1 Vt. 353 | Vt. | 1828
delivered the opinion of the court. . In this case the defendants claim a new trial on the ground of thé mis-direction of the Judge, in two particulars.
1. The evidence was, that the place where die horse fell off Was a part of the abutment, whereas, the declaration stated that the horse fell off from the bridge; and the judge charged that for the purposes of this action, the abutment ■ must be considered a part of the bridge..
2 v To the charge of the Judge, that “ if the jury foimdthe loss to have been occasioned in any degree, either in whole or in part
The doctrine laid down by Parsons, C. J. in the case of Wood vs. Town of Waterville, 4 Mass. R. 423, has direct application to this case. The horse of the plaintiff, Wood, was destroyed in consequence of a defect or want of repair of a bridge. The de-fence of the town was,that the plaintiff, Wood,was himself highway surveyor; and that the defect in the bridge,Hvas caused by his neglect to repair the bridge, which his duty required him to do ; and therefore he was himself in fault. Judge Parsons remarks, “ From an examination of the act,” which is similar to our own, “ it
The verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted,