Town of Roxbury v. Town of Bridgewater

• Citation: 85 Conn. 196,82 A. 193
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 09 February 1912
• Parties: TOWN OF ROXBURY v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER.

82 A. 193

85 Conn. 196

TOWN OF ROXBURY v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 9, 1912

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H Welch, Judge.

Action by the Town of Roxbury against the Town of Bridgewater. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

May 1 1894, Oliver Wilmot had his legal settlement in the town of Bridgewater, where he had resided continuously during the preceding six years and more, supporting himself and making that town his home. During the last four years and more of this time, he had kept house. Within a week or ten days after said date, he removed with all his household and other personal effects into Roxbury. All of these effects, save his clothing, which he carried upon his person and in a trunk and two comfortables and a pillow, he stored in an unoccupied building in Roxbury. These have ever since remained in storage, except such of them as have been sold or otherwise disposed of, as the larger portion has been.

Wilmot was a man of feeble mind, and an ordinary farm laborer. Upon his going to Roxbury, he was employed by one Tyrrel as a farm hand. He worked for Tyrrel at different times and for broken periods for nearly four years. During this period, he was at times employed by other persons, including, upon several occasions, persons residing in Bridgewater, whither he went to work and live, and generally attended with his trunk and personal belongings, not in storage, as recited. He left Tyrrel's employment finally and permanently in March 1898, and went directly to work for a farmer in Bridgewater. He took his trunk and pillow with him; the two comfortables having been disposed of. From this time until November, 1900 he worked at various places in both towns. His major employments, however, were in Roxbury, and when he completed his briefer terms of employment in Bridgewater he returned to the last place where he had worked in Roxbury, and remained there until he was next employed. During all this period following May 1, 1894, he boarded and made his home where he worked. He carried with him, as he went from place to place, his trunk and contents, and, until it disappears from the record, his pillow, and his intention was to make his home and domicile wherever he worked.

He remained unmarried until November 3, 1900, when he married a woman whose maiden name was Julia Oviatt. The marriage took place in Bridgewater; but Julia had never resided in that town. She was born in New Milford, where her residence remained until she was married, in September, 1893, to one George Norman, then of Bridgeport. Norman shortly disappeared, and he has not been heard from since about April, 1895. Julia and Norman have never been divorced, and no evidence was offered showing that Norman had died. A child, Elsie, was born to them January 3, 1896. This child has lived with Wilmot and Julia since their marriage. Since their marriage, Wilmot and Julia have lived together in Roxbury and New Milford for brief alternating periods. It is not claimed that any settlement has been gained by such residence. A child, named, Merton, was born to them in Roxbury December 21, 1903.

December 1, 1903, Wilmot, by reason of personal injuries received, became sick and unable to support himself and family, which consisted of himself, his wife Julia, and the two children, Elsie and Merton, and he was in need of medical aid, and the selectmen of Roxbury, where he then was, furnished him and his family necessary assistance, including necessary medical aid. Statutory notice was seasonably given to the defendant; but nothing was said therein to the effect that Wilmot was in need of medical aid, or that such aid had been furnished him.

The court rendered judgment for the support and medical aid furnished to Wilmot, and for the support furnished to Julia and the child Merton. Nothing was allowed for the support furnished the child Elsie. No complaint is made of the method of computation used to arrive at these amounts, or that an amount was allowed in excess of the limitations of the statute.

Samuel A. Herman and John F. Addis, for appellant.

Donald T. Warner and Howard F. Landon, for appellee.

PRENTICE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The fundamental question in this case relates to the legal settlement, during the period from December 6, 1903, to September 6, 1905, of Oliver Wilmot. May 1, 1894, finds him with such settlement in the defendant town, where he was then domiciled. Within a week or ten days thereafter, he found employment in the plaintiff town, and removed thither. His settlement in Bridgewater, however, remained until another was gained elsewhere. If he at any time gained another, he must have done so between May 1, 1894, and November 3, 1900, and the one gained must have been in Roxbury. This much the finding establishes beyond question.

Wilmot was a man of feeble intellect, and a farm laborer. During the period last referred to, he was unmarried, and his life a roving one, which carried him, accompanied by a trunk or bundle holding his clothing, and at times a solitary pillow in addition, from place to place, where he obtained employment. During the major portion of this time, his bodily presence was...