RIGHTS OF PUBLIC COMPANY. 351 



cart was passing, and so got his leg under the wheel, cannot be proved 

 under that issue {Hall v. Fearnley). 



It was decided by the Court of Common Pleas, on the authority of 

 Boyfield v. Porter, that tresjjasa does not lie against a surveyor of }dyh- 

 ivays for entering lands and cutting drains undw the powers of the 

 Highway Act, without tendering amends for the injury done {Peters v. 

 Clarson). The justices at Special Sessions are the only persons to 

 ascertain and settle the amount of damages to be paid, and the surveyor 

 is not bound to have the amount of damages ascertained within twenty- 

 one days of his committing the injury, {ih.) 



Where a ivater-work company were empoiv&red by Act of Parliament 

 " to dig and hrealc up the soil, &c., of any of the roads, highways, foot- 

 ivays, &c.," and by a subsequent clause it was provided that they should 

 not enter upon the private lands and grounds of any person without 

 the consent of their owner, &c., the Court of Common Pleas held that a 

 footway across a field was not within the meaning of the Act (Scales v. 

 PicJcering). 



The ownership acquired in land hy a ptiMc company, under their 

 compulsory powers for the purpose of their works, is a qualified owner- 

 ship, to be restricted to the purposes expressed in the act, those pur- 

 poses being the essence of the contract ; and therefore the landowner 

 in Bostock v, Noi^th Staffordshire Railway Company^ whose comfort and 

 enjoyment of the remainder of his estate is affected by the company 

 applying the ownership for other purposes not contemplated by the 

 act, had a perpetual injunction granted to her by Stuart V. C. to restrain 

 the use of the land for such purposes. Part of the plaintiff's estate had 

 been taken by the company to form a reservoir to supply their canal, 

 and for no other purpose ; whereas they had persisted in holding a 

 " grand fete or regatta" on the lake. The legal right of the plaintiff had 

 been aflBrmed {Erie J. diss) in a case which was argued before the Court 

 of Queen's Bench. 



^Mlere there were several adjacent closes called H, and the plea to 

 a declaration for seizing pigs was, that defendant was possessed of a 

 close named H, in which the pigs were eating, &c., and were taken 

 damacje feasant ; and the replication was that the defendant was not 

 possessed of the said close in the said plea mentioned, in which tlie pigs 

 were alleged to be eating, &c. ; and issue was taken thereon— it was 

 held that the defendant was bound to show that he was possessed of a 

 close, in which the pigs were eating, &c., and that it was not enough 

 for him to show his possession of a close named H {Botidy. Downton). 

 But a plea, justifying an alleged trespass as committed in exercise of a 

 right of way, is sufficiently certain, as to the premises in respect of 



