Case Name: The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Newburgh against the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Plattekill
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1806-05
Citations: 1 Johns. 330
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Newburgh against the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Plattekill.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 330–333

Head Matter:
The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Newburgh against the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Plattekill.
An onfo-for the pauper;1 quashed by the cause there was no evidence; nor any adjudication that the pauper had a settlement in, or last came from, the town to which he svas ordered to be removed. On appeal the order of the sessions was affirmed. The sessions may allow costs on appeals to them in such cases.
BY the return to the certiorari in this cause, directed to t^le general sessions of the .peace for the county of Orange, it appeared, that an order had been made by two justices of the town of Newburgh, for the removal of one Thomas Hart, a pauper, from that place to the town of Piattekill; and that an appeal had been made from this order to the court of general sessions of the peace, by whom it was quashed, with costs.
„ A few days before the order of removal was made, the pauper came to Newburgh and staid a day or two, when he was sent by one of the overseers of Newburgh to Shawungunk, from whence he was immediately sent back by a pass warrant from two justices of that town, to Newburgh. He was then removed, by the order now in question, to Piattekill. About seven years before, he had resided at that town with his family. He left that place afterwards, and it did not appear, that he had any permanent residence any where. The order of removal recited, that the pauper had no legal settlement at Newburgh, and had produced no certificate of a settlement elsewhere, and that he was likely to become chargeable, &c. that the pauper being deranged in his mind, the justices, on the oaths of witnesses, and due proof made to them, adjudge the above facts to be true, and that the last place of residence of the pauper was at Piattekill ; but they are unable to learn the place of his last legal settlement, &c.
Fisk, for the plaintiffs in error.
1. This is not such an order that an appeal will lie from, it to the sessions. It is a mere pass warrant, to send the pauper from town to town. Where a pauper is a mere vagrant or transient person, without any place of legal settlement, he is taken and sent from town to town, by such an order, but no appeal will lie upon it.
2. The quarter sessions awarded costs. The act allows costs, only in cases, where an appeal is made concerning the settlement of a pauper. Plattekill was the place of Ms last residence, not of his settlement.
Riggs and Ross, for the defendants.
By the 7th section of the act, any stranger, on just suspicion of being likely to become chargeable, may be removed. If his last place of legal settlement can be discovered, he is to be sent there, otherwise, to the place he last came from. In the first case an express adjudication of the fact is required, and the order directs him to be delivered to the overseers of the town where the pauper had his last place of settlement, who are bound to receive such pauper under a penalty. In the other cases, the warrant is to deliver the person to the constable of the next town.
Th order states that the pauper came last from Plattekill. The fact is that he had been sent back from Shawungunk, and the overseers of Newburgh sent him again to Plattekill. The order was, therefore, irregular. Now, if an appeal will not lie, in such a case, to set the matter right, a pauper may be sent backwards and forwards, like a shuttlecock, without end. By the 17th section of the act, an appeal lies, in every case, where the party thinks himself aggrieved. There is no distinction of cases, the words are general. Where the expressions are so general and explicit, it is useless to refer to British adjudications in the acts. Pass-orders there stand on a different ground, from what they do in this country ; but even in England an appeal lies from such orders. The present order of removal is not in the form of an order for transportation; it is directed to the overseers of Plattekill, who were bound to receive the pauper under a penalty; and if the judgment of the sessions is reversed, plattekill will he without a remedy. If the overseers of New- . r burgh were unaole to xinu out the pauper s last place ox settlement, or to pursue the directions of the act, they ought to have kept him, and not have proceeded in this irregular manner.
Costs may be given in evexy case where an appeal lies. Evex-y order of removal whatevei", of a pauper, and every appeal, must relate to, and concern the settlement of such pauper. This is the fair construction of this Section of the act, and the only one that can give it its proper effect, and make it harmonize with the other parts of the statute., , -.
Jones, in reply.
This was a mere vagrant pass, on which no appeal will lie ; the proceedings of -the sessions were, therefore, coram non judice. The warrant or pass contains nothing on which any adjudication can be made, nor any ground on which to appeal. There is no adjudication of a settlement; the mentioning the town where the pauper last resided, amounts to no more than saying he came last from that town. The overseers of Plattekill, therefore, should have sent him to the next town, in the manner prescribed by the act, in regal’d to those who have no place of legal settlement. The pass or order, it is true, directs the overseers of Plattekill to i-eceive the pauper, but the act says it may be directed to the constable of the next town, or otherwise.
In the case of the Overseers of Shcmmngunk against the' Overseers of Mamakating, decided at the last term, the court did not consider any particular foi-m necessary in these orders. At any rate, the informality Was not sufficient ground for quashing this ordex-, especially, when it is fairly to be inferred from the facts, that Plattekill was the pauper’s last place of residence.
2, It is evident from the cases which have been cited, that a vagrant pass has no relation to a settlement; and is, therefore, not within the pi’ovision of that part of the act which authorises the sessions to award costs.
Burrows' settlement cases, 840. 2 Botts. poor laws, 664, Rex v. Ringwood.
Laws of N. Y. vol. 1, p. 573, sect. 20.
Page 576.
King v. Gravesend, Comyns 97.
2 Botts. 664, 658.
Ante, 54.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order was pi-operly quashed by the sessions, for there was no evidence, nor any adjudication that the pauper had a legal settlement at, or came last from PlattekiU. By a liberal construction of the 20th section of the act, the sessions are authorised to allow costs in such cases. The order of the sessions must be affirmed, and the appellants must pay the costs of this appeal.
Order of the sessions affirmed with costs.