This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1836 Excerpt: ...D. Goodenow, for the plaintiff, maintained that the town was liable under the circumstances of this case--that, the town was not made the exclusive judge of the extent necessary to incumber a road--that the statute applied as well to obstructions placed in the road, as to some inherent defect, --and cited the following authorities: Springer v. Bowdoinham, 7 Greenl. 442; King v. Bridekirk, 11 East, 304; Commonwealth v. Petersham, 4 Pick. 119; Commonwealth v. Worcester Turnpike, 3 Pick. 327; Bigelow v. Weston, 3 Pick. 267; Day v. Savage, Hob. Rep. 85. Weston J. delivered the opinion of the Court. From the evidence, which satisfied the jury, the injury complained of was occasioned by a deposit of bricks in the street, intended to be used in making and completing a side-walk. The effect of the permission, therefore, given by the selectmen of Portland, under a by-law of the town, to the contractor employed in building an addition to the court-house, near where the accident happened, to use a third part of the street, it is unnecessary in this cause to settle. Had the injury arisen from deposits placed there by the contractor, it would have been necessary to have considered that question. The liability of towns to respond in damages for injuries of this sort, clearly arises from statute, as has been contended by the counsel for the defendants. Whether it might not have resulted from the section, imposing the duty to repair, need not be decided, as another section in the same statute gives the remedy to the party injured, in express terms. The duty enjoined is, that all highways, townways, causeways, and bridges, lying and being within the bounds of any town, shall be kept in repair, and amended from time to time, that the same may be safe and convenient for travel..