after stating tbe facts. ■ We tbink bis Honor erred in pronouncing the defendant guilty upon tbe special verdict. Tbe defendant being notified to meet tbe overseer at a certain place on a certain day, was present at tbe time and place appointed. That be did not meet tbe overseer, was the overseer’s fault, and not bis own. It is contended that tbe defendant is guilty because be failed to return tbe second day. "Where ought be to have gone ? It is true, be was summoned to work two days, but be was not summoned to meet tbe overseer at the same place on both days. If tbe overseer bad worked tbe road with bis bands on tbe day appointed, surely be would have gotten out of sight of tbe starting place by tbe second day. Moreover, tbe defendant bad no notice of tbe postponement, and bad no assurance of meeting tbe bands on tbe second day., If tbe overseer could postpone the work without notice for a day, why could be not do it for a week? And yet could a man be expected to lose a week’s time in tbe vain endeavor to do two day’s work ? Tbe general road law is burdensome enough, without our adding any additional burden by judicial construction.
In our opinion, tbe defendant has complied with tbe notice *546as far as could reasonably be required, and is therefore not guilty.
This ends tbe case, and it is not necessary for us to discuss tbe interesting questions raised by tbe motion in arrest of judgment. Tbe judgment of tbe Court below is reversed.
Eeversed.