as against the defendant. I am, therefore, of opinion, that a nonsuit must be entered. HOLROYD, J.-I entirely agree with my brother Bayley, in the construction which he has put upon these powers of attorney. The case does not find that the bill in question was drawn by Burleigh, in the character of agent or correspondent of the defendant, or even that he was such agent or correspondent at the time when he drew the bill; it finds only, that Burleigh corresponded with the defendant, and acted as his agent both before and after the receipt of the second power of attorney. It must be taken, therefore, that Burleigh did not draw the bill, as the defendant's agent; and then, it was clearly not such a bill as the attorney was authorized to accept. Besides, the case does find that Burleigh drew the bill for the purpose of raising money to pay the creditors of a partnership concern, in which he was himself a partner; so that instead of acting as an agent, he was acting as a partner, and under an interest to relieve himself from liability, at the expense of the defendant. LITTLEDALE, J., concurred. Judgment of Nonsuit. DE BEAUVOIR, ESQ. v. WELCH and another. 1827. ATTWOOD v. MUNNINGS. 7BH266 TRESPASS, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's Section 86 of close. Pleas, not guilty, and a public right of way over Turnpike Act, the General 3 G. 4, c. 126, enacts, that" After any new road shall be completed, the lands or grounds constituting any former roads or road, or so much and such part or parts thereof, as in the judgment of the trustees may thereby become useless or unnecessary, shall and may be stopped up and discontinued as public highways, unless leading to some church, mill, village, town or place, lands or tenements, to which such new road does not immediately lead, and which may therefore be deemed proper to be kept open, either as a public or private way or ways, for the use of any inhabitant at large, or any individual or individuals :"Held, that the exception does not oust the trustees of jurisdiction in the cases therein mentioned, but leaves them a discretionary power; that they might stop up and dis 1827. บ. the locus in quo. Issue thereon. At the trial before Bur DE BEAUVOIR rough, J., at the Berkshire Summer Assizes, 1826, a verdict was found for the plaintiff with nominal damages, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case, the substance of which was as follows. WELCH. The locus in quo had formed part of a turnpike road leading out of the public Bath road, in the parish of Englefield, between Reading and Speenhamland, to Pangbourn, in the county of Berks. The lower part of the road led from the Bath road to the village of Englefield, and the upper part from the same village, towards Pangbourn, both passing through the lands of the plaintiff, with the exception of a part, and extended in length, from the Bath road at the south corner of Bostock-lane, where it cuts the road leading from the Bath road towards Bradfield, and from that road to the point at which it cuts the road leading from Bradfield, by Englefield church, towards Theale. By a local act of 11 Geo. 3, intituled "An Act to continue and render more effectual several Acts for repairing the highways between the Bear Inn, in Reading, and Puntfield, in the County of Berks, and other roads in the said Acts mentioned, and for repairing several other roads in this Act mentioned;" and by another local act of 34 Geo. 3, intituled "An Act for enlarging the term and powers of an Act of 11 Geo. 3, for repairing," &c.; and by another local act of 55 Geo. 3, intituled, " An Act to continue the term, and amend and enlarge the powers of two Acts for repairing," &c.; the several powers of those acts relating to the repairing, widening, turning, or altering the said road, so leading out of the Bath road to Pangbourn, were vested in the trustees or commissioners hereinafter mentioned. continue as a highway, and give up to the owner of the adjoining lands, an old road leading to a church, &c., to which the new road did not immediately lead; and that the person to whom the old road was so given up might maintain trespass against a party afterwards using the old road. Semble, that the proper remedy against such act of the trustees, is by appeal to the sessions, under 4 Geo. 4, c. 95, s. 87, which is incorporated with 3 Geo. 4, c. 126. In the year 1822, the plaintiff applied to these trus 1827. v. WELCH. tees to alter the said road, so leading out of the Bath DE BEAUVOIR road to Pangbourn. On the 7th October, 1822, a committee of three trustees was appointed to view the proposed alteration, and having reported in its favour, a new line of turnpike road, leading out of the Bath road to Hogmore coppice, was formed, at the plaintiff's expense, and over his land. On the 25th April, 1825, the committee reported to the trustees, that having viewed the new road so made by the plaintiff, they considered it expedient that the old road (comprised in the locus in quo, as before described), should be stopped up, the new one being in a fit state for the use of the public; and it was therefore ordered by the trustees on the same day (sixteen trustees being present), that such parts of the old road as were to be given up to the plaintiff should be stopped up; and that order was immediately acted upon, by stopping up the old road, and affixing notices that it was so stopped up at each of its extremities. At a meeting of the said trustees, held in January, 1826, notice of an intention to revoke, at a subsequent general meeting, the order of 25th April, 1825, was given by three of the trustees, and notices of the subsequent general meeting of the said trustees, to be held for the purpose of such revocation, signed by two of the trustees, were affixed on all the turnpike gates on the said road, 21 days before the said subsequent general meeting. On the 6th February, 1826, a general meeting of the said trustees was held, at which seventeen trustees were present, and it was ordered, that so much of the old turnpike road leading from the south end of Bostock-lane towards Hogmore coppice, as lies between the point at which the said old turnpike road touches the road leading from Reading towards Speenhamland, and the point at which the said old turnpike road touches the road leading from the said Reading and Speenhamland roads towards Bradfield, and containing in length 4 furlongs, 29 poles, and 3 yards, or thereabouts; and so much of the said old turnpike road as lies between 1827. the locus in quo. Issue thereon. At the trial before BurDE BEAUVOIR rough, J., at the Berkshire Summer Assizes, 1826, a ver v. WELCH. dict was found for the plaintiff with nominal damages, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case, the substance of which was as follows. The locus in quo had formed part of a turnpike road leading out of the public Bath road, in the parish of Englefield, between Reading and Speenhamland, to Pangbourn, in the county of Berks. The lower part of the road led from the Bath road to the village of Englefield, and the upper part from the same village, towards Pangbourn, both passing through the lands of the plaintiff, with the exception of a part, and extended in length, from the Bath road at the south corner of Bostock-lane, where it cuts the road leading from the Bath road towards Bradfield, and from that road to the point at which it cuts the road leading from Bradfield, by Englefield church, towards Theale. By a local act of 11 Geo. 3, intituled “ An Act to continue and render more effectual several Acts for repairing the highways between the Bear Inn, in Reading, and Puntfield, in the County of Berks, and other roads in the said Acts mentioned, and for repairing several other roads in this Act mentioned;" and by another local act of 34 Geo. 3, intituled "An Act for enlarging the term and powers of an Act of 11 Geo. 3, for repairing," &c.; and by another local act of 55 Geo. 3, intituled, " An Act to continue the term, and amend and enlarge the powers of two Acts for repairing," &c.; the several powers of those acts relating to the repairing, widening, turning, or altering the said road, so leading out of the Bath road to Pangbourn, were vested in the trustees or commissioners hereinafter mentioned. continue as a highway, and give up to the owner of the adjoining lands, an old road leading to a church, &c., to which the new road did not immediately lead; and that the person to whom the old road was so given up might maintain trespass against a party afterwards using the old road. Semble, that the proper remedy against such act of the trustees, is by appeal to the sessions, under 4 Geo. 4, c. 95, s. 87, which is incorporated with 3 Geo. 4, c. 126. In the year 1822, the plaintiff applied to these trus 1827. v. WELCH. tees to alter the said road, so leading out of the Bath DE BEAUVOIR road to Pangbourn. On the 7th October, 1822, a committee of three trustees was appointed to view the proposed alteration, and having reported in its favour, a new line of turnpike road, leading out of the Bath road to Hogmore coppice, was formed, at the plaintiff's expense, and over his land. On the 25th April, 1825, the committee reported to the trustees, that having viewed the new road so made by the plaintiff, they considered it expedient that the old road (comprised in the locus in quo, as before described), should be stopped up, the new one being in a fit state for the use of the public; and it was therefore ordered by the trustees on the same day (sixteen trustees being present), that such parts of the old road as were to be given up to the plaintiff should be stopped up; and that order was immediately acted upon, by stopping up the old road, and affixing notices that it was so stopped up at each of its extremities. At a meeting of the said trustees, held in January, 1826, notice of an intention to revoke, at a subsequent general meeting, the order of 25th April, 1825, was given by three of the trustees, and notices of the subsequent general meeting of the said trustees, to be held for the purpose of such revocation, signed by two of the trustees, were affixed on all the turnpike gates on the said road, 21 days before the said subsequent general meeting. On the 6th February, 1826, a general meeting of the said trustees was held, at which seventeen trustees were present, and it was ordered, that so much of the old turnpike road leading from the south end of Bostock-lane towards Hogmore coppice, as lies between the point at which the said old turnpike road touches the road leading from Reading towards Speenhamland, and the point at which the said old turnpike road touches the road leading from the said Reading and Speenhamland roads towards Bradfield, and containing in length 4 furlongs, 29 poles, and 3 yards, or thereabouts; and so much of the said old turnpike road as lies between |