Case Name: CASTLETON against CLARENDON
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1820
Citations: 1 Brayt. 181
Docket Number: No. 6
Parties: CASTLETON against CLARENDON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Brayton
Volume: 1
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
No. 6.
CASTLETON against CLARENDON.
Rutland,
1820.
THE omission of the "words “with my return thereon,” in the service of a warning to depart a town, renders the warning illegal,
THIS was'an appeal from an order of removal of Hester William, wife of Cato Williams, made in favor of the town of Castleton against the town of Clarendon ; the case was determined upon the question whether the pauper had gained a settlement in Castleton. It appeared from the cage that said Cato Williams moved to said Castleton, in March, 1811, with his wife, and there resided until the summer of 1813 ; that on the 6th day of January, 1812, said Cato was warned to depart said Castlaton, in the following manner:
You are hereby required to summon Cato Williams, now residing in Castleton, to depart said town, &c.
Castleton, Jan. 6, 1812.
Then served this precept by leaving a true and attested copy of the same, lying on the table of the last and usual place o* abode of the within named Cato Williams.
Attest, EBENEZER LANGDON,
First Constable.
From these facts it was contended, that the said Cato had gained a settlement for himself and family in Castleton ; that the warning was defective,
1. That the Select men did not sign the warning as Select men of Castleton.
2» The Service and return of the officer was not made conformable to law ; the return omits the words “with my return thereon,” which are necessary. 1 Stat. 62.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The return of the officer is defective ; the pauper was not legally warned.
Judgment — That the pauper was unduly removed,,