Case Name: Inhabitants of Fairfield vs. Inhabitants of Oldtown
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1882-06-02
Citations: 73 Me. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: Inhabitants of Fairfield vs. Inhabitants of Oldtown.
Judges: Walton, Danforth, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred. Virgin, J. did not concur.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 573–580

Head Matter:
Inhabitants of Fairfield vs. Inhabitants of Oldtown.
Somerset.
Opinion June 2, 1882.'
Evidence. Pauper settlement.
The presumption is in-favor of a ruling, and it is necessary in order to sustain exceptions to the admission of evidence, that the excepting party should make it appear that there was nothing in the case as presented at nisi prius which would justify the admission.
In assumpsit for pauper supplies where the defendant denied the settlement, the following letter from one of the overseers of the defendant town to one of the overseers of the plaintiff town, dated February 25,1877, was admitted in evidence against the objections of the defendant. “I received yonr bill of supplies for the G-onyea family. I think it is a little large. When I was at your place the second day of January, you had furnished about twenty dollars to the whole family of nine, five of them belong to us and four to you; that would be twelve dollars and fifty cents for us. Now eight weeks and two days since at two dollars per week, would be about sixteen dollars and seventy cents, which would make twenty-nine dollars and twenty cents; that is the way I make it. There is one boy that we do not take. Please answer if I am not right.” The letter was not a reply to a notice and did not relate to any of the supplies embraced in the suit. Held, that as the exceptions did not show but that there were phases of the case which would justify the admission the presumption of the correctness of the ruling was not overcome. Appleton, C. J., and Peters, J., dissenting.
On exceptions.
(Exceptions.)
■ "Assumpsit for support of certain paupers named as follows in the writ: Joseph Gordon and Catharine Gordon his wife, and Joseph Gordon, Jr. son of said Joseph and Catharine, and also Augustus Ingalls and Flora Ingalls wife of said Augustus, and Napoleon Ingalls and Emily Ingalls, children of said Augustus and Flora-; and also, Joseph Charity and Susan Charity wife of said Joseph Charity, and Frank Charity son of said Joseph and Susan.
"The defendants denied that the paupers had ever acquired a settlement in their town.
"The plaintiffs claimed they had acquired such settlement by a five years residence of Joseph and Catharine Gordon, or Gonyea as they were sometimes called, between 1842 and 1869, and they introduced the testimony of the Gordons tending to establish such residence, if believed.
"The defendants introduced evidence by cross-examination of said Gordons, and by independent witnesses, tending to show the contrary. And this was the principal issue between the parties.
"Upon this issue the plaintiff offered in evidence the following letter sent by one of the overseers of the poor of Oldtown to one of the overseers of the poor of Fairfield.
"Oldtown, February 25, 1877.
Mr. Totman, Dear Sir: I received your bill of supplies for the Gonyea family. I think it is a little large.
"When I was at your place the second day of January, you had furnished about twenty dollars to the whole family of nine, five of them belong to us and four to you; that would be about twelve dollars and fifty cents for us. Now eight weeks and two days since at two dollars per week, would be about sixteen dollars and seventy cents, which would make twenty-nine dollars and twenty cents ; that is the way that I make it. There is one boy that we do not take. Please answer if I am not right,
Yours truly, A. C. Brown.”
"The defendants seasonably objected to the introduction of this letter as hearsay, and as inadmissible because a mere narrative of past transactions, but the court admitted it and allowed it all to be read to the jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
" Said letter was sent about two months after notice in the usual form had been sent by the overseers of Fairfield to the overseers of Oldtown in relation to said paupers. But it was not claimed by the plaintiffs that said letter was in answer to said notice; nor did it relate to any of the supplies embraced in this suit.
"To the foregoing ruling admitting the aforesaid letter the defendants respectfully except and pray that their exceptions may be allowed.”
3. 3. Brown, for the plaintiffs,
cited : Bennen v. Haskell, 45 Maine, 430 ; Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Maine, 276 j 68 Maine, 301; 10 Maine, 185 j 49 Maine, 367 ; 4 Allen, 374 j 9 Allen, 54 j 12 Cal. 426 5 118 Mass. 356 ; Hilliard, New Trials, 414.
I), B. Stewart, for the defendants,
cited : Burnham v. Ellis, 39 Maine, 319; Corintia v. Exeter, 13 Maine, 321; Franklin Bank v. Steward, 37 Maine, 519; Haven v. Brown, 7 Maine, 421; Maine Bank v. Smith, 18 Maine, 103 ; New Vinyard v. Harpstoell, 33 Maine, 193 ; 1 Green!. Ev. 113 ; Story’s Agency, § 134; Fairlie v. Hastings, 10 Yes. 127 ; Borne v. Southwork Mfg Co. 11 Cush. 205 ; Bartmouth v. Lakeville, 7 Allen, 285 ; Stiles y. West R. R. Co. 8 Met. 44.

Opinion:
Barrows, J.
The only exception here alleged is to the admission against the defendants' objection of a certain "letter sent by one of the overseers of the poor of Oldtown to one of the overseers of the poor of Fairfield." It bears date February 25,1877, and obviously relates to some transaction then proceeding between the officers of the two towns respecting the support of the paupers whose settlement was here in controversy. It appears in the exceptions, that it ivas not a reply to any notice from the plaintiffs to the defendants, and did not relate to any of the supplies embraced in this suit.
The exceptions seem to have been carefully drawn by the learned counsel for defendants, in view of the rule which requires the party excepting to the admission of evidence to overcome the presumption in favor of the ruling, and make it apparent that there Avas no phase of the case as presented at nisi prius, which authorized the admission of the testimony in question. Hovey v. Hobson, 55 Maine, 256, 276. "We may be sure that nothing consistent Avith the truth Avas omitted in these exceptions to bring the case within the rule. The rule is a just and useful one, and, if adhered to, will lessen the reproach that attends the granting of new trials which are ultimately found to serve no purpose but to postpone at large expense, a result that Avas both inevitable and correct.
But while we may be quite certain that defendants' counsel has overlooked no fact which would tend to sustain his exceptions, there still remain probable phases of the case which justify the admission within repeated decisions of the court, and without infringing upon the salutary doctrine for which he contends that mere admissions of agents as to past transactions are not competent to affect their principals. Our rule respecting the admission of evidence of former dealings between towns, through their officers and agents acting within the scope of the authority conferred on them by statutes, respecting paupers whose settlement finally becomes a subject of litigation between them, is laid down in Harpswell v. Phipsburg, 29 Maine, 313, and Weld v. Farmington, 68 Maine, 301, with sufficient clearness and precision for all practical purposes, and, so far as it differs from that of Massachusetts as shown in New Bedford v. Taunton, 9 Allen, 207; Dartmouth v. Lakeville, Id. 201, and S. C. 7 Allen, 285, we prefer it.
Seeing how often litigation as to the settlement of paupers or their progeny arises between towns after lapse of time has made it impossible to produce testimony which, in. the outset of the controversy, was regarded by both parties as conclusive, we think the acts and doings of the town authorities when their attention is first called to the case, may fairly be regarded as possessing some probative force upon the question of settlement, even if the implied admission resulting therefrom' must be regarded as an exception to the doctrine before referred to. For obvious reasons often adverted to in the cases bearing upon this point, any admissions thence implied are not to be held as binding or estopping the town for the future, except where the statutes give them that effect. They are simply to be weighed by the jury with the other evidence as part of the res gestae, like other acts and facts from which a reasonable inference may be drawn, stronger or weaker, according to the concomitant circumstances. The letter was the act of the defendants' overseer in the progress of the transaction to which it related, and for aught we see was as competent as the town orders received in Weld v. Farmington, which served only to show that the defendants there had paid previous bills of the pauper whose settlement was disputed.
But the rule aud its reasons and limitations were so fully discussed in Weld v. Farmington, 68 Maine, 301, that further elaboration is needless. It is well established both in this State and New Hampshire, is wholesome and works well in practice. Norridgewock v. Madison, 70 Maine, 174. Defendants'counsel still objects that the document here presented was but the act of one of the defendants' overseers. But the act of one of the board accompanied as we may fairly presume this to have been (since the exceptions do not assert the contrary) with proof that what he did was by authority from his associates, or had been, ratified by them, would have the same effect as though a majority of the board had participated in the act. Fayette v. Livermore, 62 Maine, 229; Smithfield v. Waterville, 64 Maine, 412, 416, 417; Linneus v. Sidney, 70 Maine, 114. Here, then, we have one phase of the case not negatived by the exceptions which would justify the admission upon the main issue under such limitations as to the purpose for which it might be used and as to its effect as the law requires, touching which we presume the jury were duly instructed if "defendants' counsel deemed them of sufficient importance as the case stood to request it.
There is still another phase of the case apparent, which would authorize the admission of this document. The burden was on plaintiffs to prove the requisite statute notice' to the defendants' overseers, and the identity of the paupers described in the writ as Gordons with the Gonyeas, by which name the paupers seem to have been known at Oldtown. It is easy to see how the visit of the overseer referred, to in the letter, and the arrangement for the adjustment of the bill for Gonyeas may have tended to remove any question that might be raised about the sufficiency of the notice.
The exceptions fail to make it appear that there was no phase of the. case upon which the document objected to, properly supplemented by accompanying testimony, would be legitimate evidence, and as it may fairly be presumed that its use and effect were properly limited, there is no occasion to send the case to a new trial.
Exceptions overruled.
Walton, Danforth, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred. Virgin, J. did not concur.