Hilltown Road

1. An objection that a viewer was related, as brother-in-law, to one of the petitioners for the road in question, must be made as soon as by the exertion of common diligence and observation the fact might have been discovered. As the party suffered the view to be had and report to be made, it was too late to make such exception after the report, upon other exceptions filed to it, had been recommitted to the viewers for correction and another report máde. 2. A report as to the laying out of a road may, properly, be referred back to the viewers at any time before final confirmation.

Certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Bucks county. A petition was presented to the Quarter Sessions of Bucks county, for the appointment of viewers to lay out a road, commencing in the middle of the new Bethlehem road in Hilltown township, in said county, and terminating in a public road leading to Thomas’s tan-yard. Viewers were appointed, and on the 4th February, 1850, a report in favor of a road, signed by five of the viewers, was presented. On 30th April, 1850, the report was approved, and the road ordered to be opened thirty-three feet in width. On the 16th July, 1850, exceptions ,to the report were filed, viz.: 1. The report does not show that the viewers were severally sworn or affirmed before they viewed the route of the road. 2. That it did not appear by the report in what county the road is. On 11th September, 1850, the' report was recommitted to the viewers for correction. The five viewers made an amended report in favor of a road on the same route. The report was filed September 17, 1850. No order having been made in relation to it, on 2d December, 1850 another exception was filed, viz., That Isaac Stout, one of the viewers, is related to Jacob Harr, one of the petitioners for the road, they being brothers-in-law. Evidence was taken as to this last exception, and it was testified that the said relationship existed, but that Jacob Harr did not own any land on the road; that he resided about a mile and a half from the road in question, in Rockhill township. On 2d May, 1851, the exceptions were dismissed. It was assigned for error: 1. The Court erred in re-committing the report to the viewers for correction, after the term of the Court had intervened. 2. In dismissing the exception, filed on the 2d December, 1850, as to the relationship.