
    JOSEPH M. READ v. CHARLES BARKER ET AL.
    1. Read, the defendant below, leased to Barker & Barker, tbe plaintiffs, a mill and water power, and covenanted with them for the nse of the water, in as full and ample a manner as lie had enjoyed-it. The plaintiffs alleging that the defendant had placed a trunk in the pond in such a manner as to carry off the waters of a certain spring, which was one of the principal tributaries to the pond, brought suit to recover damages. Seld, that the opinion of millers and mill-wrights, whether they be called experts or practical men, as to the quantity of grain the mill was capable of grinding and the value of the water for milling purposes, together with the statements of the methods used for measuring or weighing, was competent evidence.
    
      2. When a witness, who has been in attendance during the progress of a trial, fails to appear when called, the court will not reverse a judgment for that cause — no motion* having been made to postpone the case or procure the testimony of the witness, de bene esse, and especially when it appears that the evidence of the witness, had he been present, would have been only cumulative.
    Error to the Supreme Court.
    See case reported, 1 Vroom 378.
    Argued by — ■
    
      J. G. Shipman, for plaintiff in error.
    D. A. Depue, for defendant.
   The Chief Justice announced the judgment of the court, affirming the judgment below.

No written opinion was delivered.

For affirmance — Beasley, C. J., Bedle, Clement, Cornelison, Kennedy, Van Dyke, Vail, Vredenburgh, Wales.

For reversal — None.

Judgment affirmed.  