Inhabitants of Sanford v. Emery
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of debt, brought to recover the penalty given by Slat. 1793, ch. 59, for bringing and leaving a pauper in the town of Sanford, in which she had not a legal settlement, the defendant well knowing her to be poor and indigent.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought to recover the penalty given by Slat. 1793, ch. 59, for bringing and leaving a pauper in the town of Sanford, in which she had not a legal settlement, the defendant well knowing her to be poor and indigent. At the trial the plaintiffs proved by a letter of the defendant thsit he knew the pauper to be such, and that under the belief that she had a legal settlement in Sanford, he had brought and left her at the dwelling house of one Allen in that town. They also proved that she had resided in the family of Allen for several weeks previous to her departure…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows,at the succeeding term in Cumberland.
The question is whether, upon the facts reported in this case, the defendant is to be considered as having incurred the penalty demanded.
In cases of this nature, where there is contradictory testimony as to the motives by which a defendant is actuated, it is proper that the whole should be submitted to the consideration of the jury. But where there is no proof, except what is offered by the plaintiffs, and that is insufficient to justify a verdict in his favor, and in fact furnishes a legal defence,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Greenfield v. CushmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Underwood v. ParrottTexas Supreme Court · 1847