Opinion ID: 1911886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unlawful Delegation of DutiesException 9

Text: The referee is charged with error in finding that the overseers of the poor did not unlawfully delegate their powers and duties in furnishing the supplies. The controversy lies in the facts and not in the law. The governing principle is that overseers of the poor cannot delegate to others their discretionary powers and duties. Inhabitants of Fort Fairfield v. Inhabitants of Millinocket, supra. The issue of fact was whether when relief was first given, the grocer and not the overseers determined the need and amount of supplies to be given Brown. On this point there was a conflict of testimony. Brown and the overseer who had the matter directly in hand in substance say the decision was that of the overseers. The grocer on cross-examination did not recall whether the overseer placed a limit or told him to use his own judgment. We earlier commented on the conflicting evidence. The referee chose to believe the overseer's version. The finding stands. Under this exception the defendant town argued that the assistance rendered was not reasonable and proper on the ground of lack of supervision, inspection, and control by the overseers. This issue, although contained in a list of issues in the bill of exceptions, is not found within Exception 9 and so is not before us. In passing, we may say however that the referee plainly could find, as he did, that the overseers performed their important duties in a lawful manner. There were no errors in the decision of the referee. The entry will be Exceptions overruled. CLARKE, J., did not sit.