Bench, appeal side, affirming the .judgment of the Superior Court, District of Terrebonne, by which the appellant and several other defendants were jointly and severally adjudged and condemned to pay to the plaintiff $4,250 for damages with interest and costs. The case is stated in the judgments now reported. This is not a suit for a penalty under the statute, and consequently, the presence or absence of men to guard the bridge is immaterial, except in so far as it can be shewn that their presence would have been a useful precaution.
With regard to the charge that no efforts were made to remove the jam, the appellant claims that he had brought down his logs as far as they could be brought and to the place at which the boom company generally received them; that they were there stopped by an accumulation of other logs which extended down to the boom; that the boom company used all reasonable measures to avoid the jam, and that, even if they did not, he was powerless to interfere with them. The appellant also claims that the municipal bridge was itself an obstruction in the river. The statute, 53 Vict. ch 37 (Que.) is tacked on as a rider to Art. 2972 R. Q., and is in the same category and under the same title as the regulations relating to factories.
This court has held in Tooke v. Bergeron and The Montreal Rolling Mills Co. v. Corcoran that such provisons are intended to operate only as