Gilford v. Epping
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for relief furnished by the plaintiff to Thomas Weeks, and Martha Weeks, his wife, paupers, alleged to have their settlement in Epping.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for relief furnished by the plaintiff to Thomas Weeks, and Martha Weeks, his wife, paupers, alleged to have their settlement in Epping. It was agreed, for the purposes of this trial, that all the facts necessary to sustain the action were proved, except the settlement of the paupers in Epping, It appeared that Thomas Weeks, upon whose settlement that of his wife depended, resided more than a year in Ep-ping, prior to 1791, without being warned out, and had his settlement in that town, unless he subsequently gained a settlement in the town of Chichester. The 9th of February, 1792,…
1Opinion of the CourtUp ham, J.
In this case it is conceded that the town of Epping is liable for the support of the pauper, unless, since leaving that town, the pauper has gained a settlement in Chi-chester.
It is in evidence that he removed to Chichester the 9th of February, 1792, and resided there about seven years: and he has his settlement in Chichester, unless he was legally warned out of that towu.
His residence commenced there under the provincial act of 5 George /., about seven months prior to its repeal by the act of June 20th, 1792, which went into operation on the 15th of September, 1792.
The act of June 20th,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Exeter v. Town of StrathamSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819