Case ID: mass_19/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of New Salem versus The Inhabitants of Wendell.
    A pauper, for whose support provision was made in the town of W., in which she had a settlement, went into the adjoining town of N. S. and there expenses were incurred for her support, although the pauper herself, the person with whom she then resided, and the town, all knew that a place was provided for her in W., to which she was able to walk without any difficulty. Held} that N. S. could not recover of W. for these expenses.
    Assumpsit for money expended by the plaintiffs in the support of Hannah Allen, a pauper, whose settlement was in Wendell, a town adjoining New Salem.
    Notice was given by the plaintiffs to the defendants, first on the 16th of December 1820, that the pauper had become chargeable on the 25th of the preceding September, and again on the 19th of August 1822, that she had become chargeable on the 29th of the preceding May ; to which the defendants returned answers, assigning reasons why they should not pay the expenses incurred.
    At the trial, in the Court of Common Pleas, the defendants resisted the action on two grounds. The second was, because at the several times when the pauper was supported by the plaintiffs, the overseers of the poor of the town of Wendell had provided a place for her support, and had contracted with a person to relieve her whenever she should be in need ; which place was within such a distance of the place where she resided in New Salem, that she could walk to it without difficulty; and the pauper, the person who had charge of her in New Salem, and the plaintiffs, all knew, at the time when the plaintiffs furnished the supplies, that such provision was made for her by the defendants.
    Strong, Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, instructed the jury, that the only question for their consideration was, whether the supposed pauper, at the times when she was supported by the plaintiffs, was of sufficient ability to support herself by bodily labor ; and that if she was not, it became the duty of the plaintiffs to support her in their own town, although the facts stated in the second reason should be all true.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs ; whereupon the defendants filed their exceptions to this instruction of the judge.
    
      Wells, in support of the exceptions.
    This is a question upon the St. 1793, c. 59, which is a law of positive regulation and is to be construed strictly in favor of the party to be charged. In the 9th section it is made the duty of overseers, in their respective towns, to provide for the immediate comfort and relief of all persons residing or found therein, but having settlements in other towns, when they fall into distress and stand in need of immediate relief. This pauper was not in distress, nor in need of immediate relief. The jury have found only that she could not support herself by bodily labor. That is not enough; otherwise any feeble person might have claims as a pauper. Nor is it enough that she is destitute of property. She wandered away from Wendell against the will of the defendants, and by walking a short distance she might have found a home. The plaintiffs ought not to have encouraged her in disobeying the rules established by the defendants ; they should have told her to go home. Injurious consequences would result to towns which make suitable provision for their poor, if the conduct of the plaintiffs should be sanctioned. The defendants do not contend, that if this pauper had wandered so far as to be unable to return without aid, the plaintiffs might not then have afforded her assistance.
    
      Newcomb, for the plaintiffs,
    insisted, that where a person falls into distress in any town, the statute is imperative on the town to give relief. Enough appears here to show that this pauper was in need of assistance. The plaintiffs were not forbidden to provide for her, because the defendants say they had provided a place for her. It was the duty of the defendants to remove or support her ; not of the plaintiffs to turn her into, the street. One town cannot say to another, tell our poor to walk home and we will support them. A husband or master may forbid giving credit to a wife or apprentice who elopes or runs away ; but there the persons, forbidden are under no obligation, moral or legal, to give such credit; whereas in the present case the plaintiffs were under a legal obligation to afford relief.
    The opinion of the Court was read at April term 1824, in Franklin, as drawn up by
   Parker C. J.

There must be a new trial in this case, the Court being all of opinion that the facts contained in the second ground of defence, as reported by the judge, if true, will constitute a good defence to the action. These facts are, that at the time when the expense was incurred, there was a place provided for the pauper’s support in Wendell, where her settlement was ; that this place was so near that she might walk to it without any difficulty ; and that all this was known to the plaintiffs, to the person who supplied the pauper in New Salem, and to the pauper herself.

If under such circumstances the plaintiffs could recover, great inconvenience and mischief would happen to those towns which make suitable provision for their poor ; for to avoid such portion of labor as may lawfully be required of them, paupers would be apt to wander to neighbouring towns and get supplied without labor, and the discipline and economical arrangements which are necessary to keep the expenses of towns within reasonable bounds, would often be frustrated.

A poor person, suitably provided for in the town where she belongs, cannot be said to stand in need of relief in any other town, because she has wandered from her proper home to a neighbouring town. In such cases the overseers of the town to which she may come, should give immediate notice to the overseer's of "the town of her settlement, in order that they may cause her to be brought back ; and if the latter neglect this duty, their town may be answerable. So in the case of sudden sickness or inability to return, the town which supplies may have its remedy ; and also, if the pauper should wander to some distant town, and there fall into distress or stand in need of relief, the expenses necessarily incurred might be recoverable. But the case supposed by the defence rejected, is that of a pauper strolling into the next adjoining town, able to walk back tó her place of refuge, and no notice given to the defendants until after the expense sued for was incurred. If this statement shall be maintained at the trial, the plaintiffs cannot be entitled to recover.

New trial granted. 
      
       See Sturbridge v. Holland, 11 Pick. 459 ; Backus v. Dudley, 3 Conn. R. 568 ; Essex v Milton, 3 Vermont R. 17.