Case Name: Ex parte, Henry Dow, one of the Overseers of the Poor, of the town of Buffalo, in the county of Erie
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-08
Citations: 1 Cow. 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte, Henry Dow, one of the Overseers of the Poor, of the town of Buffalo, in the county of Erie.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
Ex parte, Henry Dow, one of the Overseers of the Poor, of the town of Buffalo, in the county of Erie.
supervisors in eXpenseB 0f supporting a transient pauper> as a coun. p.eT^ous^dju^ dication of two tbe^uestionof settlement, Js The usual order of a single justice is enqugh.
S. Beardsley, moved for a mandamus to the Supervisors of Erie, commanding them to audit and allow Mr. Dozo’s account and disbursements, for medical attendance; upon Ellis and Davis, two paupers, haying no residence in this -it , c state. 1 hese expenses were incurred under an order ot a single Justice, made pursuant to the 25th section of the act for the relief and settlement of the poor, (1 R. L. 287-8.) And the objection was, that no previous adjudication by two justices had been made, that the paupers were not settled in this state. The order of the Justice recited the matters, required by the act, to entitle the transient pauper to the relief which it directed.
Talcott, (Attorney General) opposed the motion.

Opinion:
Curia.
In this case, the Overseer was applied to for relief, by certain paupers, not belonging to, nor settled in any town of this state. He, together with the Justice, makes the inquiry directed by the act. and an order is made, under which the expenses here sought to be reimbursed, were'incurred, and have been paid. The ground taken by the Supervisors, was, that there should have been a previous adjudication of two Justices, upon the question of settlement. This was not necessary. The statute commits this matter to a single Justice and Overseer. The Court will go so far as to intend that all the requisite steps, preliminary to the order, were taken. Here they are recited. The question raised by the board is substantially decided in Adams v. The Supervisors of Columbia, (8 John. Rep. 323.)
Motion granted..