B.  &  Ad.  77,  92,  93 ;  Angell  &  Ames  Eastern  Counties  Railway  v.  Broom,  6
Corp.  §  394.  And  see  Reg.  v.  Birming-  Exch.  314,  15  Jur.  297,  20  Law  J.  N.  ».
ham  and  Gloucester  Railway,  1  Gale  &  Exch.  196.
D.  457,  5  Jur.  40.  «  The  State  v.  Morris  and  Essex  Rail-

2  The  State  v.  Great  Works  Milling    road,  3  Zab.  360.
and  Man.  Co.,  20  Maine,  41  ;  Common-  '  Commonwealth    u.    New    Bedford
wealth  V.  Swift  Run   Gap  Turnpike,  2  Bridge,  2  Gray,  339.
Va.  Cas.  362 ;    The   State  v.  Ohio  and  8  The  State  v.  Vermont  Central  Rail-
Mississippi  Railroad,   23  Ind.  362.     See  road,  27  Vt.  103,  80  Vt.  108.
The  State  v.  Burlington,  3B  Vt.  521.  »  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  ».
8  The  State  a.  Great  Works  Milling  The  State,  3  Head,  523.
and  Man.  Co.,  supra.    In  such  a  case,  an  ^  See  also,  as  lending  support  to  this

indictment  would   lie,   the    court   said,  doctrine,   Wartman    v.    Philadelphia,   9

against  the  individual  members  commit-  Casey,  202 ;    Whitfield  o.  Southeastern

ting  the  act.  Railroad,  1  Ellis,  B.  &  E.  115 ;  Benson  v.
*  Commonwealth  v.  Swift  Run  Gap  Manufacturing  Co.,   9  Met.  562.    And

Turnpike,  supra.  see  Commonwealth  v.  Ohio  and  Pennsyl-

6  Reg.   V.   Great   North  of    England  vania  Railroad,  1  Grant,  Pa.  329;  The

Railway,  9  Q.  B.  315, 10  Jur.  755, 16  Law  State    v.   Cincinnati   fertilizer  Co.,  24

J.  N.  8.  M.  C.  16  ;  Rex  v.  Medley,  6  Car.  Ohio  State,  611 ;  Two  Sicilies  v.  Wilcox,

&  P.  292  ;  Angell  &  Ames  Corp.  §  395.  1  Sim.  n.  s.  332.
