Case ID: walker_2/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KELLY TOWNSHIP VS. GREGG TOWNSHIP.
    A hiring, for over a year, for board and clothes, is sufficient to give a settlement.
    Error to the Quarter Sessions of Union County. No. 53, Jan. Term, 1885.
    This was a petition 'by the Overseers of Gregg Township against the Overseers of Kelly Township on appeal from the order of removal of Lucy Plaines. This case involved the question of settlement of a pauper acquired by hiring and service, and the opinion of the Court was as follows per:
    Bucher, P. J.
    The depositions in this case fail to show that the pauper had at one time a settlement in Gregg, or that she was an unmarried person without child or children.
    This omission was pointed out by us at the argument, when it was agreed by the respective counsel that the pauper had at one time a settlement in Gregg Township, and that, when she left that township, she was unmarried and had no child, or children. She subsequently became chargeable in the Township of Kelly, where she was at work, from whence she was removed to- Gregg Township. Gregg appealed, claiming that the settlement of the pauper is in White Deer. The claim is made by Gregg that, being unmarried, and having no child or children, she hired in the Township of White Deer as a servant, and remained one whole year and more. The pauper testified that, after the death of her husband, in Gregg Township, she went to Mr. Harry — -Mrs. Fanuy Stahl’s, in White Deer Township, and staid there 6 or 7 weeks. Then she went to David Stahl’s to live in the same township, staid there about five years. She says “I made a bargain with him. He was to give me my victuals and clothes for my work. He gave me good clothes.” A. B. Jami-son swears that the pauper and her husband were tenants of his in 1875 or 1876, when her husband died. That about a week after her husband’s death, she left Gregg and went to Stahl’s to live, in White Deer, and remained there until Sept. 12, 1884, when she came to him in Gregg, at the death of his wife, remained six or seven weeks, and then returned to Stahl’s in White Deer. David I. Stahl, the party with whom the pauper says she was hired, denies it utterly. He admits that she was at his house; but denies that she worked for wages. He alleges, and testifies, that she was taken in as an object of charity, and that she did not remain continuously any length of time. On his cross-examination he says: “There was nothing said that I can recollect that she should work for me for her clothes.” This is the evidence, pro and con, as to her settlement. It is well settled that the consideration to gain a settlement by hiring need not be paid in money. Where one who is not a relative and not an object of charity, but able to earn wages, is employed in the service of another, the law implies a contract of hiring so as to confer a settlement; Moreland vs. Davidson, 21 Smith 371. It is clear, from the evidence, that the pauper was not a relative of Stahl with whom she lived so long. She testifies that after she left Stahl, she went to Baker’s, in White Deer, and lived there about three months at fifty cents per week. From all the evidence, I gather that she was not an object of charity, but able to earn wages. The case then narrows itself down to a question of veracity between the pauper and her alleged employer. TTis testimony to my mind is not so satisfactory as it might be.
    Experience in this class of cases tells us that it is often difficult to get information from citizens of districts as to the settlement of paupers therein. Their interest often impels them to keep silent, or even to suppress the truth. We must believe one or the other of these witnesses. We prefer to believe the pauper, because she has no interest in the question for solution, and her employer has. We find, from the evidence, that the pauper had a settlement in White Deer by hiring and service.
    The Court then discharged the order for removal.
    The Township of Kelly then took a writ of error, complaining • of the action of the Court in finding that the pauper had a settlement in White Deer by hiring and service.
    
      J. M. Linn, Esq. for plaintiff
    argued that the hiring for a. whole year for wages was necessary; Heidelburg vs. Lynn, 5 Wh. 433, and it must be for a year without interruption ; Winchomb vs. Chipping Norton, 5 Burns, Justice, 422; Burrow Settlement Cases, 461. The burthen of proof was upon Gregg Township and not upon Kelly Township; Moreland vs. Davidson, 71 Penna. 371
    
      Messrs. Dill & Beale, contra.
    
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Quarter Sessions on the 25th May, 1885, in the following opinion i

Per Curiam.

The learned judge below found from the evidence that the pauper had a settlement in White Deer Township. She testifies; “Shortly after my husband died, I went to Mrs. Fanny Stokes to live, White Deer Township. I staid there 6 or 7 weeks and then I went to David Stahl’s to live. They both lived on the same farm in White Deer Township. I staid there about 5 years, made a bargain with him. He was to give me my victuals and clothes for my work. He gave me good clothes.” There was additional proof that she lived at Stahl’s, indeed that fact was not d.emed, but Stahl testified there was no contraet between them, and that he took her in as a matter of charity. The testimony of the pauper, and that of Stahl is not easily reconciled. The Court below credited the former and we cannot say this was error.

Judgment affirmed.