CCXXV. Weshborn and Mordant's Case. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench.
* 1.1IN an Action upon the Case, the Plaintiff declared, That whereas he was possessed of a piece of Land containing 2 Acres, called Parsonage, lying adjoyning to a certain River, from the 20th of May, 29 Eliz. us{que} diem impetrationis istius Brevis, &c. the De∣fendant had the said 20th day of May estopped the said River, with certain Loads of Earth, and so continued estopped until the 14th of February, by reason of which his Land was drowned, and so he had lost the profit of it for the said time. It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment, That upon the Declaration it doth not appear, that there is any cause of Action, for the Plaintiff hath made title to the Land drowned from the 20th day, so as that day is excluded, and the Nusance is laid to be done the said 20th day: and if so, then he cannot complain of any wrong, the Nusance being laid to be before any possession of the Plaintiff. To which it was answer∣ed, That although the stopping was made before the possession, yet the Continuance of it after is a new wrong, for which an Action lieth. As 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented, That an Abbot had not cleansed his Ditch, &c. by reason of which, the Highway is estopped, The Successor shall be put to Answer to that Indictment by reason of the Continuance of it. See, that continuance of a Nusance, is Quasi a new Nusance, 14 & 15 Eliz. Dyer, 320. And it may be, that the Plaintiff was not damnified, until a long time after the 20th of May, scil. after the Estopping; and the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true. Afterwards, Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff.