GEORGES CREEK COMPANY VS. DETMOLD. 381

such cutting is not authorized, are quite competent to give re-
dress, that part of the injunction must be dissolved.

With regard to the injunction to prevent the cutting wood
and timber, for the purpose of erecting a saw mill on the lands,
it appears, by the answer and evidence, that the mill was com-
plete before the service of the injunction, at least so far -finished
as not to require any further use of timber, nothing being neces-
sary but putting the saw in the frame, and placing the band on
the wheel. The injunction, therefore, in this particular, comes
too late.

That part of the bill which alleges the danger from fire to
the furnace, and other improvements caused by the working of
the mill, is explicitly contradicted by the answer, and the evi-
dence tends rather to sustain than to weaken the force of the
contradiction. The complainant's counsel, apparently conced-
ing that the testimony of the witnesses is against him upon
this point, insists that in the nature of things, the collection of
a quantity of combustible materials, in the vicinity of the fur-
nace, must increase the danger from fire. Such would ordinar-
ily seem to be the case, but I cannot bring myself to think, that
it would be sate in the court, (unless in a case infinitely strong-
er than this,) to permit its own speculations about causes wad
their effects, to countervail the testimony of witnesses, who,
from experience and observation, must be peculiarly competent
to speak upon the subject.

Being of opinion, therefore, that the only grounds upon which
this injunction can be supported have been removed by the an-
swer and evidence, it must be dissolved, and an order will be
passed accordingly.

It was objected by one of the counsel for the defendant, that
this injunction could not be maintained, because the bill was
not under the corporate seal, nor verified by the proper officer
of the company. Assuming this objection to be now in season,
I do not think it a good one. The answer of a corporation is
put in without oath under its corporate seal, but I do not find
it any where said, that a bill filed by a corporation must be
under its seal. That it is the bill of the corporation is suffici-