case JEVESON against more Hilary term will roll approve Beckett v Midland  railway company l r c p discuss metropolitan board of work v MCarthy l r h l  consider and apply Fritz v Hobson Ch d a declaration that the plaintiff be  possess for a term of year of a colliery situate in the parish of a near to  the king highway lead through the say parish of a and that the defendant to  binder the carriage of the coal obstruct the say highway aforesaid by which  the plaintiff total lose the benefit of his say colliery c be good although no  specific injury be particular state for although the defendant be guilty of a  public nuisance in obstruct a common highway and for such offence can only be  punish by public prosecution yet as a special damage be occasion thereby he be  liable to a civil action at the suit of the party injure and the quantum of  damage sustain be for the consideration of the jury on the evidence at least  the omission of state the particular injury be cure by the verdict S c salk S  c comy Rep S c ld ray S c comb S c Carth S c holt case the plaintiff declare a  that he be possess for a certain term of year yet to come of a certain  colliery in dale near the highway lead from such a place to such a place et  such back through which his customer use to come and go to take and carry away  the coal dig out of his say colliery that on the fourteenth of march in the  nine year of William the three he have two hundred load of coal there dig  ready for sale and that the defendant intend to hinder the plaintiff of the  benefit of his colliery and to seduce the customer from the plaintiff colliery  to a colliery of the defendant near adjacent after the fourteenth of march and  before the action bring lie six cartload of stone and a ashtree athwart the  say highway at dale within the two bind aforesaid and continue they there for  two month per quod the plaintiff lose the profit and benefit of his colliery  and also the coal lie on the around be much damnified pro diminution buyer ex  causan predicta such hinder et obstruct on not guilty verdict for the  plaintiff and upon motion in arrest of judgement a rule make curian advisare  vult indefinite the court argue seriatim and first they all unanimous agree  that this be in a highway and consequent a public nuisance no action will lie  for it general speak but if any person have a particular damage which will  distinguish his case from that of all modern report the rest of the king  subject they hold that a action will lie for he if he lie his damage special  enough to support his action and gold and Turton justice hold the plaintiff  have do so here especial it be after verdict gold justice this declaration be  special enough even upon demurrer a strong after verdict indeed if the  plaintiff have only say per quod his carriage can not a see the plead salk and  ld ray modern report er p pass that way that have be have because that be a  common damage which the rest of the king subject and at that rate every one  that have occasion to pass that way will have his action which will beget such  a multiplicity of action as the law will not endure but here he say per quod  he lose the sale of his colliery and that be special I roll ab pl Henry  Godbolt the stop of a way may be a general or a special damnification and the  question be here whether per quod have do its office it be object that it do  not appear that the plaintiff lose any buyer but I answer that when a man lie  a special damage to maintain his action he need not many time set forth the  precise certainty thereof as if a master bring trespass for beat his servant  he can recover if he do not show a special damage as loss of service yet he  need only say per quod he lose his service per magnum time and that be well  enough for the quantum of time there be not traversable leo hob   in a action  for a private nuisance the plaintiff conclude ad nocumentum of his house  without show comment and good for it be to recover damage only so here it be  not necessary to instance who the buyer be for it appear first that the coal  there be ready for sale second that the way be stop whereby c there be a  difference where the damage be the result of one single instance as loss of  marriage which can be but to one single person there it ought to be ascertain  who that person be but where the damage be complicate of many instance as here  it be otherwise and it will be inconvenient if it be not for it may be  impossible to tell who his customer be to have be and if he have name some and  fail in the evidence of prove a loss of any of they be must have be nonsuit  and he will be so restrain to they mention in the declaration that he can give  evidence of none other but it be otherwise on a indictment for barratry a you  may give more or less particular in evidence than you have mention because  that only raise or lessen the fine but here it be to have damage from a jury  second this be modern report against a wrong doer in which case this general  way of declare have prevail in all the court in Westminster hall for there it  be not necessary to make a title to the plaintiff further than general that he  be possess c as for deprive one of his common vide Henry Henry vent Trinity  term car roll roll ab pl cro Henry pl b Hilary term will roll in c b baker v  moon and so be heart and Basset ease Jones Allen leo style vent eat grass cum  averiis good without more Turton justice a action will not lie without special  damage Br action sur case nuisance cro Elizabeth   William case Vaughan   mary  case cro roll ab Inst keb mennell and Saltmarshs case second if special damage  be sufficient allege the quantum of they be not material first here it appear  that the plaintiff have a colliery expose to sale second that this be the way  through which his customer use to come and go three that the defendant  wickedly c do stop this way fourthly that the plaintiff thereby lose the sale  of his coal and he rely upon roll ab and be say that the verdict will aid it  at all event and for defect cure by verdict he quote keb sand vent Jo roll ab  cro cro car roll ab Rokeby justice this action will not lie without special  damage for two reason first because it be a general injury to the whole body  of the kingdom and therefore the action be give only to the king who be the  head second because of the multiplicity of action that will ensue if every one  may have a action that be stop of this way but when a action be upon the  special damage it ought to be so certain allege as that the court may be  satisfy that it be a special damage and here if the per quod have be omit it  have be undoubted have for that have be but a general injury and though the  per quod seem to have two thing videlicet the loss of the sale and also the  lessen the value of the coal yet in truth all be but one videlicet the loss of  the profit of his colliery if there have be a sufficient cause of action  without the per quod the uncertain lie damage under the per quod will a see  term Rep modern report er p not vitiate it be not say that any particular  person intend to buy and by reason of this stop forbear it and he compare it  to the case in Bulstrode where the plaintiff have lie in his declaration that  he purpose to settle land modern report upon his son and to let part to tenant  and that the defendant do slander his title whereby c and the judgement be  arrest because he have not show in certain any who have forbear be his tenant  upon that account and suppose the case of heart v Bassett to be law it be not  like this for there be a actual damage in prsenti but here be only a potential  damage because it may be the customer will not have come if the way have not  be stop or if they have come it may be he have not agree of the price with  they but it be object they can not name their customer because they can not  know they I answer it be for that reason they ought not to have damage because  they do not know what damage it have do they and they will have recover  something for perhaps nothing holt chief justice the action will not lie  general but two question be in this case first whether the plaintiff may have  this action in this case general in respect of the proximity of his colliery  to the highway second whether the special damage be so lie as to maintain the  action as to the first the action will not lie for the proximity for though  the way be more convenient for he than to other of the king subject yet he  have no more right to the way than the rest of the king subject and therefore  be no more entitle to a action for the stop general than another and this be  the reason of Finiaux v hovedon a every man who bring a action for a injury it  must bear proportion to the right which he have as where one have common  belong to his house or ground or a way to his house or ground sand a seize of  a mill in a town and b seize of another mill in the same town and a  prescription that inhabitant shall come to one or the other of the mill as  they please if inhabitant come to neither they both must join in the action in  respect of the right which be in common and a action must always be manage  accord to the right and this highway be make for all the king subject second  there be no particular damage for the offence be stop the highway and if the  defendant have be indict for this the indictment will conclude ad common  nocumentum all subdit domini king per that way transeun and without doubt the  count will have be have without the per quod and it be not like the case put  by my brother gold of divert a watercourse from a mill for the plaintiff have  a particular right in the modern report watercourse to his mill and so be the  case of saint John v moody it be for stop a private way and the per quod do  not make the get of the action but in all general nuisance where the action be  particular the per quod make the a of the action and there it must be make  certain the case of Henry be law if right understand that be a action will lie  accord to Fitzherbert if special damage be lie as it be not in that case and  accord to Baldwin it will not lie without special damage as that case be and  so be Inst and the special damage must be more than hindrance of passage as  fall in break hand or leg c and I always understand it so it be object that be  lose his customer and that that be particular I answer such a precedent  overthrow all the book which agree that damage must be special allege for the  damage must support the action and therefore they must show some particular  customer who this stop hinder to come as to the case in roll ab it will be in  point but I have always hear it deny to be law and the same author in the case  of fall v brewer a say that loss of customer be no special damage in such a  case but where word c in themselves be actionable such a allegation with a per  quod be good in aggravation of damage roll Rep roll ab cro Bulst where one be  say to be incontinent whereby none will marry he and not good but he shall  name somebody who refuse upon that account and there be no diversity between  the principal case and a action for word which in themselves be not actionable  for in both case there must be a special damage this be like the case of pain  v Parterick b and Menel v Saltmarsh c the first case be thus there be a town  which maintain a wherry for all passenger pay toll a cro a roll Rep b Mod c  keb modern report er p and a custom that the inhabitant of the town shall pass  gratis and the person who ferry it be give over keep it against who one of the  inhabitant bring his action the custom be adjudge good but it be hold that the  action will not lie and that the defendant be only punishable by indictment  and that there be no more special damage to the inbabitants of the town than  to any other by the cesser of the ferry videlicet the not pass and that pass  free be only consequential in the case of Menel v Saltmarsh the corn be rot  because be himself can not bring it home and the case of heart v Bassett d be  a weak case but still the declaration there be better than this for it modern  report appear that the plaintiff be a farmer of tithe and be liable to a  action if be suffer the tithe to lie on the land beyond a convenient time and  that he be also put to great expense if a action be make maintainable for such  imaginary damage it will overthrow the maxim in law that a action do not lie  for a common nuisance and if the plaintiff can tell who custom he lose be can  show that he lose any thing and the action be always in lieu of the loss then  the question be the court be thus divide how judgement shall be and by holt  chief justice if the division have be on the first motion in arrest of  judgement before any rule make the plaintiff must have have judgement but here  be a advisare vult indefinite and so judgement can be enter without  continuances and while the court be divide it continue a advisare vult if the  rule have be temporary and expire the matter have be at large but he say a  writ of error lie and therefore there must be judgement one way or other but  let it stay et such to hang judgement be stay a but in the case of Philips v  ryand easter term the eleven year of George the first the chief justice say it  be reverse by the opinion of all the judge in the exchequer Chamber