The  prosecutor  replied  that  the  in-
habitants of  the  county  ought  to
repair.  And  upon  the  trial  at  the
summer  assizes  for  the  county  of
Sereford  before  Lord  Kenyon,  the
facts  alleged  in  the  plea  were
proved,  and  also  that  the  business
of  the  tin  works  could  not  be  car-
ried on  without  the  use  of  the
bridge.  But  it  also  appearing  that
the  public  had  constantly  used  the
bridge  from  the  time  of  its  being
built,  his  lordship  directed  the  jury
to  find  a  verdict  for  the  Crown,
viz.,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the
county  were  bound  to  repair —
which  they  did  accordingly,  and
no  motion  was  ever  made  for  a  new
trial ;  vide  Bac.  Abr.  535,  C.
^  Beg.  V.  Ely,  i  New  Sess.  Cas.
222.
1   L


Digitized  by  Microsoft®


514


OF    FEKRIES   AND    BRIDGES.
not  a  highway,  under  5  8f  6  Will.  IV.  c.  50,  and  there-
fore not  repairable  by  a  parish.^
County  only         The  inhabitants  of  a  county  are  bound  by  common  law
repair  brido-es  ^'O  repair  bridges  erected  over  such  water  only  as  answers
erected  over  a  q^q  description  of  flumen  vel  cursus  aquce  (i.  e.  water  flowinar

Humeii  vol  x  •^  i         \  o

aimis  aqucd.  between  banks  more  or  less  defined),  although  such  channel
may  occasionally  be  dry,^  and  need  not  necessarily  flow  at
all  times.  In  such  case  it  is  a  question  of  fact  whether  an
arch  thrown  over  a  cursus  aquce  is  such  a  bridge  or  not,^
and  the  decision  will  depend  on  the  evidence  brought  to
prove  the  repair  of  the  structure,  and  the  nature  of  the
flmnen  aquce.*


'  He//.  V.  Chart,  Inhabitants  of,
39  L.  J.,  M.  C.  107  ;  8  L.  K,  1  C.
C.  237.
