Inhabitants of Carthage v. Inhabitants of Canton

• Decision Date: 27 April 1903
• Citation: 97 Me. 473,54 A. 1104
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF CARTHAGE v. INHABITANTS OF CANTON. SAME v. INHABITANTS OF LEWISTON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

54 A. 1104

97 Me. 473

INHABITANTS OF CARTHAGE

v. INHABITANTS OF CANTON.

SAME

v. INHABITANTS OF LEWISTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 27, 1903.

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Franklin County.

Actions by the inhabitants of Carthage against the inhabitants of Canton and the inhabitants of Lewiston for pauper supplies furnished by the plaintiff town to a man and his family who fell into distress in Carthage. The pauper had never gained a settlement in his own right either in any of the three towns concerned or elsewhere. On report. Judgment for plaintiff against Canton.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.

E. E. Richards, for plaintiff. J. P. Swasey, for defendant town of Canton.

J. W. Mitchell and A. T. L'Heureux, City Sol., for defendant city of Lewiston.

WISWELL, C. J. These two cases are submitted together to the law court upon a report of the testimony, which is applicable to both.

Pauper supplies were furnished by the plaintiff town to one George Jones and family between December 9, 1900, and April 13. 1901. During that period the pauper had his settlement either in the town of Canton or in the city of Lewiston, and the question submitted for the determination of the court is, which municipality is liable to the plaintiff town? no question being made as to the necessity for pauper assistance, the amount of the supplies furnished, the reasonableness of the charges, or the statute notices and replies.

It is agreed that the pauper never gained a pauper settlement in his own right. At the time of his becoming of age, his father's settlement was in the city of Lewiston; but it is claimed by the defendant in the case against Lewiston that the pauper was emancipated by his father many years before that time, while the latter's settlement was in the town of Canton, and that the pauper took the settlement of his father at the time of such emancipation. This is the single question presented for our determination.

Bearing upon this question, the following facts are material: The parents of the pauper separated in the year 1875, or just before the commencement of that year. They were divorced, upon the libel of the wife, at the October term, 1876, of the Supreme Judicial Court for Kennebec county, and at the same time a decree was made giving the care and custody of the two minor children—the pauper being one of them—to the wife. In the libel the date of the birth of George was given as October 7, 1868, and this substantially corresponds with the less exact testimony of the father as to the son's age. After the separation of the parents, but before the decree of divorce the father, then living at Pittston took his two young boys to Canton, where he stayed, and kept them with him for about two months. During that time he made various efforts to obtain homes for the boys, but at the expiration of that time, being unsuccessful in these efforts, he left the two boys with the selectmen of the town, by whom they were carried to the poor farm; and the father went to Lewiston, where he has continued to reside ever since. From the time, in 1875, when the father left his two sons in Canton, he exercised no care over them whatever. He did not see them again until they had become, as he expresses it, men grown. He did not communicate with them directly or indirectly in any way. He in no way exhibited any interest in them, nor sense of responsibility as to their welfare. He contributed nothing to their support, made no claim for their earnings, and had no knowledge of the manner in which they were cared for, or as to what they were do ing. He did not even see the son George, except upon two casual and brief occasions, until after the latter had become 2] years of age and was married.

During this period the father was by no means in a cordition of destitution. Shortly after he commenced living in Lewiston, in 1875, he obtained employment, and continued to be steadily employed, with occasional exceptions when he was unable to work on account of sickness, up to the present time. During this time he received as wages $1.50 per day, or $10 per week, except that sometimes during the winter he worked in the woods for $16 pe: month and his board. In addition to this, in about the year 1881 he commenced to receive a pension of $4 per month, which in 1884, after an intermediate increase to $8 per month, was increased to $12 per month. In about 1879 the father remarried, and has a son by his second marriage, who is now...