case Leveridge against Hoskins in a action on the case for dig ditch and  divert a watercourse it shall be presume after verdict that the injury be  consequential if the cause of action arise in two court the action may be  bring in either in a action on the case the plaintiff declare that he be  possess of a farm and a river at d in the county of Devon and that the  defendant to damage the plaintiff farm and river do at a place peremptory or  urgent call Davyss close in come Dorset dig two ditch and divert the plaintiff  water out of the river and damage the meadow but do not say per quid Mr  Pengelly who move in arrest of judgement object that this declaration be ill  not show that the diversion of the water be consequential to the dig of the  ditch which be the get of the action so that this be no more than trespass but  the court be of opinion that after verdict it shall be intend that it be prove  to be consequential a a verdict cure ambiguity or a imperfect state of the  plaintiff title but not a omission of what be the get of the action Avery v  hold Cowp after verdict nothing be to be presume but what be either express  state in the declaration or necessary imply from those fact that be state  spire v Parker term Rep see also Buxendin v sharp salk Palgrave v Windham  stram jefferies v Watkins Mod bird v Geary show king v bishop of llandaff  stram wicker v Norris b r h Frederick v lookup burr Stolesbury v smith burr  Rushton v aspinal dougl a another exception be take that the action be bring  in a wrong county for it shall be bring where the trench be dig but by holt  chief justice and the rest of the court it be good for here be cause of action  that arise in both county and the action may be bring in either a see  Patterson v Scott stram Scott who tam v Brett term Rep a if there be a  conspiracy in one county and a indictment in another the action may be bring  in either but if a nuisance be erect in one modern report county to the damage  of a man in another the assize must be bring in common boundary an escort then  Mr Pengelly take another exception that the offence be not lie with a  continuando but it be that the ditch be dig such a day and his close damage c  to visit a day et vicious between such a time and such a time and cite  Hambleton v veer b lev sand b which holt chief justice say be not like this  case