majority"> Seitle J.

This is a proceeding in the nature of a criminal action, commenced before a Justice of the Peace, under sec. 10, chap. 104 of ¡Battle’s Kevisal, and it presents this question : Can a hand who has been regularly assigned to work a certain road, and has been regularly summoned by the overseer thereof to work said road, excuse himself from aiding to repair a bridge over a ditch across said road, upon the ground *395 that it is the duty of the person who cut the ditch to make a bridge over it and keep the same in repair % One who cuts a ditch across the road, or wilfully throws a tree across it, or erects a fence or other obstacle therein is indictable ; but it does not follow that the overseer of the road, who neglects-for an unreasonable time to remove such obstruction, may not also be indicted. And in order that the overseer may pro- ■ perly perform his duty, the law gives the remedy pursued in. this case against such hands as refuse to obey his legitimate, orders in relation to the road.

It may be that upon proper proceedings, the overseer and" road hands could be relieved of the duty of repairing the., bridge over the ditch which obstructs the road in question,, and that, that duty could be placed where it properly belongs j but it is not for the hands assigned by law to work a road to say, that because A obstructed the road, it is his duty to remove the obstruction, and we will not do so.

Were this so, it would of course put an end to the present system of road laws, which I am inclined to think would be well enough, since under it, our public roads are sadly neglected ; but this is a matter for the consideration of the legislature, and not for the courts.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Let this, be certified.

J u el gmeu t affirm ed.. Per Cueiam.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress