
    Nathan Clark et ux. versus The Inhabitants of Worthington.
    In an action on St 1786, c. 81, § 7, to recover double damages for an injury occasioned by a defect in a highway, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege, in bis declaration, that he is entitled to double damages.
    Action on the case for an injury done to the wife, through a defect in the highway. A verdict being found for the plaintiffs, the defendants moved in arrest of judgment, because the plaintiffs, in their declaration, have not alleged that they are entitled to have and recover double damages ; wherefore the defendants pray that the judgment may be wholly arrested, or entered up for only single damages.
    
      C. A. Dewey and Briggs supported the motion.
    
      Sept. 22d.
    
    
      Sept. 28th.
    
    
      Hubbard and Lanckton, for the plaintiffs,
    cited St. 1786, c. 81, §7 ; Lobdell v. New Bedford, 1 Mass. R. 153 ; Yelv. (Metcalf’s edit.) 116, note ; Commonwealth v. Searle, 2 Binn. 332 ; 1 Chit. Pl. (1st edit.) 218 ; Bull. N. P. 222.
    The cause was continued nisi.
    
   Per Curiam.

It was not necessary for the plaintiffs, in their declaration, to allege that they were entitled to double damages. The provision in the statute giving the plaintiffs, under such circumstances, double damages, is an authority and direction to the court, as to the mode of entering up judgment, after the damages, that is, after the actual, single damages have been found and assessed by the jury.

Judgment for plaintiffs for double damages. 
      
       See Worster v. Proprietors of Canal Bridge, 16 Pick. 541; Rev. St e.25, § 22.
     