B.  163 ;  Weet  v.  BrocJcport,  16  Id.  161 ;  Rochester
White  Lead  Co.  v.  Rochester,  3  Id.  463  ;  Conrad  v.
Ithaca,  16  Id.  159  ;  Barton  v.  Syracuse,  86  Id.  54 ;
Chicago  v.  Rohins,  2  BlacTc.  418  ;  Sexton  v.  Zett,  44
N.  T.  R.  480  ;  Biveney  v.  Elmira,  51  Id.  506 ;  Hines
V.  LocTcport,  50  Id.  236 ;  Clemence  v.  Auburn,  66  Id.
334.)  And  the  plaintifl  is  not  bound  to  prove  notice
to  the  defendants  of  the  defect  or  want  of  reparation.
{Davenport  v.  Ruckman,  16  Ahb:  341  ;  S.  C.  37  iV..  Y.
R.  568 ;  see  contra  McOinty  v.  Mayor,  etc.  5  Buer,
674.)  He  may  prove  injuries  sustained  on  account  of
the  same  defect  by  other  persons.  {Quintan  v.  City
of  Utica,  11  Hun,  217  ;  Affirmed  N.  T.  R.  603.)

It  has  been  held  that  where  no  absolute  and  impera-
tive duty  is  imposed  upon  a  municipal  corporation,  by
its  charter,  to  make  or  repair  sidewalks  in  the  streets,
or  to  cause  them  to  be  made  and  repaired,  such  cor-
poration is  not  liable,  in  damages  to  an  individual,  for


428  THE  LAW   OF  HIGHWAYS.
injuries  sustained  in  consequence  of  the  defective  con-
dition of  the  sidewalks,  and  that  there  is  a  distinction
between  the  power  of  municipal  corporations  over  the
carriage-ways  of  their  streets,  and  that  which  they
possess  over  sidewalks.  {Cole  v.  Trustees  of  Medina,
27  Barh.  218  ;  Peck  v.  Village  of  Batavia,  32  id.  634 ;
Hart  V.  City  of  Brooklyn,  36  id.  226  ;  Herringion  v.
