Baring v. Heyward

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 553

Syllabus

<p>1. Defendant, a commissioner of the roads, in repairing a public highway injured by a freshet, established along and on a bank or dam which ran through and divided plaintiff’s rice fields, directed4 plaintiff’s trunk to be drawn out from under the road, and the road to be repaired. But the earth above the trunk, which was 12, 15 or 18 feet in length, was removed, and a bridge of boards thrown over, making the road safe. The arms of the trunk extended four feet beyond each end of it, and did not impede the passage of persons along the road, or obstruct its repair. It was in evidence that one arm attached to the trunk was cut when the work, under defendant’s order, was done by his slaves and overseer.</p> <p>2. The presiding Judge instructed the jury that the freehold where the road ran was the plaintiff’s; the public had the right of way along his dam or bank, but he had a right to use it in any way not inconsistent with that public easement. That twenty successive years continued use of the trunk in one plan, or with immaterial changes, would have been necessary for a right by prescription.</p> <p>3. That any act necessarily done by defendant in the repair of the road, was justifiable.</p> <p>4. That if the cutting of the trunk was by defendant’s authority, he was liable as a trespasser.</p> <p>5. That the defendant was not liable for the unauthorized acts of his slaves or overseer. Held, that the jury were properly instructed.</p>