Jericho v. City of Burlington

• Decision Date: 04 August 1894
• Citation: 29 A. 801,66 Vt. 529
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: JERICHO v. CITY OF BURLINGTON.

29 A. 801

66 Vt. 529

JERICHO

v. CITY OF BURLINGTON.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

Aug. 4, 1894.

Exceptions from Chittenden county court; Munson, Judge.

Assumpsit by town of Jericho against the city of Burlington for the expense of keeping a pauper. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff excepts. Affirmed.

M. H. Alexander, for plaintiff. Elihu B. Taft, City Attorney, and Daniel Roberts, for defendant.

TYLER, J. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the pauper and his wife had resided and kept house in defendant city three or four years prior to his wife's death, which occurred in July, 1891; that he then sold all his furniture, except an old chest and two old chairs, and went to board in the family of one Bashaw, in the city (which was the only place he could call his home), taking his chest and chairs with him; that the last of the next November he went to the plaintiff town in search of work, leaving at Bashaw's his chest, chairs, a trunk containing some clothing, a wood saw, and a hat; that this was all the property he possessed besides the clothes he wore; that he secured a small job of work in Jericho, at one Cook's, with whom he boarded, and after finishing his job, which occupied four or five days, he returned to Burlington, gave his chest and chairs to Mrs. Bashaw, took his trunk and clothing with him, and returned to Cook's, in Jericho, leaving nothing of his in Burlington but a hat, which he could not find, and his saw, which he meant to have taken, but forgot; that he had engaged to board with Cook while he did a job of chopping which he had contracted to do, and also to board with him during the winter if he should succeed in finding work; that, after working three or four days, he broke his leg, and was taken care of for about five weeks by Cook, when the latter, at his request, carried him to Burlington, and left him at Bashaw's; that the plaintiff paid the bills for the pauper's board, care, and medical treatment while he was at Cook's, to recover which this suit was brought. The plaintiff's evidence also tended to show that the pauper did not intend to make his home in Jericho, but that he intended to return to Bashaw's, in Burlington, when his employment was ended in Jericho; but there was no agreement between himself and Bashaw that he might return to the house of the latter.

The main question is whether, upon this evidence, the court was warranted in directing a verdict for the defendant. The pauper testified that, when he was about leaving Bashaw's with his trunk, he said to Mrs. Bashaw, "When I get through at Cook's, this is my home, and I shall come back again;" and that he said to Cook, who was moving him, "You will bring me back, will you?" Cook replied that he would. Mrs. Bashaw made no reply. Her husband was not present. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that it was the pauper's intention at that time to remain through the winter in Jericho, and board with Cook, if he succeeded in finding work. It appeared that one Wright had charge of the construction of sewers in the defendant city, and that the pauper had worked under him four seasons, including that of 1891. It was proposed by plaintiff's counsel to inquire of Wright what arrangement or conversation, if any, he had with the pauper about returning to work on the sewers the following season. The questions were excluded. It was not offered to be shown that Wright did employ the pauper for the season of 1892, or that he had authority to employ him. If he had had authority and employed him, it would have shown a mere intention on the part of the pauper to return to Burlington to labor, and the evidence would have been immaterial. The plaintiff's case, including the testimony of Wright, had it been admitted, would only have shown an intention on the part of the pauper to return to Burlington at some indefinite time, when he should get out of employment in Jericho, or when he should obtain employment again in Burlington. When he moved his trunk and all his possessions except his saw and hat from the defendant city, he had no place there to which he had a right to return.

The reasoning of Aldis, J., in Barton v. Irasburgh...