The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1904-03-24
.-cRTANT DECISION IN PAUPER
CASE.

-on Wadlin, Esq, Clerk of Courts.
aiyed from the Law Court the
Ute of opinion i'll the case, In
tutS of Knox VS.. Inhabitants of
lie, which was tried at the Sep
term, 1903, of the Supreme
Al Court in Belfast. with verdict
'.e plaintiff for S321.15, the full
4t sued for. The decision is i'm
If in its bearing on the admissible
lony N pauper cases. The follow
script, by Judge Peabody, gives
.tract OF the history of the case
i the decision on the points in
t.j.
action was brought to recover
auper supplies furnished by the
tiff town to one James A. Bailey,
It is claimed, had acquired a pau
settlement i'll the defendant town
- verdict was for the plaintiff, and
-ase came to the law court Oh ex-
DIS of the defendant to the ruling
presiding justice excluding ques-
asked by the defendants counsel
ss-eXamination of a witness call
the plaintiff, as to declarations of
pauper, made While boarding in the
ldant town. Also to the ruling of
p ustice limiting the testimony of
esses to the declarations of the
.r-r accompanying the act of coming
+ going from the defendant town,
the knowledge of the witnesses of
pauper'S purpose for declaration
lie came there, as a part of the
controversy is simply whether
F4uper had abandoned his home in
-nl and Intentionally begun to re-
IN Montyille III October, 1879, at
late he came there from Bangor
lie had stored his goods, and
ed until the spring of 1881, when
loved his household goods from
or and commenced keeping house,
continued to reside i'll Montvilie
the fall of 1885. If the home of
auper III the defendant town COM
I'd in the spring of 1881 and ended
fall of 1885, the period would be
IAN five years.
declarations to which the eX-
I'd questions related were made
The pauper was boarding in that
disconnected with any acts which
III themselves be evidence. The
Of Barring VS.. Calais, IL Me-, 463, is
ned as authority supporting the adj
sbility of such declarations. That
simply decided in general that the
arations of the pauper are compe-
evidence of his intention, and that
5 not essential that the declarant
olld be dead or that his declarations
vlid be against his interest, but only
al they should be made under such
instances as to be parts of the res
StAe, The true principal upon which
rh evidence is admissible is that the
atement testified to is verbal act
Istrating, explaining, or interpreting
heT parts of the transaction; that the
.lration is contemporaneouS with
f principal fact, and so far explains
haracterizes it as to be in just
use d part of it and essential to the
iplete understanding of it.
he nome which person must have
town for five successive years to
are pauper settlement therein, is
valent to domicil, which depends
q residence and intention. This in
non can only be shown by his acts
words, and the mere expression of
l~.t disconnected with any relevant
instances would be too remote to
4dnlssible in evidence.
he pauper's intention is a question
Tact to which he could himself tes-
His declarations could be received
rydence, but only if accompanying
which they explain, so as to be re-
hied as part of acts from which his
lrntion may be inferred.
The rule of limitation and the admis-
.4 of the declarations adopted by the
siding justice is based upon the dis
.ttlon between original and hearsay
ldence.
EXCEPTIONS Overruled.
4 +. johnson of Waterville for plain
II. F. Dunton of Belfast for de-
udant