The Ottawa free trader., 1851-07-12

ira-Aggsei case from In S.ls COua,H.-The
town Of South Ottawa sued The board Of super
vsors Of this county, for money advanced by
the towr for the support Of pauper-tlc
board having refused TO pay the charges, and
having passed a resolution that each town should
support its own p1upcrs. The oircu., cour. gave
Judgment ior the town, and the par,e, agreed
to bring the case up for tie decision Of the su
rcms court for the purpose Of settling lie
question as 20 where the liability To- support
paupers rested under the township organization
law Of lsio The case vas argued by + s..
Leland for The board Of supervisors. and by w
F H. l.. Wallace for the town. We publish The
opinion Of the court in the case delivered by
Justice TrambulI;
This case presents The question whether tie
board "t sapcn i,0rs Of such counties rs have
adopted the township organization, are required
to support the paupers Of tie county, or whether
each town Is required to support is own pau
perS.
At the time the county Of La Sa,lc adopted
the township organization, aud at TIN, time IN al,
counties where 1t has not been adopted, the poor
are a county charge, and for the support Of
which the county commissioners court is required
in H., ,r, nroyi,ln., f,r \ torn.,r cr,,"i,,,iog
'nbi.b ctorl,os ,b. L,r.jcn 81 rr.,,;l,,r f,, ,b
,,,r fr,,n the county IN tho town il v.onlJ .,c,,
,lat ,b. county ,orII .tiII he re',nircd ~ ,,ote
,i,nt ,,rC,i.;o,,
Tlr, tl,,,, p, ,,r,,il, f,r ,,,,,
,,. ,r,,,,'i,,i;Ir m ,j;.o,, ,,;,,, ,,
king 1t the duty of each town to provide for it.
own pauucr- is admitted. but ii Is said that
such a duty is infeuabe from various provisions
Of that act If this were SO, it would be a suiii.
.l'nl a"'"yr 70 an soth 'n;',eh'es 20 say 'nA'
towns ors o the mean, , to .pnnort bs,r no"r
But the legislature have not lcft this question
doubtful or uncertain. intha 18th section Of the
roy" article o' 'ne ACT 10 P,''iuo i'r ,o"ns,I,P
it Is expressly declared whose Juty it shall be IT,
provide for the poor. That section is as follows
It shall be the dn.y Of the board Of suPervi'
ns @ 90 g E,Iy i Cna'sg ~, ,g r '.n' ,"s .i'Sg'
tig. ,bat !. Given to III. county c1mmi.,i,rrTs
court; and the ovcrseers of the poor Of the sey.
eral town: shall b! accountable to, and their
So ,i''..on i si'1' Og "T.,'gu oy S' 00"'' o'
Iii, Difficult to conceive how the legislature
could more clearly have expressed ,he.r intention,
ihat the board Of supervisor. should take charge
Tt' PG' .. ,''s "a fs',sJ ". we v'.'.'! ,,..
ton between count raupcrs and town panprr,
Such distinction had never at that time been
RECOGNIZED as existing in Tbs state AMI the PLAIN
w., 'o',n ,'''''',' W. ' ., ,,' a.. we ' ".
the county. The igd,ment Of the circui, eour,
is affirmed
Dmiap vs. S,ah and others anigneea Of State
Ba"k.-Error TO .Sangamoa-This cause was
argued at the fr,t Of the term by :. \. Douglas
and 5. T. Logan for the plaintiff in error, and 10y
A. Lincoln for defendant in error, julgmcn,
reversed and cause rcmandei Opinion by JUS
;icc TrumbuII
Smith ct al. IS. Harris ct al-ArPra' from
10 Dariew-Arguedby Blackwell forappclianls
and by Higgins and Leland for appe'Iees juis-
ment affirmed, Opinion by Justice Cation.
F1rnusar,E e, aI ys Ctrt,ley. adu'r Do Er.
.,r >, h D,...., r,.,,.,...,l ,.,......,r
~ P'''''' ~
'oI' "no h'ES''s 'or defendant III error decree
affirmed Opinion by Justice Cation.
Pierce ", Cqrlsiyn ct als--Ipoea, yy,,a i,
B,,;,,, .I,,i g.. ar,.l,n. ur,..,,..I,, 49,.
-
Pe"eeS' judgment "tlTmed. OPINION by Chief
Justice Treat
Walker ct al. vs.. Eli,--tpp,rl from pso,.a
,r...;,,,,, c..,r,.,,l,,u.. T..I--,,.I =. -..,,
'"'''" ,'' "FFe''""'S' ''''' "'' ! '"''' 'o'
appellee; Judgment aiilTmei' Opinion BY jus
tice Cation.
Smith vs., Dp,ari--E Error Z, pamap, Lelard
.,.;..;r =, -.
''' P'''I''" u" '''''' W. "'''''''''' I"'s
ment aihrmed' opinIon by justice Cat"m
Lore vs. Irccmdn--dgpcdl from Stark --Pur-
nj, far anrcll,nt Peter. for annellee ip1,uent
rg, o...;,. :. ct;-. r.I,.,, r.
ami Of""'' - o'''e' '@'''' ''e"'
" fidtG ". frGHctS--l Yp'Ut from UtNNebd-
go--Bunap fur appellant, Miller and Miller for
appellee; submitted on written arguments, iudg
ment affirmed. Opinion By Chief Justice Treat.
-,1'''''''" w. ,''.'J 1-''O 80 ~ ',''.''-
~ w p''''''''' ~ anu H. - ''e'''''''
~; IvVli', h, TL;. w. s,iu 0P"'
asero for anpcllant' Glover and Cook for npnel.
lee; Judgment reversed, Opinion by Justice
lrumou!I,