Town of Scott v. Town of Clayton

• Decision Date: 14 March 1882
• Parties: TOWN OF SCOTT v. TOWN OF CLAYTON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

54 Wis. 499

11 N.W. 595

TOWN OF SCOTT

v.TOWN OF CLAYTON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed March 14, 1882.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county.

Brooks & Dutcher and D. Webster, for appellant.

Thomas & Fuller, for respondent.

COLE, C. J.

Quite a number of exceptions were taken on the trial of this cause to the rulings of the trial court in admitting or excluding evidence, which are relied on here as a ground for reversing the judgment. But we shall not stop to inquire whether these exceptions are well founded or not, for we are satisfied there should be a new trial on account of some things in the charge which were excepted to, and which were calculated to prejudice the case of the plaintiff in the minds of the jury. In submitting the case, the learned circuit judge made some remarks on the decision of this court on the former appeal, stating wherein he differed from this court in the construction of the statute applicable to the case. In making these comments we are satisfied the learned judge merely intended to explain his reasons for ordering the nonsuit on the former trial, and that he had no purpose of weakening the decision of this court by what he said. But, while this was the real object which he had in view, yet it is claimed by the plaintiff's counsel that his remarks were calculated to mislead the jury as to the law of the case.

It is said the jury might well have supposed that they were to follow his construction of the statute rather than the one placed upon it by this court. In view of the verdict we certainly think there is ground for this objection, and that possibly the finding of the jury might have been otherwise had the learned judge contented himself by stating the law as laid down by this court. The learned judge told the jury, in substance, that he differed from this court in the construction of the statute in this: According to his view Mrs. Enyart had the right to voluntarily change her place of residence which she acquired by living with her husband, after she was divorced from him, by going back to the plaintiff town and living with her parents. And if, after going back to her father, she became destitute and needed mere temporary assistance, and the town in which she was voluntarily living gave her only such assistance, this would not prevent her voluntary residence out of the defendant town in the plaintiff town, for one year, from destroying her legal settlement in the defendant town. That temporary assistance by furnishing a doctor was far from coming within the statute, which says if any poor person shall become a charge for his support to any town, the one in which he has a settlement shall pay it.

It is hardly necessary to observe that this view as to the nature or amount of assistance which must be furnished Mrs. Enyart by the plaintiff town, in order to prevent her from acquiring a settlement in that town by her voluntary residence therein for a year, was essentially different from the one expressed by this court in the former opinion. 51 Wis. 186; [S. C....