Case Name: The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne against The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1819-05
Citations: 16 Johns. 188
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne against The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne against The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich.
Where a ,person is elected Constable of a town, and enters upon the duties of his office, but before the expiration. of the year, removes from the town, and does not afterwards act as a constable, except occasionally coming to the town to collecthis fees, and settle his old accounts, but no constable is appointed in his place for the remainder of the year, this is not such an execution of a public annual office, during one whole ¡year, as to gain him a settlement in the town of which he was constable, within the act for the relief and settlement of the poor. Sess. 36. c. 78. s. 2. (i 2V. R. L. 279.)
IN ERROR, on certiorari to the Court of General Sessions of the Peace of the county of Chenango*
The paupers, George G. King and his wife and children, were removed from the town of Norwich to the town of Sherburne, by the order of two justices; and on an appeal from this order by the overseers of Sherburne, it was affirmed by the Court of Sessions.
The pauper, King, had previously acquired a settlement in the town of Bloomfield, in the county of 'Ontario, by the purchase of a freehold estate. In the winter of 1816, he. removed to Sherburne ; and in March following, was duly elected a constable of that town, took the,oath of office, and resided and acted as constable there, until the 18th of December^ in the same year, when he, was imprisoned in the gaol of the county, at Norwich, for thirty days, on an execution issuing out of a Justice’s Court. On the 18th of January, 1817, the day after his release from gaol, he removed his family to Norwich, where they resided about six months, until they were removed back to Sherburne, by virtue of the order now in question. After the pauper came to reside at Norwich, he did no act as constable of Sherburne, except that he occasionally went to Sherburne to collect his fees, and to settle his old accounts as constable; and, in one instance, he procured an old execution to be renewed, and demanded his fees upon it. No other constable was appointed or elected in his place, for the remainder of the ycar? after he removed from Sherburne*

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question is, whether the pauper had, within the spirit and meaning of the statute, executed any public annual office or charge, in the town of Sherburne^ during one whole year. (Act for the relief and settlement of the poor, sess. 36, c, 78* s. 2 1 NR, h. 279.)
Under the circumstances of this case, we are of opinion, that in the true sense of the statute, King cannot be considered as executing the office of constable in the town of Sherburne, after he removed his family, and went to reside in Norwich. The year was, therefore, not complete, and his last legal settlement was in Bloomfield.
Order quashed.