The design of the notice required by the act of 1813, is to enable the owners of land over which the new road may run, to come forward and urge to the Court such objections, either of a public or *601private nature, as may show it to be inconvenient, useless or uniust; but it certainly was not intended that the '* - establishment of a useful public road should be impeded by the omission of twenty days’ previous notice, if before the order for laying off the road is made, ample notice is given to the owner to enable him to provide evidence and make a defence. It appears, in this case, that Daniel May had notice at October session of the County Court in 1821, at which time lie opposed the petition; and if at that time the order had been made for laying off the road, the want of twenty days’ previous notice would have been fatal to its validity. But from that time he continued to defend the petition; it was continued once at his request, he carried it up by appeal to the Superior Court; and if after a notice of three years he could not prepare for his defence, the notice of twenty days prior to filing the petition would have availed him but little. The decision of both Courts was made with full notice to the defendant; and it is impossible to sustain the objection now taken without manifest injustice. Notice to Daniel May is equivalent to notice to William, who was a minor and lived with him.
Per Cvn-iam, Judgment appirmed.