II. CH. 53. § 21 con. 3. Illegitimate children acquire settlement by being born in A where their mother lives at the time of the birth. 1 Pick. R. 144-147. ART. 2. 5 Pick. 449. 1 Pick. R. 129-136. 4. It is sufficient if the freehold of $10 a year be owned by the pauper as cestui que trust. 2 Pick. 29-32. But 3 Pick. R. 198-199, Western v. Leicester, there must be an actual annual income each of the three years, of the value of of $10. And 1 Pick. 154. If the estate be dower, the three years commence with the assignment by the commissioners. 6. To gain a settlement on the clause, one must dwell in a town the whole year in which he serves as a town officer 2. Town officers must be inhabitants of the town in which they are chosen, and when they cease to be inhabitants they cease to be officers: 3. The word removal means a removal from the town. Stat. 1785, c. 75. But a minister ordained over an unincorporated religious Society, composed of members belonging to different towns, is not a stated Minister of the Gospel within the meaning of stat. 1786, ch. 3, June 22, 1786, the marriage act. Ligonia v. Buxton, 2 Greenl. 102-109. A marriage solemnized by such minister is not legal, and the female does not gain her 2 Greenl. 28- supposed husband's settlement, and if the marriage be confirm32, Brunswick ed by a resolve of the legislature, (March 19, 1821,) it only v. Litchfield. respects her pauper support after the confirmation: but does not if the assessors for good reasons do not tax him, though he has taxable property. 2 Pick. R. 535, Reading v. Tewkesbury. As to citizens of other States, see 2 Pick. 28. $25. Statute 1821, ch. 94, provides that if the deft. town, shall, within thirty days after notice, remove the pauper from the plt. town, it shall be charged only at the rate of one dollar per week. This removal is a condition precedent and must be per4 Pick. 45 formed strictly: not enough to prepare to remove, &c. And when this act does not apply, the case is on statute 1793, ch. 59, above. 48, Ware v. Wilbraham. ART. 3. $7 con. B, a new town, is formed partly from the town of C. B by its act of incorporation, is entitled to a proportion of the property, rights, and credits of C. Held, B is not entitled to any part of a fund arising from the sale of land, originally appro16 Mass. R. priated to the use of the ministry in C. It cannot be con16-18, Har- sidered as town's property, but as partaking of the character of the land, from the sale of which it grew. It is a permanent ministerial fund. rison v. Bridgeton. Assumpsit by the town of Norton against the town of Mansfield, for monies expended by the plts., to support one L. Paine. Till April, 1770, Mansfield was the north parish in Norton. Paine derived his settlement under his great grandfather, which II. CH. 53. was in Norton. The principle decided was, that an agreement Art. 3. made by the two towns, not included in the act of incorporation Con. of Mansfield, was not binding, as it was not in their power to vote, to charge 'the respective inhabitants, beyond the legislative provision.' Clearly the law only can fix a pauper settlement and not a town vote; 16 Mass. R. 48-52, Norton v. Mansfield another case of a new town, 16 Mass. R. 112-116. It may be observed that the many pauper settlements in the State, growing out of special acts of the legislature, erecting new towns out of old ones, depend, invariably, on some special provisions in such acts; hence, they afford no general rules or principles in pauper cases, except in a very few cases. Also see 17 Mass. R. 398-400. § 12 con. The overseers, &c., of one town, send a letter to those of another, in a pauper case: this is received and answered; a mistake in it is corrected in a second letter received, but not answered: the second refers to the first letter; but the second alone is defective. Held, both may be taken together, and constitute sufficient notice from the time the second is received. One named Sally; notice Sarah or Sally is sufficient. In the first letter the pauper was named Mary Reed, in the second, Sarah or Sally Reed. The notice may be good though not all at one time. 1 Pick. 470-474, Shelburne v. Rochester; and 6 Greenl. 79; case of notice. Defective notice waived by answers, and no objection to the 2 Greenl. 1, 5. notice. 1 id. 331. 207. A wife lives separate from her husband, and receives supplies 3 Greenl. 205– as a pauper, without his knowledge, they are not supplies to him within statute 1821, ch. 122. 19 con. Does an alien, gain a settlement; clearly not, nor 1 Greenl. 196– can his wife under him, nor can she gain any settlement, but 197, Jefferson under her husband during her coverture. v. Litchfield. § 25 con. A person residing ten years in a town, and paying 16 Mass. R. highway taxes five years, gains a settlement in it. 236-237. 454-456. $27 con. A person was warned, &c., and then had a child born: this child gained a settlement in the town where born, 16 Mass. R. by a year's residence after of age, and not warned to depart. What is sufficient warning, &c., not a record of the sessions, 2 Pick. R. 436 a mere ministerial act. § 28 con. Nor an alien; 2 Greenl. 194-198; as the wife of an alien having a settlement in a town in Maine, she and her children are to be supported in that town. -439. Sandford v. Hollis. wealth v. 35 con. A slave of the administrator's intestate escaped from 2 Pick. 11-20, Virginia into this State before the owner died. Held, by United CommonStates' laws, 2 Cong. 2 Ses. c. 7, this slave might be taken with- Griffith, adout a warrant by the administrator's agent though he had taken mr's. agent. Art. 3. II. CH. 53. administration only in Virginia, the service belonging to him: that the act of congress, is constitutional; nor was a deed under seal necessary in the appointment of the agent. Was an indictment for assault and battery, &c. ; the administrator's authority to seize, was his right to the service, and the Federal Constitution and act of congress. 2 Pick. R. 341 344, New Sa of. § 39. Assumpsit for monies expended for the support of lem, town of, v. Hannah Allen, a pauper. She had her settlement in Wendall, Wendall, town and that town made provision for her support. She went into N. Salem, an adjoining town. This town incurred the expenses sued for. It knew of the provision in Wendall, as did the pauper and the person with whom she resided. She was well able to walk to Wendall. Judgment for the defts. 2 Pick. R. 394. N. York, The Cowen, 530- $40. Held, if a British soldier deserted from the British army, or was taken prisoner, but not confined in the war of the revolution (1777) and voluntarily has lived here since, he is a citizen, and may have a settlement, &c. Both were born in Great Britain. The opinion, in these two cases, seems to be grounded on Massachusett's treason act of 1777, which enacts, that all persons abiding within the States, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to this State, and are members thereof.' The two always paid taxes, and conducted themselves as citizens were pauper cases, one of them was argued. $ 41. An alternative mandamus had issued to the defts., commanding them to allow to the overseers of the poor of the town of Aurelius in said county, the expenses of supporting four paupers, claimed to be a county charge, on the ground they had no settlement on the State. In their return they did not deny the expenses had been properly incurred, under the order of magistrate, pursuant to the twentyfifth section of the act for the relief and settlement of the poor; (1 R. L. 287) but stated that the said town had procured an order for their removal to the town of Farmington, &c., as their place of settlement; removed accordingly, &c. Farmington appealed to the sessions, &c.: then Aurelius took back the paupers, and supported them, and neglected to try their appeal; that they rejected the application of Aurelius on the ground, that until the order of removal was reversed, the paupers must be adjudged legally settled in Farmington 2. Rejection on the above and other grounds. Held, 1. Said order of removal appealed from, and abandoned by the town who removed, who consented to take back the paupers without trying the appeal, was not conclusive as between that town and the county: 2. The county not protected by it, from maintaining the paupers, as one having no residence in the State: 3. Where a magistrate makes an order to maintain a pauper, as a non resident of the State, and unable to be removed, this, it seems, is conclusive upon the board of supervisors. A per emptory mandamus issued: other pauper cases in New York; II. Cн. 53. 2 Cowen, 537-542; 4 Cowen, 137-141. ART. 3. 42. If the overseers of the poor omit to apply, when requested, to a justice to obtain an order for the relief of a pauper, settled in their town, the proper remedy a mandamus to the overseers. If one voluntarily supplies a pauper, it is no ground 11 John. 114; of action against the overseers. 6 Cowen, 276-281. 2 Mass. R. 243. 13. An alien gains no settlement: as where a Connecticut ART. 4. man in 1759, removed to Nova Scotia, and took with him B, Con. his minor son. In 1797, he removed from Nova Scotia to Manchester, in Massachusetts, and bought real estate in Man- 16 Mass. R. chester, and occupied it above ten years, paying all taxes assessed 230-236, Manon it. Held, he was an alien, so gained no settlement in Man- chester v. Boschester. §14. An overseer of the poor may, lawfully, endeavour to avoid a charge on his town, by keeping the poor person on his journey, on the direct road on which he is travelling. If the overseer intend to do this, or throw the pauper expense on another town, contrary to statute 1793, ch. 59, s. 15, is a question for the jury; nor is one liable for a deviation from his orders, if his intention be found to be innocent. 'There must be some culpable intention to give such an act the character of crime,' that is, helping a poor wayfaring man on his road. This was an action of debt for a penalty of £20, on said section. 1 Pick. 365-470, Deerfield, inhabitants, v. Delano; and 16 Mass. R. 393-395. The offence punished by the statute of 1793, ch. 59, s. 15, is the bringing a poor person into a town with intent to leave him there, a charge on such town. ton. 1 Greenl. 228. 2 Greenl. 58. § 15. Assumpsit for money laid out and expended by the 16 Mass. R. plts., for the use of the deft., in the support of himself, his wife, 215-217. and children, for six years, as paupers; in fact, this action was grounded on the statute of 1817, ch. 186, s. 5, Feb. 24, 1818. The plts. recovered the sum so paid, after the statute went into operation. It was objected that this act was unconstitutional, as the money was advanced under the injunction of law, in a case of charity, where, at the same time, no debt was created; but the court held it was constitutional, but not retrospective. -521, inhabit 16. Case in equity, under statute 1817, ch. 87, against 1 Pick. R. 512 Belknap, and other selectmen of Framingham. Property was ants of East bequeathed to the town of Framingham: the annual interest Sudbury v. thereof, was to be applied, under the direction of the selectmen Belknap & al. for the time being, for the support of the testator's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, if any of them should stand in need of support; otherwise, for the support of the poor of the town. A great-grandchild was furnished with support by the town of East Sudbury, where he had his settlement. East Sudbury requested the selectmen of Framingham to reimburse Art. 4. -109. II. CH. 53. the expenses, and to provide for the future support of the pauper; and afterwards sued the pauper, and recovered judgment. This remained unsatisfied. Held, East Sudbury was entitled to be reimbursed from the trust fund, on a bill in equity: 2. That 1 Pick. R. 105 the town of Framingham, and the selectmen thereof for the time being, should be made parties to the bill: 3. That the pauper need not be made a party: 4. That the court has chancery jurisdiction of the case, by virtue of statute 1817, ch. 87. 17. An action lies against a town after two years, on a verbal express promise of the overseers to pay the expenses: 2. The separation of Maine does not affect the right of a town in Maine; and p. 153. 2 Pick. R. 123 128, Belfast v. Leominster. ART. 3. CHAPTER LIV. POST OFFICE. See ch. 120, a. 5, s. 5.; postmaster-general sued on a bond, &c. § 2. He can take a bond and sue in the circuit court, as ch. 187, a. 3, s. 3, Earley's case; though strongly objected to in both respects. The act of congress of March 3, 1815, s. 4, declares,that the district court of the United States, shall have cognizance, concurrent with the courts and magistrates of the several States, and the circuit courts of the United States, of all suits at common law, where the United States, or any officer thereof, under the authority of any act of congress, shall sue, although the debt claimed, or matter in dispute, shall not amount to $100. Earley contended his case was not one arising under the laws of the United States,' nor a controversy to which the United States are a party;' and that the postmaster general had no power to take the said bond. It was answered, that the authority to sue on such a bond, given in the twentyninth section of the act of 1810, is an implied authority to take it, and a legislative recognition of the notorious preexisting practice of office, confirmed in the fortysecond section, saving all suits, and the bonds given by the postmasters;' Dugan & al. v. United States, ch. 14, a. 3, s. 9; see act March 2, 1799; and until then no postoffice suits could be brought in the State courts. Hence, of course, they were brought in the federal courts. On the whole it seems to be a clear case. |