Case Name: TOWN OF IRA against TOWN OF CLARENDON
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1820
Citations: 1 Brayt. 180
Docket Number: No. 5
Parties: TOWN OF IRA against TOWN OF CLARENDON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Brayton
Volume: 1
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
No. 5.
TOWN OF IRA against TOWN OF CLARENDON.
Rutland,
1820.
WHERE a person came to reside in the town of I, and was legally warned to depaFt said town,'and afterwards did depart Said town, ahd reside in ‘the town' of C, and ther¿ gained a settlement; and,' afterwards returned to the town of I, and there resided one year, without being warned. Held, that the warning aforesaid, prevented the person warned, from gaining a settlement by the second residence.
THIS" wás á writ of error, brought.to reverse the Judgment of Rutland County Court. ' ’ ’
The case was, an order of removal of two paupers, made in favor of the town of fra, upon the town of Clarendon.
On the trial, in the County Court, the town of Ira offered the record of the warning of one of the paupers, in June, 1804s and of both, in Febfnary, 1808. '
These were objected to, inásmuch as it appeared, from the evidence, fhat the paupers had subsequently departed from said towf», and gained á seltlémérit in Claíéndón ; and, after having gained a settlement in Clarendon, had removed to Irá, and there resided a year, without being warned ; and, therefore, the testimony was immaterial and irrelevant. ’ .
The Court rejected the testimony, and a verdict'ivas returned for Clarendon.
Ira filed their ’bill of exceptions, .and brought this writ of error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The question is, whether a warning, agreeably to the Statute, l 'vol. p. 400, prevents the person warned, b'om gaining a settlement, by the residence immediately following the warning only; or whether the effects of the warning extend to all subsequent, though distinct periods of residence.
The Court consider there is a material difference between the EnglisffStatute. and ours, on this subject. The English Statute merely giyes a settlement, by residence one year, without being warned, but does not express the effect of such warning.
Our Legislature has undertaken, expressly tó dclare the effect of the warning, and must be presumed to have expressed their intentions explicitly, and to intend something more, than would be inferred from mere silence. They intended to make a difference between our Statute and the English.
The 2d section of the Act, does not limit the effect of the warning to the present residence of the person warned, but expressly declares, that the person warned "shall not be deemed and adjudged to have gained a legal settlement in such town, unless such person or persons is or are discharged from such warning, by a vote of such town" &c.
This section was wholly unnecessary, for the purpose of preventing a settlement, under the residence, immediately following the warning ; it must have been intended to vary our Statute from the English so as to extend the effect of the warning to all subsequent, though distinct periods of residence. ^
Judgment — There is error; that the Judgment of the County CJourt be reversed ; and,
Judgment — That the pauper was duly removed — Chief Justice Chace dissenting.