Adams v. Inhabitants of Swansea

Charles Adams, Jr. v. Inhabitants of Swansea

Adams v. Inhabitants of Swansea, 116 Mass. 591 (1875)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 9, 1875
Judges: Colt
Citations: 116 Mass. 5911875 Mass. LEXIS 50

Cited by 2

Headnotes

On the issue whether a female pauper had a settlement in the town of S., derived from her grandfather, there was evidence that the grandfather was born in that town in 1759. An aged witness testified that he knew a lot of land near the line between the towns of R. and S., which he was accustomed in his youth to see and hsar people of the town point out and speak of as the lot of the father of said grandfather, the lot where he lived. It also appeared in evidence that in 1790 a part of the town of S. had been set off and made another town; and it was provided by statute that persons born in the limits of the new town, and becoming chargeable for support, should be the poor thereof. Held, that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the pauper’s grandfather had a settlement within the present limits of the town of S.; and that there was no evidence to warrant a judge, who tried the case without a jury, in so finding.

Summary

Contract by the treasurer of the Commonwealth to recover the amount paid by the Commonwealth to the state lunatic hospital at Taunton, for the support of Mary Handy, an insane pauper. Triad in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., without a jury, who, after judgment for the plaintiff, allowed a bill of exceptions, the only parts of which, now material, were as follows; Mary Handy was unmarried, and when committed to the asylum neither her father, mother, grandparents, or great-grandparents were living. She was the daughter of John Handy, who was the son of Russell Handy, who was the son of Robert Handy. The plaintiff claimed that Mary Handy’s legal settlement was in Swansea, through the birth of her grandfather, Russell Handy, in that town, in the year 1759. The only evidence of the birthplace of Russell Handy was a record of the town of Swansea, produced by the clerk thereof, in which appeared this entry: “ Russell Handy, son of Robert Handy and Rachel, his wife, was born April ye 1st, 1759.” The only other evidence of Russell Handy’s birth, of the residence of Robert Handy, or of Russell Handy, in that part of Swansea, which, since 1790, when the town of Somerset was incorporated, has constituted the town of Swansea, was afforded by the testimony of William Wood, now of Swansea, seventy-two years of age, and a son of a brother of Russell Handy’s wife, who testified that he knew of a lot of land near the line between the towns of Rehoboth and Swansea, which he was accustomed, in his youth, to see and hear people of the town point out and speak of as the “ Robert Handy lot,” and “ the lot where Robert Handy lived.* The defendant objected that the evidence was not sufficient to fix the settlement of Mary Handy in the present limits of Swansea rather than in Somerset, which was formerly a part of Swansea. The judge declined so to rule, but found that Mary Handy’s legal settlement, for the purposes of this action, through the birth of her grandfather, Russell Handy, in Swansea, in 1759, and his residence, and the residence of his father, Robert Handy, there, as testified of by William Wood, was in Swansea, and the defendant was chargeable for the support of Mary Handy while in the lunatic hospital, as an insane person. The defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Colt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Colt, J.

The plaintiff claims that Mary Handy, to recover for whose board at the lunatic hospital this action is brought, had her legal settlement in the present town of Swansea, acquired through the birth of her grandfather Russell Handy, the son of Robert, in that town in the year 1759. The present adjoining town of Somerset was incorporated in 1790, and embraces territory which till then had been part of Swansea. It was provided in the act of incorporation of Somerset, that those born in the limits of that town, who should thereafter become chargeable for support, and had not gained a legal settlement in any other town, should be the poor thereof; and, by the act of 1793, a. 9, that those who, before the passage of the prior act, had gained their settlement by birth or otherwise in that part of Swansea which now constitutes the town of Somerset, in case they had already, or should thereafter, become chargeable for support, should be considered the proper poor of the latter town. The burden of proof was therefore upon the plaintiff to show that the settlement of Russell was acquired within the present limits of Swansea. The case was tried without a jury, and the findings of the judge are conclusive as to all facts, where there is competent evidence to warrant the result. It is not a question of the weight or sufficiency of the evidence. The difficulty is that there was in this case no competent evidence that the birth of Russell, if allowed to be sufficient at that time to give him a settlement, was within the present limits of Swansea.

*596 The only evidence relied on was that of an aged witness who testified that he knew of a lot of land, near the town line, which in his youth was spoken of and pointed out to him. by the people of the town as the Robert Handy lot, and the lot where he lived. This was hearsay evidence, which comes within none of the exceptions to the general rule for its exclusion. The question was not one of pedigree; nor was it one of boundary, which, if public, or in its nature public, may be proved by reputation, or, if private, by the declarations of deceased owners, accompanying the act of pointing out a line. Its sole purpose was to fix the location of the lot where Robert Handy, the father of Russell, lived at some period in his life. If competent for such purpose, it is difficult to see how, with the aid of any known legal presumption, it tended to fix the birthplace of Russell on that lot, or that Robert lived there at the time. It is settled that hearsay is not admissible to prove the place of a person’s birth; Wilmington v. Burlington, 4 Pick. 174 ; that the declaration of a pauper as to where he was born, or that he was warned out of town, cannot be admitted; Braintree v. Hingham, 1 Pick. 245 ; and that family tradition or statements on the land as to the place where a house formerly stood, to which reference was made in a deed, for the purpose of locating a line, are not competent evidence. Hall v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 416 . Long v. Colton, ante, 414.

Unless the settlement of Russell can be established within the present limits of the defendant town, this action fails, and it is unnecessary to consider the other questions raised by the defendant’s exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts2

Relies on it most ⓘ

Inhabitants of Greenfield v. Inhabitants of Camden74 Me. 56 (1882)
O'Connell v. Cox60 N.E. 580 (Mass. 1901)

Most recent

O'Connell v. Cox60 N.E. 580 (Mass. 1901)
Inhabitants of Greenfield v. Inhabitants of Camden74 Me. 56 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Hall v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 416 (1867)	12

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list