
    [Lancaster,
    May 28, 1825.]
    In the case of the Road from Mrs. CULLY’S Fishery to M’CALL’S Ferry.
    certiorari.
    It need not appear In the body of the report of review of a road that all the viewers viewed; it is sufficient if it be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court below by deposition.
    Though it may not appear in the report of reviewers or the draft of the road returned that there were no improvements, that fact may be made to appear in the court below by evidence.
    Certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancaster county, to remove the proceedings in the case of a road from Mrs. Cully’s fishery to M’Call’s ferry, on which a report was made by four of the five viewers appointed by the court, in favour of the road, and a draft of the road with its courses and distances, was returned to the court. On the face of this draft the words, “ all unimproved,” were written.
    In the court below two exceptions were filed, namely:
    1. That only four of the reviewers viewed the said road.
    2. No improvements were mentioned in the report or draft.
    To obviate these exceptions, the deposition of one of the viewers was taken and filed in the court below, proving that five viewed the road, though only four signed the report; and also, that the road ran altogether through unimproved land; and the court below thereupon confirmed the report.
    
      Wright, now insisted on these exceptions, citing 5 Binn, 481, 2 Binn. 255, case of Schuylkill Fall’s road.
    The court did not hear Buchanan in support of the proceedings.
   By the Court.

Two exceptions have been taken to the proceedings in this case. The first is, that only four of the viewers appointed by the court, viewed the road. This is not the fact. It appears by the record, that the same objection having been made in the Court of Quarter Sessions, the matter was inquired into, and it was found that five viewed the road, though only four of them signed the report. It has been contended that it should appear, in the body of the report that the road was viewed by five of the viewers. But the act of assembly under which the proceedings were had, ifipril, 6th 1802. 3 Smith’s Laws, 512,) requires no such thing. It directs that five of them shall view the ground, and if any four of them agree that there is occasion for such road, they shall proceed to lay out the same, and make report thereof to the court. It is sufficient therefore, if the report is made by four, and satisfactory proof given to the court, that the ground was viewed by five of the men appointed by them.

The second exception is, that no improvements are mentioned, either in the report, or in the plot or draft returned and referred to in the report. The act of assembly directs, that the viewers shall make their report, together with a plot or draft thereof, and the courses and distances, and references to the improvements through, which it may pass.” But in this case it appears by a deposition sent up with the record, that the whole course of the road was through unimproved, land. It was impossible therefore, to make a reference to improvements, because none existed. But here again it has'been contended, that it should appear on the face of the report or draft that there were no improvements. The same answer may be given to this, as to the first exception. It is not required by the law, that it should be mentioned either in the report or draft that there were no improvements. It happens however, in the present case that it is expressly written on the face of the draft, “ all unimprovedf and although the counsel against the road, would confine these words, all unimproved, to the land on one side of the road, we consider them in a different sense. We understand them to refer to all the ground through which the road passes. It is the opinion of the court therefore, that the proceedings should be confirmed.

Proceedings confirmed.  