
    STATE against CROWELL.
    contracts*110 with the C’ty Trustees to keep a bridge imhcSblefor heg-tect of at duty.
    The Defendant was presented by the Grand Jury for § Nuisance, and the case was referred to this Court upon 4 . the question whether ah indictment could be sustained uPon the following statement of facts. That the Defend-ant is bound to keep up the Bridge described in the in-dictment, for seven years, for^ the due performance of which he executed a bond; that the time is not yet expired. The Bridge is admitted to be out of tepair. The Defendant is hot overseer of the roád.
   Seawell J.

delivered the Opinion oí tne c^ourt

The taw authorizes the Trustees of the County Courts to contract for the building and repairs of Bridges.™ Whatevef the Trustees do under thiá áüthórity, they do ⅛. behalf of the public j and the Contract is substantially between the public and the ündertáket, through the instru-inent, the County court; and if the undertaker by not performing his agreement, occasions an inconvenience tor the public, he is indictable. There must be Judgment' for the State.  