Lisbon v. Bow
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the support of Fanny Hall, wife of Enoch Hall, and Moses and Mary Ann, children of Enoch and Fanny Hall, from the first of April to the 25th of June, 1835, and was tried upon the general issue. The plaintiff proved that Enoch Hall was the son of Na-taniel Hall, and that in 1809 Nathaniel Hall had his settlement in Bow • and no evidence was offered to show that Nathaniel or Enoch had any settlement elsewhere.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the support of Fanny Hall, wife of Enoch Hall, and Moses and Mary Ann, children of Enoch and Fanny Hall, from the first of April to the 25th of June, 1835, and was tried upon the general issue. The plaintiff proved that Enoch Hall was the son of Na-taniel Hall, and that in 1809 Nathaniel Hall had his settlement in Bow • and no evidence was offered to show that Nathaniel or Enoch had any settlement elsewhere. It was proved that Fanny was the wife of Enoch, and that Moses and Mary Ann were their children — that the wife and children were residing in Lisbon, and in need of relief,…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
The paupers in this case, to whom assistance was rendered, were the wife and children of Enoch Hall.
It appeared in evidence that Nathaniel Hall, the father of Enoch Hall, had his settlement in Bow in 1809, and there was no evidence to show that either of the said Halls had any settlement elsewhere. The case, however, does not find that Enoch Hall was a member of the family during his father’s residence in Bow, or that he had his father’s settlement there ; but no exception was taken at the trial for this cause.
The case comes up here on entirely different grounds, and it is too late to take…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tucker v. AikenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Moore v. GravesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826
- Morse v. CalleySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brooks v. RooneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Foss v. StraffordSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852