
    [Lancaster,
    June, 3, 1826.]
    Case of a Road from HERR’S Mill, Conestogo, to the Columbia Turnpike Road.
    CERTIORARI.
    The Court of Quarter Sessions has no right to make a material alteration in the report of viewers of a road, because it appears that the surveyor has not pursu-. ed the directions of the viewers.
    On'a certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancaster county, it appeared that at the April Sessions, 1823, viewers were appointed, who reported in favour of a road, the courses of which they set out. A review was afterwards awarded and the reviewers reported that the road laid out by the viewers, “ would be useless, burdensome and inconvenient, to the inhabitants of the township through which it passes.”- To this report exceptions were filed, which did not appear to have been decided upon, and after-wards a petition was presented for a re-review, which was withdrawn by leave of court.
    Upon the order for the original view, an endorsement, without date, in the following words was made: “ It appearing that an error has. been eommittéd by the surveyor in running two courses, to wit: north 16° 10' 78 p. and north 31°, west 112 p. instead of one coruse north 25-2°, vest IS9", as he was directed to run it by the viewers, the court order that the drafts be altered m as to conform to the directions of the viewers; and with this correction, confirm the report of the viewers and order the road to be laid out of the width of thirty-three feet.
    In this court several exceptions to these proceedings were taken, which w ere argued by Buchanan in support of the exceptions, and by W Hopkins against them.
   Per Curiam.

The principal .objection to the proceedings in this case was, that after the report of the viewers was returned, the Court of Quarter Sessions made an order that a material alteration should be made in the road, because it appeared to them, .that the surveyor had not pursued the directions of the viewers, and that alteration being made, the road was confirme

It is the opinion of this court, that the Coi . t of Quarter Sessions had no power to make the alteration, but should have returned the report to the viewers, in order that they might correct it. The report is the act of the viewers, which the court may either reject, or confirm; but they cannot alter it, for then it is no longer the act of the viewers. It does not appear, that the viewers came into court, and requested that an error might be corrected, or that they had any notice of, or assented to the proposed alteration of their report. It is our opinion therefore,, that the proceedings should be quashed.

Proceedings quashed.  