Gove v. Lovering
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Tkkspass for an assault and battery, and false imprison» ment, and detaining him in prison until he paid $15 95. The defendants pleaded in bar, that at a legal meeting of the inhabitants of Kensington, on the 13⅛ March, 182i, they were duly chosen and sworn as selectmen of that town for that year ; that by virtue of a warrant from the treasurer of the state, issued in pursuance of a statute passed on the 22d December, 1820, they were required to assess upon the polls and…
Read the full summary
Tkkspass for an assault and battery, and false imprison» ment, and detaining him in prison until he paid $15 95. The defendants pleaded in bar, that at a legal meeting of the inhabitants of Kensington, on the 13⅛ March, 182i, they were duly chosen and sworn as selectmen of that town for that year ; that by virtue of a warrant from the treasurer of the state, issued in pursuance of a statute passed on the 22d December, 1820, they were required to assess upon the polls and estates of said inhabitants, the sum of $125 70 ; That by virtue of a warrant from the treasurer of the county of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
It is objected in this case in behalf of the plaintiff, that the tax for the support of the poor was illegal ; because the amount of the tax was not fixed by the town, but left to the discretion of the selectmen. The statute of 1819, (cap. 76, sec. 9,) enacts, “ that the inhabitants of each “ town, &c. at any meeting, &c. may grant and vote such u sum or sums of money, as they shall judge necessary for il the maintenance of the poor.”
In the case of Stewart vs. Peaslee, (Rockingham, February Terms 1823,) the facts were, that a school district in a town *294i: voted to raise a sum of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Amey v. Pittsburg School DistrictSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949
- Scammon v. ScammonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854
- Harris v. School District No. 10Superior Court of New Hampshire · 1853