Conn. Hosp. For the Insane v. Town of Bridgewater

• Decision Date: 23 March 1897
• Citation: 36 A. 1017,69 Conn. 1
• Parties: CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

36 A. 1017

69 Conn. 1

CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE

v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 23, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, Middlesex county.

Action by the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane against the town of Bridgewater and the town of Brookfield to compel one of the defendants to pay for the support of a pauper. From a judgment against the town of Brookfield, it appeals. No error.

The material allegations in the complaint as to the town of Brookfield were that Winifred Hall had been committed to the hospital on June 1, 1886, as an insane pauper, by the court of probate for the district of Brookfield, on proceedings, a copy of which was made an exhibit, and had ever since been supported there; that she resided in the town of Bridgewater until about a month before her commitment; that the town of Brookfield had paid for her support in full up to July 1, 1887, and had refused to make any payments thereafter, under the claim that she belonged to Bridgewater; that the town of Bridgewater was legally chargeable with her support, and that the town of Brookfield was not legally chargeable with her support. The last allegation was denied and the others admitted by the answer. The commitment was on an application signed by "David H. Meeker, Selectman," and alleged that "Winifred Hall, of the town of Brookfield," is insane, "and is now a pauper, having no residence in this state, but at present located in the town of Brookfield." The court of probate found the allegations of the application true and ordered that she be taken "by the said David H. Meeker, selectman, without delay, to the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane." On the trial it was admitted that the pauper had been in the hospital ever since her commitment, and that, at $2.50 a week, her board since July 1, 1887, amounted to $410; and that Meeker, when he applied for her commitment, was the first selectman of Brookfield. No evidence (apart from such admissions) was offered in proof or disproof of the allegation that the town of Brookfield was legally chargeable with her support. The defendant claimed, as matter of law, that the plaintiff could not recover without further proof of such allegation; but the court overruled the claim, and this ruling was assigned for error.

Lyman D. Brewster and Howard B. Scott, for appellant.

Charles H. Briscoe (with whom was Henry E. Burton), for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). Gen. St. § 487, provides that when any pauper in any town shall be insane, a selectman of such town may apply to the court of probate of the district wherein such pauper resides for his commitment to the state hospital for the insane; and that, if so committed, $2.50 a week of the expenses of his support shall be paid by the town legally chargeable with his support. Any pauper who is found in any town in a state of insanity is thus made a proper subject of such an application by a selectman of that town. It is of no consequence whether he has been there an hour or a year. If he be, in fact, in the town, in a state of insanity, he resides there, for the time being, within the meaning of the statute. The object of the proceeding is to put the pauper, as soon as possible, into a hospital, where he can secure proper care and treatment. The humane purpose of the legislature might often be defeated if only a selectman of that town, perhaps a distant one, where the pauper statedly resided, or to which he was legally chargeable as a settled inhabitant, could act. Trumbull v. Moss, 28 Conn. 253, 256; Welton v. Wolcott, 45 Conn. 329, 330. The town of Brookfield, therefore, was not necessarily under any liability to the plaintiff because the pauper was committed on the application of its first selectman.

It was, however, admitted by the answer that this town had paid for the support of the pauper in question for more than a year after her commitment. An admission in pleading dispenses with proof, and is equivalent to proof. The fact thus admitted had a probative force in tending to...