Hartland v. Pomfret
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an order of two justices for the removal of Reuben Paine and his wife, Diodama Paine, from the town of Hartland to the town of Pomfret. The paupers, having no legal settlement in the town of Hartland, had come there to reside, and were chargeable to said town. A warrant was issued to apprehend said paupers and bring them before said justices for examination.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of two justices for the removal of Reuben Paine and his wife, Diodama Paine, from the town of Hartland to the town of Pomfret. The paupers, having no legal settlement in the town of Hartland, had come there to reside, and were chargeable to said town. A warrant was issued to apprehend said paupers and bring them before said justices for examination. The warrant was returned non est, as to Reuben Paine, but the justices adjudged that both he and his wife had come to reside in said Hartland, and that their legal settlement was not in said Hartland, but in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, C. J.
An examination of the pauper is required by the statute, and, if practicable, must be had, but it is not indispensable, and the form of the record prescribed by the statute implies that the examination has been had. The words are “after hearing the proofs and allegations, and examining the same," fyc. The other ground of objection to the proceedings of the justices, is of more importance. The complaint, warrant and service, are part of the record, and are referred to in the adjudication as on file, so that any question may be presented…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Robinette v. PriceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Town of Dummerston v. Town of NewfaneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
- Town of Danville v. Town of WheelockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
- Town of Berlin v. Town of MorristownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848