Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-16

thereof to the opposite party, he ma!
amply to a single Justice of the court
but not to the law court, to appoint {
commissioner to take the dispositions o.
| witnesses. And then, after the deposf
tions are taken and filed, but not be-
| fore. he may enter the case in the law
court. The law court will then consid
er the evidence, and if the truth of the
exceptions he established, they will b.
heard and Judgment rendered Thereon
as if originally allowed.
In this case it does not appear this
rule has been complied with. No com.
missioner has been appointed, and this
court has no authority to appoint one
No dispositions have been taken. There
is no evidence before us. The plain
tiff should not lave presented his mo-
ton directly to the law court, and the
law court should not have received It
The law court has nothing to do with
1t petition to establish exceptions until
it comes up as provided in the last par.
agraph of Rule 43.
Motion dismissed from the docket.
Knox County Inhabitants of Thorn
aston, VS.. Inhabitants Of Greenbush.
Rescript, Cornish, J.
Assumpsit for pauper supplies fur
nished three minor children of one AL
den B. Partridge. From the agreed
statement of facts it appears that Par
fridge having pauper settlement in
Greenbush moved with his wife and
children to Thomaston and was living
there with his family in 1899, when not
having acquired a pauper settlement in
Thomaston. he abandoned his family
and went to Massachusetts where he
has since resided. His wife obtained a
divorce from him. on March 20, 1910,
and the care and custody of all the
children including the three involved
here, were decreed to her and they
have ever since remained in her GUS
toby and control. Shortly after this,
Partridge married again in Massachu-
sets ard has resided and kept house
there with his new family ever since.
His divorced wife was also married on
May Is. 1901, to one George A. Stone
whose pauper settlement was then and
continued to be in Friendship until his
death November l., 1905. The town of
Thomacton furnished pauper supplies
to Mrs. Partridge and the children be-
ginning soon after the father left them
in 1899 and continuing to the date of
this suit. Friendship paid for those
furnished the mother after she became
Mrs. Stone. and Freenbush for those
furnished the children up to March 81,
1866, when they declined to pay longer,
claiming that they were released by the
provisions of r. S. Oh. q, Secs. and 4,
&l,o N%ot ~, tv,v.t.
Thomaston after that date. The
State did rcimburst Thomaston I'M
til the fall of 1908, when it
refused 10 make further payment
claiming that the children had been
emancirated and that the statute re-
ferred to was irapplicable.
Held:
]. That when Partridge abandoned
his family in 1929 his pauper settlement
then being in Greenbush, these minor
children had the same settlement under
r. s. CT. q, Sec. 1, Par. 1.
9 That the legal effect of the faith
er'H conduct was an emancipation Of
the children in 1899, and the tie that
had previously bound parent and chill
drcn together, so far as pauper settle
ment was concerned, was then irretrle.
vatly severed.
3. That being emancipated these
minors took at the time of emancipa-
ton the settlement which their father
then had. which was in Greenbush, and
this settlement continues until they
gain new one for themselves.
4. That they cannot gain a new set
Element during minority, because UNI
der r. S. Oh. q, Sec. /, Par. s, it IS
only a "person of age who can acquire
such settlement by having his home in
a town for five successive years.
5. That the marriage of the mother
in 1901, to Stone, whose settlement was
in Friendship transferred her settle,
ment to that town but had no eff
feet upon the settlement Of the chill
drcn.
6. That the settlement of the minors
in Greenhush is not affected by the Sta
tute of 1893, P. L. 269, now embodied in
r. S. Oh. q, Secs. 3 and 4, which pro-
vide that whenever person having a
pauper settlement in any town in the
State shall after April 20, 1893, live for
five consecutive years beyond the limits
from any source within the State, he
and those who derive their settlement
from him lose their settlement in such
town."
This statute means that those who al
the time the father loses his settlement
| arc still so bound to him as to have
derivatiTe settlement from him. los
| theirs also. 1t does not cover all thos'
who in the past have derived settle
ment from him. If the tie of settle
ment still exists, his loss is theirs also
| But if that tie has been severed as il
the case at bar. his loss in no way af
| fects their settlement. After enamel
patton the father and these minor
pursued independent courses and TIL
expiration of his five years residence il
another state did not reunite the ii
formerly severed. He lost his settle
ment in this State, but theirs still re