George P. Catlin v. Town of Georgia

• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOULTON
• Citation: George P. Catlin v. Town of Georgia, 152 A. 89, 103 Vt. 97 (Vt. 1930)
• Decision Date: 05 November 1930
• Parties: GEORGE P. CATLIN v. TOWN OF GEORGIA

152 A. 89

103 Vt. 97

GEORGE P. CATLIN v. TOWN OF GEORGIA

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 5, 1930

October Term, 1930.

Paupers---G. L. 4219, 4222---"In Need of Relief"--Recovery by Jailer for Support of Transient Person.

1. There is a distinction between G. L. 4219, which defines conditions under which one may be entitled to public aid, and G. L. 4222, in that in former case it must be shown that such person is poor and in need of assistance, while in latter it is required only that he shall be in need of relief, without regard to his financial situation.

2. Whenever a transient person of whatever condition he may be is committed to jail, he becomes at once "in need of relief" within meaning of G. L. 4222.

3. Keeper of jail required to furnish necessary support to transient person committed thereto, having given required notice to overseer of poor of town in which offense was committed, may recover from town for such support subsequently furnished.

ACTION OF CONTRACT under G. L. 4222 to recover for care of transient person committed to jail. Plea, general issue. Trial by jury at the April Term, 1930, Franklin County, Sturtevant, J., presiding. Verdict directed for plaintiff, and judgment thereon. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

A Pearley Feen and Guy M. Page for the defendant.

F L. Webster and M. H. Alexander for the plaintiff.

Present: POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, WILLCOX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

OPINION

MOULTON

The plaintiff is the sheriff of Franklin County and the keeper of the Franklin County jail. Wilfred Lamothe, a resident of the defendant town, was committed to the jail upon a certified execution, issued after a judgment against him in an action of tort. The cause of action arose in the defendant town. On the day following his commitment the plaintiff notified the defendant's overseer of the poor that he would look to the town for the expense of the keeping of the prisoner. The overseer declined to pay. After the discharge of Lamothe this action of contract was brought, based upon G. L. 4222, to recover for the expense of his keep. After a trial by jury a verdict was directed for the plaintiff, and the case is here upon the defendant's exceptions.

G. L. 4222, so far as is material, is as follows: "If a transient person * * * is committed to jail and is in need of relief * * * the jailer * * * shall be at the expense of relieving and supporting such person, until he represents his situation * * * * to the overseer of the poor of the town in which the offense was committed, after which the overseer of the town so notified shall provide for his support; and, if the overseer neglects to provide for such support, the person so supporting him may recover therefor in an action of contract, on this statute, against the town so notified * * * * *"

All of the exceptions involve the same question. The plaintiff introduced no evidence tending to show that Lamothe was without financial resources. The defendant claimed that he was a man of means and not in need of relief during the time he was in jail, and offered to show the extent of his property and its availability. The evidence was excluded, and the defendant excepted. An exception was also taken to the direction of the verdict, the ground being that there was no evidence tending to show that Lamothe was in need of relief.

It is not denied that Lamothe was a transient person within the meaning of the statute (see Goodell v. Mount Holly, 51 Vt. 423, 426), or that the tortious act upon which the certified execution was based was an "offense" as defined by the same section. See Smith v. City of Rutland, 99 Vt. 183, 189 130 A. 714. But the defendant insists that G. L. 4222 is physically and historically a part of the pauper law of the State and that the intention of the Legislature in enacting this section, construing it with other sections, in pari materia, was to limit the use of public funds for the support of persons imprisoned on civil process to those only who are poor and in need of relief, and that therefore unless it should appear that the prisoner was without available property or means of...