This was a petition to alter a public rood between certain termini designated in the petition, and was brought up by appeal to the Superior Court. The petitioners merely prayed for an alteration of the road without assigning any reasons therefor. A copy of the petition had been served on the defendant, who appeared and opposed it.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1838
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
This was a petition to turn a road. The defendants moved the court to dismiss it, because there was no allegation in it, that the new road was necessary, or would be more useful to the public, The court, for this reason, dismissed the petition, and the petitioners appealed. We are of opinion that the judgment of the court was correct. By the 1st section of the act, Rev. iSt. c. 104, s. 1, the County Court has power to order the laying out of public roads,
when necessary;
and to alter roads as often as occasion shall require, so as to make them
more useful.
The
*110
seeon<^' seeti°a of the said aet, after pointing out the mode of proceeding in petitions of this kind, authorizes the County Court “ to hear the allegations set forth in the said petition;" and, if sufficient reasons be shewn, the court has power to order the laying out or discontinuance of the said road, as the case may be. This petition has no general nor particular allegation in it, that the road, sought to be established, would either be necessary or useful to the public. The court, therefore, had no power to- hear witnesses to prove any thing, except the allegations set forth in the petition; ánd these allegations ought to be such as to make a proper ease, eoming within the meaning of the Aet of Assembly. The petitioners did not move to amend their petition. The judgment must be affirmed.
