The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne v. The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich

16 Johns. 188
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1819·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question is, whether the pauper had, within the spirit and meaning of the statute, executed any public annual office or charge, in the town of Sherburne^ during one whole year. (Act for the relief and settlement of the poor, sess. 36, c, 78* s. 2 1 NR, h. 279.)

[189]*189Under the circumstances of this case, we are of opinion, that in the true sense of the statute, King cannot be considered as executing the office of constable in the town of Sherburne, after he removed his family, and went to reside in Norwich. The year was, therefore, not complete, and his last legal settlement was in Bloomfield.

Order quashed.

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

The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne v. The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich, 16 Johns. 188 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).

16 Johns. 188 (The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Sherburne v. The Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Norwich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allison v. Hagan
12 Nev. 38 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1877)
Fouty v. Fouty
34 Ind. 433 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1870)
Springfield v. Enfield
30 N.H. 71 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1855)
Lisbon v. Bath
21 N.H. 319 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)