Case Name: Stillwater vs. Green
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1827-05
Citations: 9 N.J.L. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Stillwater vs. Green. [*59
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 75–82

Head Matter:
* Stillwater vs. Green. [*59
1. A healthy person coming from Europe to a sister State, and from thence into this State, does not gain a residence m the township in winch he shall first settle and reside for one year.
2. For such person to gain a settlement under the act of 1774, “for the settlement and relief of the poor,” he must come directly from Europe into1 this State.
3. Though a township may have for a number of years maintained a person as a pauper, it will not thereby be estopped from denying his legal settlement to be in said township.
4. If a pauper has obtained no legal settlement by residence or otherwise! he must be maintained by the township where he becomes chargeable.
This was a certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Sussex,, to bring up the order of the sessions made on an appeal from the order of two justices, removing John Whims and .Mary his wife, and their three children, from the township •of Stillwater to the township of Green, in the county of •Sussex. The following' state of the case was agreed, upon ■by the attorneys of the parties :
This cause came on to be heard before the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, of the county of Sussex, at the term of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five. The appellees in sup-*60] port of the order *called and examined John Whims, who upon his oath said : That he was a native of Ireland ; that he landed in the year 1811 or thereabouts, on Staten Island, from thence he went into New York, and remained there about four days; from thence hé went to Newburgh, and was there about two hours; thence to Goshen, and was there about six weeks; thence he came into Hardwick township, in the county of Sussex, and lived with David Gustin ■one month and a half; then lived with John Boyd, in said township, about seven months; then went to Thomas Hunt’s, .and was there about, three months ; then returned to Boyd’s, .and was there about two months; then at Thomas Hunt’s about two months; then at Thomas and Samuel Dildine’s .about one month ; then at Joseph Green’s less than a .month; thence again to Thomas Hunt’s about three month’s ; thence again to John Boyd’s about three months; thence to Imlay Hoy’s, and was there about one month; thence to .Nathaniel Reed’s, and was there about three months; then married one Mary Bolin; thence to Joseph Plunt’s, near the stage road, and rented there for five months ; from there went to the house oí Ralph Hunt, near the grist mill and fulling mill, and was there about three months; thence to to the house of Richard Hunt, near said mill, and there rented said house, and lived one full year, and paid his rent .and tax. Witness further said, that he worked about as a weaver, and had no home pxcept at the places he worked ; that some of the places above mentioned are in that part of .the old .township of Hardwick, which is now the township of Green; others in what is now the township of Stillwater; that until he married and rented as above stated, he did not remain a full year, at any one time, in what is now the present town of Green, or the present town of Stillwater; that the place he rented and lived in for a full year as above mentioned is in the township of Green. Witness further testified, that when the township of Hardwick was divided, in the fall of 1824, he was living under the care of one of the overseers of the poor of the said town of Hardwick, having been farmed out as a pauper of said township; and that the place where he was at the time, fell in what is now the township of Stillwater.
It was admitted and agreed that the said John Whims was a healthy person until ten or twelve years ago; that after he rented the tenement and lived on it for one year as aforesaid and was married, he had the misfortune to lose his sight; and has *since been received and taken care [*61 of by the township of Hardwick, as one of their paupers. It was also admitted and agreed that the said pauper had a wife, now living, named Mary, and three children, who at the time of making out the order of removal, were severally of the age and names mentioned in said order.
Wm. T. Anderson, Att’y for the Township of Green.
P. D. Vroom, Jr., for Stillwater.
Halsey, for the township of Green contended,
1. The pauper did not come directly from Europe into-New Jersey, but into New York. To give him a settlement here ho should have landed in this state ; if not, come directly here after lauding.
2. If any settlement wras gained by the pauper by a year’s residence, it was in Hardwick, in the then county of Sussez; and the pauper had been for several years a pauper chargeable upon that town, and was living under the care of one of the overseers of the poor of Hardwick, and had been farmed out as a pauper and the place where was ia what is now the township of Stillwater.
3. By the act dividing the county of Sussex, no provision is made for the division of the poor between the .two counties ; nor in the act dividing or creating new townships.
4. Provision is made in the twelfth section of the act regulating the boundaries and incorporating the townships, passed December 27th, 1824, for the division of the money on hand in the old county, between the old and new; but the new towns not being organized could get no share, no provision being made for them.
5. As the pauper in question was not a resident in Green, ©or had become chargeable to Stillwater after the division, but was a pauper of Hardwick, on the town, and maintained by that town, and was with a farmer of the poor, or at board in Stillwater, the person having him in care should have returned him to Hardwick, and left that township to have removed him. Stillwater should not have removed him to •Green, but have left the controversy to be settled, if any should arise, between Green and Hardwick.
Vroom, on the part of Stillwater, contended.
1. The pauper had long been received and acknowledged :as a pauper by the township of Hardwick, before the division of the county of Sussex : — That township, by the act dividing the county of Sussex is divided into three parts, Hardwick, *62] which is now *in Warren and Green and Stillwater, which are now in Sussex. It is therefore contended that neither of these three towns can at this time dispute the settlement as heretofore acknowledged by all of them when united in one township.
2. The fact that the pauper, at the time of the division, happened to be living under the direction of the overseers ■of Hardwick, in that part of the township of Hardwick which is now Stillwater, can have no effect in relation to the settlement. The statute is silent on the subject, and there is no principle of law to warrant such a conclusion.
3. By the division of the old township the three townships acquired equal rights, and are subject to equal obliga •Lions. It is certainly untenable that the present township of Hardwick should be burdened with all the poor simply because she retains the old name. In apportioning the obligations of these townships in relation to the poor, we must enquire in wliat part of the territory the pauper first became chargeable or gained a settlement. The case of Washington v. Stanford, 3 Johns. Rep, 193, bears some analogy.
By the case it appears that the settlement, acknowledged by the old township to be a valid settlement, was first gained in that part of the township which is now Ghreen.
And therefore it is contended that the order is correct.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
In the division of the county of Sussex, and the erection of the new county of Warren, the township of Hardwick was divided into three parts, one of which, retaining the ancient name, is in the county of Warren, the other two parts remain in the county of Sussex, and are called Green and Stillwater. In the acts passed for these purposes no provision was made relative to the maintenance or .settlement or division of tho poor. John Whims, one of the paupers now in question, was born in Ireland and emigrated to this country in the year 1811. He landed on .Staten Island, went thence to the city of Hew York, where lie remained four days; to Newburgh, and was there about two hours; to Goshen, where ho staid about six weeks; and thence went into the township of Hardwick, in .the county of Sussex. At different places in that township, some in the part now Green, others in what is now Still-water, sometimes during several months, sometimes more and at others less than a month, but in no instance a *full year, he lived for about three years. Having [*63 married a woman whose maiden settlement does not appear, he then rented a house and lived in it a full year and paid his rent and tax, in what is now called the township of' Green. Where he resided when he became chargeable does not appear. Having become blind and unable to maintain, himself and family, he was received by the overseers of the poor of Hardwick and supported by them as a pauper. At' the time of the division of Hardwick, in the year 1824, he was living in that part of the township called Stillwater, having been, as it is called, farmed out there, by the overseers of Hardwick. From Stillwater he was sent by an order of removal to Green. On appeal to the sessions the order of removal was quashed.
The first subject of enquiry is, whether by the year's residence the pauper obtained a settlement. Under the act of 1774 an healthy person coming directly from Europe into this state shall be legally settled in the township in which he shall first settle and reside for one year. The pauper, however, did not come into this state directly from Europe. He came here directly from the state of Hew York, and nearly two months after he landed. It would be a perversion of language and a denial of any signification or force to the word directly, to say the case is within that term of settlement. In Chatham v. Middlefield, 19 John. 56, the Supreme Court of Hew York, on the construction of their act, substantially similar to our own, said, " The coming directly from some foreign port or place into this state "' means coming from some port or place out of the United States, without passing through either of the sister states-into this state.
Ho actual settlement was acquired, then, by the pauper, in the old township of Hardwick.
But. it is said, the township and every part of it have admitted the pauper to have been settled by his residence in the part now called Green, having received and for a number of years provided for him as a pauper; in other words, that by these acts they are estopped from denying the legality and validity of his settlement. These facts are,. however, entirely too equivocal to produce such effect. It may be that the overseers supposed the residence gave him a settlement; but it is more probable that they maintained him, as they were bound to do, because they could find no place * whither they could legally send him. A fulfil- [*64 mont of their duty in this way ought never to conclude them on a question of settlement. Rex v. Chadderton, 2 East, 28; Rex v. Chatham, 8 East, 498.
By what rule then is the township to be charged with the maintenance of the pauper and his family now to bo ascertained ? From the principles adopted in -relation to the sustenance of the poor, and from analogy to the well settled rules of settlement cases, it is clear that he ought to be maintained by the new township in which he resided when he became chargeable. Whether this bo Green or Still-water, as 1" have already observed, does not appear. If Green, the fact of his being farmed out in Stillwater at the division can produce no difference. He was then in the hands of the overseers, who might keep him where they found most convenient, anu under such circumstances the liability to his support would not undergo a change.
W e were referred by the counsel of one of the parties to the case of Washington v. Stanford, 3 John. 193. It is not, however, in point; nor are the essential facts like those before us; but the reasoning adopted and the principles laid down by the court sustain the rule we have stated. There the pauper was actually settled by birth in the township before the division; and the court held him to belong to the part of the township in which he was born, and not to the other part in which he resided at the time of the division; but'one of the judges said, "The provisions of the general law for the maintenance and relief of the poor attach on the new township the moment it is erected." Another said, " They " [the two new townships] " stood in the same situation in respect to each other as any other towns in the state, and as though they had always been dis tinct towns." On such principles the part where the pauper became chargeable would doubtless be obliged to maintain him until his necessities ceased or they could find a legal settlement elsewhere.
We are of opinion therefore, the paupers now in question are to be supported by the township in which they originally became chargeable. If the counsel know or can agree on that fact, judgment ought to be given accordingly. If not, the case should be sent back to the sessions in order that-the fact may be stated.