Inhabitants of Corinna v. Inhabitants of Hartland

• Decision Date: 18 November 1879
• Citation: 70 Me. 355
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF CORINNA v. INHABITANTS OF HARTLAND.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

70 Me. 355

INHABITANTS OF CORINNA v. INHABITANTS OF HARTLAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

November 18, 1879

ON REPORT.

ASSUMPSIT for pauper supplies furnished to one I. J. Withie.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Josiah Crosby, for the plaintiffs.

Wilson & Woodard, for the defendants, upon the point of supplies furnished the pauper while in jail, cited R. S., 1840, c. 32 § 48. E. Sudbury v. Sudbury, 12 Pick. 1. Norridgewock v. Solon, 49 Me. 385.

DANFORTH J.

The only question involved in this case is whether Imlah J Withie had, at the time the supplies sued for were furnished, a legal settlement in the town of Hartland, and this depends upon whether he gained such a settlement by a residence in that town from 1842 to 1849. That he so resided there the case clearly shows; but it is contended on the part of the defense that it cannot have the effect claimed, because he was furnished with supplies as a pauper in March, 1846. If such were the fact it is apparent that no settlement was gained; otherwise it was.

Upon this question the burden of proof is upon the defendant. To sustain it evidence is introduced showing that in March, 1846, Withie was committed to the jail in Norridgewock for nonpayment of taxes on a warrant issued by the assessors of Hartland. There is also offered in evidence what is claimed as the record of the overseers of Norridgewock of the following purport: " March 16, 1846. Received notice from John C. Page, jailer at Norridgewock, that Imlah J. Withie was in jail for taxes, and claimed relief as a pauper." " April 2, 1846, John C. Page gave notice that the town of Hartland had promised to settle the bills of Imlah J. Withie."

A question is raised as to the admissibility of this document. For present purposes it is immaterial whether we call it a record or a memorandum. It is produced and sworn to by a witness in whose handwriting it is, and who so far as appears wrote it at the time of the transaction. As such an instrument it is admissible so far as it contains facts within the personal knowledge of the witness, though such facts may, at the time he testified, have escaped from his recollection. Anderson v. Edwards, 123 Mass. 273. With this qualification the record proves that notice was given to the overseers of Norridgewock that Withie was in jail and claimed relief as a pauper. It does not show that he actually did claim such relief, nor that he actually was in need of such relief. These facts so far as they appear at all, came from Mr. Page and are therefore mere hearsay testimony, and under the objection must be rejected. It does not appear that any action on the part of the overseers of Norridgewock followed this notice, except that notice by one of them was given to the overseers of Hartland. There is no evidence whatever that any investigation into the condition of Withie was made by the overseers of Norridgewock as was clearly their duty before furnishing aid. Nor is there any other proof in the case which shows the necessity for immediate relief. Hence all foundation for furnishing pauper supplies...