Case ID: mass_25/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Ware versus The Inhabitants of Williamstown.
    A notice by overseers of the poor, that expenses had been incurred for the support of “the child of Miss H. W., the daughter of T. W., who are inhabitants of the town of W,” was held sufficient to sustain assumpsit against such town.
    Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred in the support of George W. Stephens, an infant and an illegitimate child of Harriet Wright, alleged to have its settlement in Williamstown.
    At the trial in the Common Pleas, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the notice given by the overseers of the poor of Ware to the overseers of the poor of Williamstown, in which it is said, — “ There is a considerable expense incurred for the support of the child of Miss Harriet Wright, the daughter of Timothy Wright, who are inhabitants of Williamstown, and the same of whom, we notified you by letter of May 10, 1826. You are requested to pay said expense and provide for the further support of the above named persons.” No evidence was offered as to the letter of May 10th. The defendants objected to this notice, that it does not describe the pauper with sufficient particularity, and that it does not allege that the pauper has a settlement in Williamstown. The pauper was six or seven months old at the time of giving the notice, and was known by the name of George Washington Stephens. The court overruled the objections, and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs The defendants filed exceptions.
    Sept. 2lst.
    Dewey, in support of the exceptions.
    The notice does not give the name, sex or age of the pauper. Beaston v. Scisson, 1 Str. 114; Comb. 478; 3 Burn’s Just. (16th ed.) 569; Ernbden v. Augusta, 12 Mass. R. 307; Shutesbury v. Oxford, 16 Mass. R. 102 ; Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358.
    The notice ought to have alleged that the pauper had its set tlement in Williamstown. Even if it had been called an inhabitant, the notice would not have required an answer, but the word “inhabitants” applies only to Harriet and Timothy Wright.
    
      Ashmun, contra,
    
    cited on this last point, Quincy v. Braintree, 5 Mass. R. 86; and he said that in the expression “ who are inhabitants,” who refers to the child as one of the antecedents.
    
      Sept. 25th.
    
   Per Curiam.

The defect of the notice in the cases cited consisted in its generality. “ The family ” of A. B. is altogether indeterminate as to age, sex or number. It imports more than one, but gives no intimation of the provision necessary foi their support or removal. The notice in this case is limited to one object, “ the child of Miss Harriet Wright ” ; so that no risk would be incurred of taking the wrong person, for the notice imports that there was but one.

Saying that the parent and her father were inhabitants ot Williamstown, is equivalent to saying they had their settlement there.

Judgment for the plain ti[js. 
      
       See Chicester v. Pembroke, 2 N. Hamp. R. 530; Dover v. Paris, 5 GreenLeaf. 430; Orange v. Sudbury, 10 Pick. 22; Uxbridge v. Seelconk, 10 Pick. 150.