Church v. Town of S. Kingstown

• Decision Date: 02 February 1901
• Citation: 48 A. 3,22 R.I. 381
• Parties: CHURCH, Overseer of the Poor, v. TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

48 A. 3

22 R.I. 381

CHURCH, Overseer of the Poor,

v. TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 2, 1901.

Proceedings by Joseph C. Church, overseer of the poor, against the town of South Kingstown. Motions to quash and dismiss proceedings certified to the supreme court. Proceedings quashed.

Thomas H. Peabody, for petitioner.

F. C. Olney, for respondent.

TILLINGHAST, J. This is a proceeding under sections 18-20, Gen. Laws R. I. c. 79, and is now before the court on certain constitutional questions raised by the defendant Said sections are as follows:

"Sec. 18. Whenever any pauper shall not be suitably cared for by the town to which he is chargeable, any person, upon first issuing five days' notice to any of the commissioners or overseers of the poor of the town of the situation of such pauper, and on continued neglect of the town, may complain in writing to the appellate division of the supreme court or to any justice thereof, or in vacation to any justice of the supreme court as provided in section seventeen of chapter two hundred twenty-one, and setting forth as nearly as may be the nature of the grievance complained of.

"Sec. 19. Said appellate division or such justice, as the case may be, shall, after ordering notice to the town of the pendency of such complaint, in its or his discretion, appoint a commission of not exceeding three persons, who shall visit the pauper or paupers concerning whom the complaint is made and, upon hearing the allegations and evidence of the parties, report to said court or justice, as soon as may be, whether or not said complaint is well founded.

"Sec. 20. Whenever it shall be made to appear to said court or justice, by the report of the commissioners, that said pauper is not suitably provided and cared for, said court or justice shall pass an order requiring the appropriate town authorities forthwith to provide suitable accommodations and care for such pauper, either in the poorhouse or in some private family, in the discretion of said court or justice, at the expense of the town, and to pay all expenses of the proceeding."

The travel of the case is as follows: A complaint was made by the plaintiff, under said section 18, to the effect that J. E. R. Crandall, of South Kingstown, was being improperly treated by the overseer of the poor of said town, in that he was not properly clothed and fed, and that he had been driven from the town farm in said town and left in a destitute condition, he being at the time physically incapacitated for work. The complaint shows that the overseer of the poor of said town was notified of Crandall's condition, and that he refused to furnish him any assistance. Citation was thereupon issued by a justice of this court, and, upon hearing, a commission was appointed, as provided in section 19. This commission, which was composed of three persons, namely, Nathan B. Lewis, Rowland R. Robinson, and John W. Saunders, subsequently made report to the court that they had visited said Crandall; that they held meetings at the town house in Charlestown, and also at the town house in South Kingstown, to hear the allegations and evidence adduced by the complainant and respondent, and to examine into the financial and physical condition of said Crandall; that at said hearings both parties were represented by counsel, and divers witnesses were sworn and testified as to his condition and his ability to support himself by manual labor; that the evidence showed that in 1898, while suffering from a dislocated shoulder, and being without money, he applied to the overseer of the poor of South Kingstown for permission to go to the town asylum temporarily until his shoulder should be well; that he remained at said asylum thereafter until the 18th day of June, 1900, at which time he was removed therefrom by the overseer of the poor of South Kingstown, and left to look out for himself; that the reasons given by the overseer for his removal were: First, that he considered said Crandall able to take care of himself and to earn his own living; second, that said Crandall refused to observe the rules adopted for the government of the asylum, going away to the neighboring villages and other places without permission, declaring that he would go and come when he pleased; and, third, that he made the other inmates of the asylum uneasy and discontented, by advising them that they need not work, and by refusing to work himself when requested so to do. The report sets forth that these reasons were strongly supported by the evidence of the keeper of the asylum, by a former keeper, and a former overseer of the poor, and were not materially denied by Crandall himself. The report further sets forth that in regard to the physical condition of said Crandall the evidence was inharmonious and conflicting. Then the finding of the commission was as follows: "(1) That said Crandall has a legal settlement in the town of South Kingstown; (2) that he is without property or other means of support than his own labor, and may be fairly classed as a 'poor and indigent person'; (3) that his removal from said South Kingstown Asylum was partially justified by his own misconduct while an inmate thereof, although it may be well questioned whether it is not a case for proper discipline rather than removal; (4) that, the overseer of the poor of South Kingstown having neglected and refused for more than five days to provide for said Crandall after having received notice as aforesaid from the overseer of the poor of the town of Charlestown, the commissioners consider that there was neglect on the part of the town of South Kingstown to suitably care for said Crandall, and that said complaint is well founded." Appended to this report is a list of the fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the trial, amounting to the sum of $3.60, and also commissioners' fees of $30 each, making $90 in all, for their services and expenses. Upon the filing of the report the plaintiff moved that an order be entered requiring the defendant town to forthwith provide suitable accommodations and care for said Crandall, as provided in section 20 of said statute; and the defendant moved to quash and dismiss the entire proceeding because the statute under which it was brought is unconstitutional, in this: (1) That it is in violation of the constitutional right of trial by jury; (2) because it deprives the defendant of its property without due process of law; (3) because under said statute the commission appointed in said case exercised judicial functions, were sole judge of both law and fact, their conclusion being final, and that this is in contravention of article 10, § 1, of the constitution. Said...