EDWARD C. HAWKS vs. INHABITANTS OF CHARLEMONT.

TORT. The declaration alleged that the defendants by their agents and servants forcibly entered part of the plaintiff's farm in Charlemont, which adjoined the Deerfield River, and tore up the soil, and took and carried away a large quantity of stone and converted it to their use, and in consequence of the removal of the stone the river washed away part of the plaintiff's land, and the rest of it was exposed to similar injury from the river. The defendants answered with a general denial; and set up further, that if the plaintiff should prove that stone was taken from his farm it was not taken in pursuance of any direction, employment or authority of the defendants; that his farm adjoined a public way and bridge, and any acts that were done were for the purpose

Page 415

of securing and protecting the bridge, and in the opinion of the selectmen it was necessary to take and use the stone for that purpose. Trial in the superior court before Lord, J., who by agreement of the parties withdrew the case from the jury and made a report thereof, of which the following are the material parts:

"To prove his action, the plaintiff offered to show that by an unprecedented freshet, which occurred October 4, 1869, the roads and bridges in Charlemont were greatly damaged and many of the bridges swept away, and thereafter, at a town meeting duly called and held prior to the acts complained of, it was voted that 'the selectmen be the agents of the town to repair the highways and bridges at the present time, and that they be empowered to appoint such agents to rebuild certain bridges as they think best'; that thereafter, under the employment of the selectmen, various men with teams, against the protest of the plaintiff, were for two or three weeks engaged in drawing stone from the plaintiff's land as aforesaid, that it might be used in the repair of an abutment and pier of a bridge over said river and in said town of Charlemont, carrying away a very large quantity of stone and other materials from his land situate along the bank of the Deerfield River, which forms the northerly boundary of his farm, and not only doing damage to his land by carting over it, cutting it up, and carrying material from his land which was in itself of value, but also, by removing the stone from the bank of the river and from near the water's edge, destroying the protection which was necessary for the security of his meadow land adjacent to the river; that already, in consequence of the acts complained of, the meadow land has been deluged and washed and injured, and is still exposed to greater injury from the same cause, none of which would have occurred were it not for the trespasses complained of; that all said acts were done with the knowledge of a majority of the board of selectmen, openly and in one of the most public places in the town, and known to be without the consent of the plaintiff; that under the same vote, and near the same time, materials for repairing the highways and bridges in the town had been taken by order of the selectmen and without the consent of

Page 416

the owners, and the town by the selectmen had paid their claims for damages, and these payments had been sanctioned by the town at a regular town meeting, and one of the claims of a like character had been paid to the plaintiff; that the bills of labor of all those who were employed in these acts of trespass had been paid by the selectmen in full, save that of one Charles H. Rice, whose bill for work (with full knowledge of all the facts) was paid by a direct vote of the town, the voters at the same meeting and prior to the said vote having been informed in open town meeting that the plaintiff claimed damage for the trespasses about which said Charles H. Rice had been employed, and for which employment he then presented his bill against the town; that the plaintiff's claim for damages, as sued for by the plaintiff, the grounds of his claim, and all the material facts above set forth, had been fully explained and understood in said town meeting, prior to the vote allowing the bill of Rice covering charges for labor of himself and his team in removing the stone from the plaintiff's close, as above referred to as the basis of this action; that the vote of the town was upon an article in the warrant in due form 'to see if the town will allow the bill of Charles H. Rice,' which bill was for work in drawing stone from the plaintiff's land as set forth in his declaration; and that the town voted to allow the bill; that the record of the town would show that surveyors of the highways of the town were duly chosen in the spring prior to the acts complained of; that at a town meeting of Charlemont, when the plaintiff's said claim was presented, no objection was made to the course pursued or the acts done by the agents and servants of the town, and no objection was made to paying something for the damage complained of, the only objection being that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was too great; and that the stone and material which were drawn some distance across the plaintiff's land were employed in the repair and protection of the bridge, and the land injured was part of a large tract adjacent to the bridge.

"If upon the facts above reported, as far as competent evidence, or upon any of them, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a verdict by a jury, then the case is to stand for trial otherwise, judgment to be rendered for the defendants. "

Page 417

W. S. B. Hopkins, (S. O. Lamb with him,) for the defendants. 1. Upon the facts stated in his offer of proof, the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy. Gen. Sts. c. 44, §§ 19, 20. St. 1868, c. 264.

2. But if he is entitled to treat the acts done on his land as a tort, as he seeks to do, then his offer fails to show either authority from or ratification by the defendants. The vote of the town appointing the selectmen to repair highways and bridges was unauthorized and void. Gen. Sts. c. 18, §§ 31, 74; c. 44, §§ 6-8. Benjamin v. Wheeler, 15 Gray 486. Richardson's appeal, 5 R. I. 606. If valid, it authorized no trespass by the selectmen. Elder v. Bemis, 2 Met. 599. Franklin v. Fisk, 13 Allen 211. And the evidence offered to prove a ratification is neither competent nor sufficient for that purpose.

S. T. Field, for the plaintiff.