Case ID: njl_2/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Coitkt", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[*] Overseers of the Poor of HOPEWELL tp. in Hunterdon co. against Overseers of the Poor of KINGWOOD tp. in same county.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    Notice to Overseers of Poor, necessary for a settlement in a township.
    An order was made by Luther Opdycke and William Potts, Esquires, two of the justices of the peace for the county of Hunterdon, removing Ruth White and George her son, from the township of Kingwood, to the township of Hopewell. Hopewell appealed to the sessions, who affirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this court, on a case stated. The case states that Ruth White, the pauper, was the daughter of Daniel Hudnot; that Daniel Hudnot served an apprenticeship in the township of Amwell, in the said county of Hunterdon, for the terra of two years after the passing the Poor act of 1758; that he was bound by his mother, his father being dead; that Daniel Hudnot after-wards married and moved into the township of Hopewell, where the pauper Euth was born in 1764; that the said Daniel Hudnot lived at least one whole year at one time, ending in 1764, on a place, to wit, a house and garden in the said township of Hopewell, which he hired for «£6 lawful money, yearly rent, and that he paid the same; that the pauper Euth, married one William White from Boston, who after living with her some time absconded, and hath not been heard of since; that the said pauper Euth moved from Amwell to Kingwood, and while there was delivered of the pauper George, who is a bastard; this was in January, 1805; that the said Euth and her child George, was likely to become chargeable to the township of Kingwood, when they were removed, as before stated, to Hopewell.
    
       It was first objected on the part of Howewell, that the order was defective, having a wrong direction; but [*] the court considered this to be an error in form, and amendable by the 27th section of the Poor act, Pat. 34 especially as the pauper had been received. It was then contended on the same side, that the sessions overruled proper testimony, by refusing to examine a witness to prove that Luther Opdycke, Esquire, one of the removing magistrates, resided in the township of Kingwood, from whence the pauper was removed. But the court said that the act of Assembly, Pat. S3, section xxiii, authorized the proceeding, and that the restraining clause in the xxvi section, Pat, 34
      
       furnished complete evidence of the intention of the Legislature on that subject. After hearing arguments on the merits of the controversy.
    
      
      
         44
      
    
    
      
      
        Rev. 46.
      
    
    
      
      
         46.
      
    
   The Coitkt

said, that the pauper George, the bastard child, by the 4th section of the Poor act, Pat. %8, was set-tied in the place of the last legal settlement- of its mother; that, therefore, the settlement of the pauper Ruth, was the only question to be determined. That Ruth derived her settlement from her father, Daniel Hudnot; that Daniel Hudnot, by serving an apprenticeship in Amwell, gained a settlement there unless notice in such case was necessary under the act of 1758; that as there was not any evidence of his coining into Amwell, no notice was necessary in that case; he did not gain a subsequent settlement in Hopewell, by renting a tenement, because the case states that he moved into Hopewell; and there is no evidence of notice to the overseers of the poor, which the act of 1758 requires in such cases. Therefore, both orders must be quashed.

Mr. Leake, and Mr. Ewing, for Hopewell.

Mr. Maxwell, for Kingwood.

Appkoved, Vernon Township v. Wantage Township, 1 Penn, 311.