Town of Northfield v. Town of Roxbury

A married woman is not liable to be removed, as a pauper, from her husband, or from the place of his actual residence, to the place of her own legal settlement, though the husband may have no settlement within the state.

Two justices ordered the removal of one Mary Nary from Northfield (o Roxbury. On appeal, the following plea and replication were interposed : — And for further plea in this behalf, the said town of Roxbury, leave being first had, say that said Northfield ought to be barred from having and maintaining said order of removal because they say that at the time said order was made, and a long time before, to wit, for five years, the said Mary was, and still is the lawful wife of one Edward Nary, who then, and long before, and ever since resided in said town of North-field, and then and there had his domicil, and still resides there, and is now living, and the said Mary, during all that time, resided in said Northfield until she was removed under said order to said Roxbury, which they are ready to verify. Wherefore, they pray judgment that said Northfield be barred from having and maintaining their said order, and for their costs. > And the said Northfield, in answer to the plea of the said Roxbury, secondly above, pleaded in bar, say, that for anything therein contained, said Northfield ought not to be barred from having and maintaining their said order of removal against said Roxbury, because, although true it is that the said Mary Nary, the pauper in said order of removal, named, was, at the time of making said order, the lawful wife of one Edward Nary, who then lived in said Northfield, yet, the said Edward Nary was, at the time of his marriage with the said Mary, a foreigner, and had not, at that .time, nor has he since, gained a legal settlement in said Northfield, nor in any other town in this state, and this the said Northfield is ready to verify. To this replication the appellants demurred generally, and the plaintiffs joined in demurrer. The county court adjudged the replication insufficient; to which decision the plaintiffs excepted. The question for decision, in this case, arises upon the second plea in bar, of the defendant, and replication thereto, to which there is a general demurrer. The demurrer reaches the first defective plea, and, unless the facts stated in that plea are sufficient to bar the plaintiff, the judgment of the county court is erroneous.. The plea alleges that the pauper was, at the time of making the order, the lawful wife of one Edward Nary, who, for five years before, and at that time had his domicil in North-field. It does not allege that either the pauper or her husband had a legal settlement there. The replication shows that the husband of the pauper was a foreigner and had not gained a legal settlement in North-field, nor in any other town in the state. Unless the fact that the pauper was a married woman, and that her husband, with her, had their domicil in North-field, is a sufficient reason why she should not be removed, the plea in bar is insufficient. The statute provides that, “ a married woman shall always follow and have the settlement of her husband if he have any within this state, otherwise, her own, at the time of-her marriage, if she have any, shall not be lost or suspended by the marriage.” R. S. chap. 15, §1, p. 99. It would seem that the statute is broad enough to reach . . ° this case. It may be urged by the defendant that a married woman cannot be removed from her husband, but if so, what is the meaning of the term “ suspended, ” in the statute above cited ? I can see no other meaning, than that a marriage of a woman with a man having no settlement in the state, shall not prevent her removal at any time when she shall be poor and in need of relief. Lebanon v. Hebron, 6 Conn. R. 45. Reported in vol. 1st, 2nd series.