment thereof, but doubted
whether a Stranger's Cattle' might be diltrained and fold. Roll J. took
thefe Exceptions to the Plea, lit. That the Plea did not fet forth the Li-
mits of the CommiJJs-on as it ought to do, and was therefore ill. adiy, He
faidtiie Plea ought to have' ihew'd, that 3 of the Commillioners were of
the Quorum. 3dlv, That it did not appear by the Plea that the Lands
tax'd where the Diirrefs was made, are within the Level, to be tax'd by
the Commillioners. 4th! y, Tne Tax is of the Land of fitch an one, and his
Affigns, and this is too generally exprefs'd, and cannot be levied equally by
fuch a Tax. ^thlv, The Plea fets not forth, that there was any Notice
given to W. of the Tax made before the Dijlrefs taken, as there ought to
have been ; and for thefe Realons he concluded that the Plea was not
good. Bacon J. held firit, That the Party had waiv'd his Benefit of the
Flea given him by the Statute, bv pleading fpecially, and he ought to
make good his Plea, as he has pleaded it, at his own Peril. He held
likewiTe, that there ought to be Notice given of the Tax, and a Demand
of it, before any Dijlrefs might be taken, and that the Plea was defeftive
in this. 3 ci 1 y , That he cannot fell a Strangers Goods for the Tax, as W.
is, for aught' that appears in the Plea. 4thly, By the Plea it appears
that he has diftraind 1 Acre of Land for all the Tax, which ought not to
be ; and upon thefe Exceptions the Rule was for the Defendant to ihew
Ciufc before the End of the Term, why the Plaintiff mould not have
judgment. Sty. 12, 13. Pafch. 23 Car. B. R. Whittey v. Fawfett.
4. It was mov'd to quafh an Jndiffment taken before Commillioners of
Sewers for a Nufance made in the Highway, by Reafon of penning Water in
the River at his Mill, whereby the Water overflowing the Banks did annoy
the Way; and he took this Exception to the Indiclment, that it did not