Town of Loudon v. Town of Deering
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the support of several paupers alleged to have their settlement in the town of Deering.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the support of several paupers alleged to have their settlement in the town of Deering. The question was, whether the paupers were settled in the town of Weare or in the town of Deering; and it was agreed that they were settled in Weare, unless a warning; given by the selectmen of that town in 1784, to one Joshua Wiliet, on whose settlement that of these paupers depended, to depart from that town, was sufficient to prevent the said Joshua from gaining- a settlement there under the statute of 5 Geo. 1, c. 87, § 9.(1) The only tion to the warning was, that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
The warning given to Joshua Wiliet was " insufficient to prevent him from gaining a settlement in Weare.
It did not pursue the statute, which required that the names of the persons warned, the time of their abode in the place, and when the warning was given, should be returned to the court of sessions. (2) The time of Willet’s abode in ' J ' Weare does not appear, either in the warrant itself or in the constable’s return. The warning was therefore void.
Judgment for the defendants.
10 Mass. Rep. 506, Hamilton vs. Ipswich.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Hamilton v. Inhabitants of IpswichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Nottingham v. Town of BarringtonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833