Case ID: mass_2/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas M. Cargill versus The Inhabitants of Wiscasset.
    A town in which a prison is situate is held to support a pauper confined in prison for debt, whether he has a legal settlement in any other place or not, after due application to the overseers.
    This was an action of the case for the support of a pauper, and came before the Court upon a case stated, in which the following facts were agreed: —
    The plaintiff, on the 5th day of August, 1805, and before that ■time, was, and ever since has been, the deputy jailer, or keeper, of the prison in Wiscasset. The pauper for whose support the action was brought was committed to the said prison, on the day above-mentioned, by virtue of an execution duly issued, in which he is styled of a place called Ballstoiun, in said county of Lincoln. He was poor, and unable to support himself. The plaintiff applied to the overseers of the poor for the town of Wiscasset, and requested them to make provision for the support and maintenance of the said pauper, which they neglected and refused to do The plaintiff fur nished the pauper only with necessary meat, drink, and washing, from the time of his commitment" until the 28th day of October following, at which time he was discharged pursuant to the “ Act for the relief of poor prisoners who are committed for debt.” Ballstovm, above mentioned, was not, during the pauper’s confinement in prison, an incorporated place, nor does it appear at what place the pauper had a legal settlement; but he had never resided in Wiscasset prior to his commitment.
    * Lee, for the plaintiff,
    relied on the provisions of the [ * 548 ] statute of February 26, 1794, and on the case of Daggett vs. Inhabitants of Dedham. 
      
    
    
      Wilde, for the defendants,
    said he had never before seen the case cited by Lee, but he suggested a difference between the facts in that case and the one at bar. In that case it is expressly agreed that the pauper had a legal settlement in Wrentham, so that the defendants there had a right of action to reimburse themselves; but here it is agreed that the pauper had no known place of settlement. There is no party liable by law to the present defendants, for their indemnity, should judgment be rendered against them in this action.
    By the ninth section of the statute, authority is given to the overseers of the poor in any town to remove a stranger, who is actually chargeable, or likely to become so, to the place of his legal settlement. It should seem, from this provision, that the legislature had not in contemplation the case of a prisoner in lawful confinement, whose removal could not be effected without a violation of law and a breach of the peace. If, however, the principle was settled, Wilde said he would not argue further; although it imposed upon the shire towns, in which the prisons were situated, a very great hardship.
    
      
       Vide Supplement.
      
    
   Curia.

The question submitted to the Court is whether, upon the facts stated, the plaintiff in this action can, by law, recover of the defendants the expense he incurred in the necessary relief of the pauper mentioned in the case, and in his writ. And we are all of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Our opinion results from the construction of the statute of February 26, 1794.

By the 9th and 13th sections of that statute, it is made the duty of the overseers of the poor, in every town, to provide for the immediate relief of any pauper residing or found within their town, not having a legal settlement there, whether the pauper is settled elsewhere, or have no settlement within the [ * 549 ] * state ; in the former case at the expense of the town where the pauper hath his settlement, and in the latter case at the expense of the commonwealth, if the pauper hath no relatives by law liable for his support.

But the latter part of the 13th section expressly provides that every town shall be holden to pay any expense which shall be necessarily incurred for the relief of any pauper by any inhabitant not liable by law for his support, after notice and request made to the overseers of the said town, and until provision be made by them. This provision is decisive of the question, and relates to paupers of every description, as well those who are prisoners in jail as others. If this construction required any support, the case of Dagget vs. Inhabitants of Dedham is a direct authority.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

In another action at this term, between the same parties, and in which the facts were substantially similar to those in the foregoing case, a like judgment was rendered. 
      
      
         Dagget vs. Dedham, post, 564. —Adams vs. Wiscasset, 5 Mass. Rep. 528.— Taunton vs. Westport, 12 Mass. Rep. 355. — Paris vs. Hiram, 12 Mass Rep. 262.— Sauward vs. Alfred, 5 Mass. Rep. 244.