Case ID: mass_19/html/0031-01.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 Middleborough versus Elisha Clark.
    It was held that a person having a settlement in Massachusetts Proper, but living in the District of Maine, at the time of its separation from Massachusetts, did not by the separation acquire a settlement in Maine 5 and that the penalty of St. 1793, c. 59, § 15, was not incurred by bringing her (she being a pauper) to the place of her settlement and there leaving her.
    This was an action of debt, to recover of the defendant a penalty of twenty pounds, for bringing into and leaving in the town of Middleborough one Margaret Pickens, a pauper, who was alleged to have no settlement there, contrary to St. 1793, c. 59, § 15.
    In a case stated by the parties it was agreed, that the original settlement of the pauper was in Middleborough ; that about twelve years ago she moved to Wilton, in the District of Maine, and resided there until the separation of Maine from Massachusetts, without acquiring a new settlement ; that after the separation of Maine she continued to reside there until she was removed to Middleborough, as stated in the declaration ; that at the time when she was removed she ,was chargeable to Wilton for her support ; and that she was removed by a warrant from a justice of the peace, agreeably to the 13th section of the statute before mentioned.
    Wood, for the plaintiffs,
    contended that the warrant could have no effect; and that the pauper, being an inhabitant of Maine, was a party to the compact by which it was created a new state, and thus becoming a citizen of the new state she thereby acquired a new settlement; as in the division of a town, where no special provision is made respecting the poor, the inhabitants of the part which is made a new town acquire a settlement in the new town. Windham v. Portland, 4 Mass. R. 390 ; Groton v. Shirley, 7 Mass. R. 156.
    
      W. Baylies, contrà.
    
    As soon as the pauper came within the State of Massachusetts her settlement in Middleborough revived. Canton v. Bentley, 11 Mass. R. 441. The division of a municipal corporation is not parallel to the separation of a state into two independent sovereignties. The warrant may perhaps have no effect, but it certainly does not make the defendant’s case worse.
    The opinion of the Court was delivered at the following May term, at Plymouth, by
   Parker C. J.

This case appears to be like that of Canton v. Bentley. The pauper never lost her settlement in Middleborough, having gained none in Wilton. Had she gained a settlement in that town before the separation, that would have continued notwithstanding the separation, and by that means she would have lost her settlement in Middle-borough, and the leaving her in Middleborough would have been within the provision of the statute ; but her settlement in Middleborough remaining, it was no breach of the statute to leave her there.

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
       See Sanford v. Emery, 2 Greenl. 5; Greenfield v. Cushman, 16 Mass. R. 393; Deerfield v. Delano, 1 Pick. 465.