case Iveson vers more see SC ld raym e r with note a action lie not for a  general nuisance where a particular damage to the plaintiff be not lie this  case be more full report in ld raym ld raym salk SC Carth SC holt SC Mod SC  comb S c Com dig Bac Abr hark   Litt a Mod Ent action upon the case the  plaintiff declare that he be possess of two coal comens er p i in b and have  provide a large stock of coal and the defendant maliciose to stretch out adj  charcoal pillage altogether to make away with deprivare southsouthwest wind  regian way per how buyer charcoal in carbonar pillage carriare pillage  charcoal ire transire use to be cum stone obstupavit per quod the plaintiff  lose diverse customer who charcoal pillage to pass through volveru pillage  charcoal multum injure depreciate to be ad damnum c upon not guilty plead and  a verdict for the plaintiff it be move in arrest of judgement that the action  be not well bring and after argument at the bar the case be solemnly argue by  the bench and Turton and Gould justice be of opinion that judgement shall go  for the plaintiff and it be grant by they that for a general nuisance a action  on the case lie not but here be a special damage allege the only question be  whether this special damage be sufficient allege in that which follow the per  quod where it be not say what customer the plaintiff have in certain or that  he have any customer at all and it be hold by those two justice that the  damage be well allege after the per quod c and that there be sufficient  certainty for there be no need of more comens certainty than what be  sufficient to show that the plaintiff be damnified in a action upon the case  for divert the watercourse of a mill per quod adj molendini Himself to send  away ld raym a this suffice without a allegation that he have any customer who  will have ground at his mill and gold I take a diversity between such case  where the damage accrue by one particular act for there it ought to be allege  with certainty and where by diverse act for in the last case there can be any  such certainty as here the plaintiff can well know what customer he lose and  perhaps do not know all his customer and cite a case between baker and more ld  raym b hill W rot in c b where it be hold that the plaintiff need not assign  in certain what person can not come to his house for the plaintiff declare  that he have a house and a way to it which the defendant stop up per quod the  people can not come to his house c but for another reason judgement in that  case be give for the defendant and he recite Jones ld raym hob c hob cro car  and gold I be of opinion with the plaintiff for another reason which be  because this action be against a wrongdoer and compare this case to those of  saint John and moody lev vent keb d and Stroud and Birt vide above p a verdict  aid many thing not express with certainty ld raym e but if this declaration  will not have be good upon demurrer yet it be hold by both of they that the  verdict have aid it and many case be cite where a verdict have aid thing not  certain express Allen Leon roll vent keb S c f vent but by holt c j and Rokeby  I judgement in this case ought not to be for the plaintiff by reason that for  a general nuisance a action upon the case lie not as it be grant and the  offence here be a general nuisance and as holt c j say the offence be in the  highway that make it a general offence and although the plaintiff inhabit near  the highway yet it do not give he a property in such way and in all the case  where a action upon the case lie the plaintiff have a property as in the  action for divert the watercourse to a mill the plaintiff have a property in  the watercourse so in the case between baker and more that be a private way in  which the plaintiff have right and he cite cro Elizabeth lev vent keb S c a  sand and Rokeby I say the reason why a action lie not for a general nuisance  be first because the king be entrust with comens the remedy for a general  nuisance second for the avoidance of multiplicity of suit but it be object  that here be a special damage which be deny by holt and Rokeby for the damage  in general be do in e highway and as the plaintiff sustain damage all those  who pass that way have damage also the plaintiff may have more inconvenience  but have no other damage but what be common to other in a indictment for a  nuisance in the highway it be lie ad common nocumentum all per way that eunti  to go over and the present case be that the defendant have make a annoyance to  all that pass in the way where he have throw down his rubbish the plaintiff  have not any particular damage and holt c j say that the damage on which a  action be find in such a case ought to be one peculiar and extraordinary  damage and Rokeby I say that it ought not only to import a damage but a tort  also and as to the case where a man have a house on the one side of the  highway and land on the other side and have not any passage from his house to  his land but only across the say highway there the highway be stop Fitzherbert  hold that he may have a action but comens er p Baldwin be of a contrary  opinion and holt c j say that the law have be accord to the opinion of Baldwin  ever since and deny the case Jones to be law as it be there report and these  two judge agree that if a action be maintainable the declaration here be not  sufficient for the damage ought to be certain allege that the court may judge  in what the particular tort and damage consist if the declaration have end at  per quod it have not be sufficient then the allegation afterward be not  sufficient for the customer be uncertain and not know and holt c j deny the  case roll Abr