Case Name: Overseers of READINGTON against Overseers of TEWKSBURY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1807-09
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 289
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] Overseers of READINGTON against Overseers of TEWKSBURY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 270–272

Head Matter:
[*] Overseers of READINGTON against Overseers of TEWKSBURY.
ON CERTIORARI TO HUNTERDON SESSIONS.
The birthplace of a legitimate child is prima facie his place of settlement, and so remains till another is found. A pauper to gain a new settlement, must give notice to the overseers.i
Two justices had made an order for the removal of Thomas Aumock, his wife and children, from the township of Tewksbury, to the township of Readington, both in the county of Hunterdon. This order had been appealed from to the sessions of Hunterdon, and the order affirmed by the sessions. On this, the cause was removed by certiorari to this court, and a state of [210] the case came up from the sessions, stating in substance the following facts: That the pauper, Thomas Aumock, was born in Reading-ton, in the year 1753, and lived there with his father until he was two years of age, when ho removed with his father into Tewksbury, where he lived until he listed in the American army in 1776; that he served in the army until the peace in 1783, when he returned to his father, and lived with him a short time, but soon after married, and had gained no settlement for himself anywhere; that while living with his father, before he was of age, he served one Sandy, six months at a time, in two different years, at the milling business; that there was an article of agreement signed by the pauper, his father, and Sandy, but no seal to-it, and the pauper denied, on his examination, that he was ever bound an apprentice; that Sandy lived in Readington, but the pauper went on Sunday afternoons to his father’s in Tewksbury, and returned Monday mornings; that the pauper’s father, after his removal to Tewksbury, and while residing there, for several years rented a tenement of the yearly value of £15.

Opinion:
Pennington, J.
— The pauper, Thomas Aumock, was-born in Readington. The place of the birth of a legitimate child is prima faoie the place of his settlement, and remains so until another is found. The pauper does not appear to have gained a settlement of himself anywhere, the apprenticeship not being made out. [*] But if the settlement of the father of the pauper can be made out, then you may resort to that, notwithstanding the settlement by birth of the pauper elsewhere. This is attempted to be made out by the removal of the father from Readington to Tewksbury, and renting a tenement there. It hath been adjudged by this court, that in such case, notice to the overseers of the poor, as required by the act of 1758, is necessary. No such notice having been proved, I am of opinion that the legal place of residence of the pauper and his wife and children removed, is in Readington; and, therefore, that the order of removal by the justices, and the affirmance of that order by the sessions, must be affirmed.
Kirkpatrick, C. J., and Rossele, J. — Concurred.
Both orders affirmed.
Cited in Overseers of Shrewsbury v. Overseers of Holmdel, 13 Vr. 374.