New-Chester v. Bristol

Superior Court of New Hampshire

New-Chester v. Bristol

3 N.H. 71

DecidedMay 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.H. 71 (New-Chester v. Bristol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New-Chester v. Bristol, 3 N.H. 71 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court.

The statute of January 1, 1796, (1 N. H. Laws 363) enacts, that, “ when any new town or district “ shall be incorporated, composed of one or more old incor- “ porated towns or districts, all persons settled in the town “ or towns, district or districts, of which such new' town or “ district is composed, and who shall actually dwell, and “ have their bouses within the limits of such new town “ or district, at the time of its incorporation, shall thereby [72]*72“ gain a settlement in such new town or district and the , question, to he decided in this case, is, wheliier paupers actually supported by the old towns at tlu; incorporation of the mew town, are within the meaning and intent of this clause of the statute '(■

V\ e are of opinion, that the pauper could not be considered as having a home within the limits of the new town, at the time of its incorporation, within the intent of the statute. This point has been decided in Massachusetts, upon a statute the same in substance as ours, in the same way, 15 Mass. Rep. 248, Southbridge vs. Charlton.—13 ditto 460, Sudbury vs. Waltham,

Verdict set aside, and plaintiffs nonsuit,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the court.

The statute of January 1, 1796, (1 N. H. Laws 363) enacts, that, “ when any new town or district “ shall be incorporated, composed of one or more old incor- “ porated towns or districts, all persons settled in the town “ or towns, district or districts, of which such new' town or “ district is composed, and who shall actually dwell, and “ have their bouses within the limits of such new town “ or district, at the time of its incorporation, shall thereby [72]*72“ gain a settlement in such new town or district and the , question, to he decided in this case, is, wheliier paupers actually supported by the old towns at tlu; incorporation of the mew town, are within the meaning and intent of this clause of the statute '(■

V\ e are of opinion, that the pauper could not be considered as having a home within the limits of the new town, at the time of its incorporation, within the intent of the statute. This point has been decided in Massachusetts, upon a statute the same in substance as ours, in the same way, 15 Mass. Rep. 248, Southbridge vs. Charlton.—13 ditto 460, Sudbury vs. Waltham,

Verdict set aside, and plaintiffs nonsuit,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.H. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-chester-v-bristol-nhsuperct-1824.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack