316.)

Where  the  commissioners  of  highways  were  notified
that  a  bridge  was  defective,  no  particular  defect  being
pointed  out,  and  in  company  with  an  experienced  bridge
builder  examined  the  bridge  carefully  from  above  and
below,  taking  ofE  the  planks  and  testing  the  timber,
but  could  discover  no  defect,  and  the  bridge  fell,  the
timbers  being  rotten  at  the  centre— held  that  the  de-
fendants were  guilty  of  no  negligence,  and  plaintiff
was  not  entitled  to  recover.  [Hicks  v.  Chaffee,  13  Hun,
393.)

Quere. — Should  not  an  experienced  bridge  builder
have  tested  the  timbers  by  boring  ?

The  commissioners  may  be  indicted  for  neglect  to

make  the  necessary  repairs.      (Per  Wkight,   J.,   in

GarlingTiouse  v.  Jacobs,  29  iV.  T.  JR.  303,  and  per

Beardsley,  J.,  in  Wilson  v.  Mayor  of  New  York,  1

24


354  THE  LAW   OF  HIGinVATS.
Denio,  599;  see  also  11  WeTid.  539.)  But  an  indict-
ment against  them  will  not  lie  unless  they  have  funds
or  the  power  to  obtain  them,  and  the  indictment  should
aver  that  fact.  {People  v.  Adsit,  2  Hill,  619 ;  4  id.
630;  UJV.  Y.R.  113.)

What  bridges  commissioners  to  repair. — All  public
bridges  are  prima  facie  repairable  by  the  commis
sioners  of  highways,  without  distinction  of  foot,  horse,
or  carriage  bridges,  unless  they  can  show  that  others.
