
    Trustees of Wayne Township, Jefferson County, v. Trustees of Stock Township, Harrison County.
    Person gains a legal settlement in a township, though warned on first settlement to depart, if the warning is not repeated every year.
    This was an action of debt for moneys paid in support of a pauper, and was brought for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication, which of the townships were chargeable with the support of the pauper. It was an amicable suit and was prosecuted upon an agreed case, and adjourned for decision here, by the Supreme Court,, sitting in Harrison county.
    
      The material facts are as follows: Previous to the year 1821^ the pauper resided with her father in Wayne township, Jefferson county, and had obtained a legal residence there. In April, 1821, her father removed and settled in Stock township, Harrison county, and carried the pauper with him. On July 10, 1821, the overseers of the poor of Stock township warned the pauper to depart, which warning was repeated on June 8, 1822, and December 14, 1823, and again within one year from the last warning. On October 8, 1825, the overseers of the poor of Stock township transported the pauper to Wayne township, and left her there; when, by order of the trustees of Wayne township, she was sent back to Stock, and again, on the 31st of October, sent by the trustees of Stock to Wayne, where she had since been supported; and this action was instituted to recover the money expended in her support, and to decide upon which township she was chargeable.
    ♦Leavitt, for plaintiffs.
    Beebe, for defendants.
   Opinion of the court, by

Judge Hitchcock :

Such is the situation of our country, that this court is rarely called upon to give a construction to the “ act for the relief of the poor.” While the people of older states and communities have been oppressed with heavy taxes for the support of paupers, we have been measurably free from this burden. So fertile is the soil, and so various are the modes of employment, that with a reasonable share of industry and economy, almost any individual, arrived at years of discretion, possessed of health and sound intellect, may obtain a comfortable subsistence in Ohio. None but the unfortunate need claim the support of public charity. The time, however, must and will arrive, when questions of great importance to the community, growing out ot the poor laws, must be settled, and it is desirable that they should be settled correctly.

The general principle pervading the law is, that every pauper shall bo supported by the township where he or she may have been last legally settled. We are now called upon to give a construction to section 4 of the before-named act. This section provides in what manner a person may gain a legal settlement. As the question is important, it is to be regretted that the counsel employed in the case should not have given it a careful examination, and submitted to the court an argument containing the result of, their investigations. This, however, has been neglected. I have not had recourse to the statutes oí all the different states of the Union relative to this subject, but as far as my examination has extended, I find no law similar to our own. Of course, we can expect to derive but little aid from the decisions of courts in our sister states.

This section of the statute provides, “that any person or persons (other than those hereinafter provided for) residing one year in any township in this state, without being warned by the overseers of the poor, for said township, to depart the same, shall be considered as having gained a legal settlement in such township.” “That every indented servant, legally ^brought into this state, shall obtain legal settlement in the township, where such servant first served his or her master, or mistress, the space of twelve months.” That “ every married woman, during coverture, and after her husband’s death, shall be considered as legally settled in the place where he was last.legally settled ; but if he shall have no known place of legal settlement; then she shall be considered as legally settled in the place where she was last legally settled before marriage.” The subsequent parts of the section point out 'the manner in which a person likely to become chargeable is to ■be warned to depart the township, and the proceedings in addition ■to such warning.

It is to the first clause of the section that our attention is now turned, and the question which arises is, can a person who has been warned to depart the township, gain a legal settlement in the same township, by residing therein one year after such warning, 'the warning itself not having been i-epcated? In favor of the opinion that a repetition of the warning is unnecessary, it may be ■urged that it is required by neither the spirit nor express letter of ■the statute, and that it would be inconvenient to the township officers That a repetition of the warning would be inconvenient to the township officers is not denied; nor is it pretended that such proceeding is required by the express letter of the statute; ■that is, that it is required in so many words, hut the spirit and ¿policy of the law seems clearly to render it necessary. Ohio is a .new state, and policy dictates that in her different acts of legislation, she should go groat lengths to encourage emigration, This can not be done effectually, unless the terms upon which a legal settlement may be gained, are made easy. Under this impression, the law under consideration was undoubtedly enacted. By its provision, it is more easy to gain a legal settlement than in most, if not all, the older states in the Union. But were we to say, that a man once having been warned to depart the township could never thereafter gain a legal settlement in the same township, this policy of the law would be defeated.

Such construction, too, would, in many casos, cause manifest injustice. By the first clause of the section, it is residence, and residence alone, by which a person acquires a legal settlement. A person who had once been warned to *depart, could not by any subsequent act of his own, of the township, or of its officers, gain this privilege. He might accumulate any amount of property, might hold any office, might be separately taxed, and contribute largely for the support of the poor, still it would make no difference. Eventually misfortune might overtake him, his property might be swept away, himself reduced to poverty, and in his old age he might need for his subsistence, aid, similar to that which he had so liberally bestowed upon others. Whence is he to derive this aid? Not from the township where he has spent most of his days, where he has accumulated and expended his property, whose poor he has assisted to support, where are his friends and acquaintances. From thistowhship some forty or fifty years before, he was warned to depart, and there he has no legal settlement. He must be removed to the place where he was last settled, there to linger out the small remains of life among strangers.

By adopting this construction, we should not only defeat the policy of the law, but measurably contradict tho lettor. The words are, “any person or persons residing one year in any township in this state, without being warned,” etc., not from the time of his first arrival; of this, nothing is said. It seems to contemplate one year’s continued residence, without reference to the time when. It may be immediately after tho first arrival; it may be at any subsequent period. And if the overseers of the poor, having once warned, fail to repeat that warning, the individual concerned, may well conclude, that they, as well as the other citizens of the township, are satisfied that he should gain a legal settlement among them.

Upon the whole, we are clearly of the opinion, that, under the statute in question, a continued residence for one year in a township, without being warned, is sufficient to gain a legal settlement. It is not sufficient that the warning shall have been once given ; it must be repeated, so that at no one period there shall have been this continued, uninterrupted residence.

This principle being decided, there is no difficulty in applying it to the case under consideration. Mary Endsly, the pauper, was originally settled in the township of Wayne. She removed, in company with her father, to the township of *Stoek, in the spring of the year 1821. At this time, we must suppose she was of full age, as nothing to the contrary appears from the agreed case. From this latter township, she was warned to depart, July 10,1821, which warning was repeated on the 8th day of June of the succeeding year. She still continued to reside in the township, and was not again warned to depart, until November 14, 1823. Here, then, was a continued residence of more than one year, without interruption, by a warning to depart, by means whereof she gained a legal settlement, and this township is chargeable with her support.

Judgment must, therefore, be rendered for the plaintiff.

Judge Burnet’s

dissenting opinion:

The statement of facts on which this case was submitted pi’osents but a single question, whether a person “who will be likely to become a public charge,” and who has been legally warned by the overseers of the poor of the township into which he removes, within the term proscribed by the statute, can afterward acquire a settlement in that township, by being suffered to reside therein a year after such warning, without being warned a second time. Or, in other words, whether it is the duty of the overseers to repeat the warning from time to time, so as to prevent an interval of twelve months between such warning.

That part of the statute which relates to this question is in the following words: “That any person or persons residing one year in any township of this state, without being warned by the overseers of the poor for such township to depart the same, shall be considered as having gained a legal settlement in such township. And the overseers of the poor on receiving information that any person has come within the limits of thoir township to reside, who will be likely to become a township charge, shall issue their warrant or order to any constable of the township, commanding such constable to warn, such person to depart the township.” The first branch of this section provides how a person moving into a township may acquire a ■ legal settlement therein ; and the second prescribes the duty of the overseers, on receiving information that any suspected person has come to ^reside within the limits of their township. By the first a residence of one year, without being warned, gives a settlement. This, I apprehend, relates exclusively to the first year of their residence. If a person shall reside one year in any township, that is, if he shall come into a township and reside therein one entire year thereafter, he shall, at the expiration of that year acquire a settlement, unless he shall have been warned in the interval; but if he shall have been warned within that year, the law gives him no right. It does not provide for a second term, -within which he may acquire a right by residence under any circumstances.

By the common law paupers have no claims on public officers or public funds. They are to depend on private benevolence and the charity of well-disposed Christians. The right of receiving a support from the township treasury is given by the statute, and it can be claimed in those cases only which come clearly within the statute. The period from which the time of residence that will give a settlement must be calculated, is the day on which the the pauper came into the township to reside; and the question whether he acquires a settlement or not depends on the fact whether he is or is not warned within that' time. If he is not warned he acquires the right; but if he is he does not acquire it. The warning within the year excludes the right and the possibility of subsequently acquiring it.

If the question be asked, did this pauper,-after she removed into Stock township to reside, remain there a year without being warned ? The answer must be she did not; she was warned before the year expired. This being the fact, her subsequent residence, in my view, has nothing to do with the case. On being once legally warned, it was proper for her to return to the place of her last settlement. Her subsequent residence in the township, though permitted, was at her peril, and instead of' securing to her privileges under the law, subjected her to the penalty of being removed by force when the proper period for so doing should arrive. In the meantime she was an intruder, and in that character acquired no rights.

The object of the law was the protection of townships from the charge of supporting persons who have no legal claims on them, and at the same time to apprise such ^persons that they can not acquire a legal claim to support by continuing to reside in the township; for which purpose the first warning within the year is altogether sufficient.

The second branch of the section, which relates to the duty of the overseers, requires them to give but one notice or warning, and it fixes the time when it becomes their duty to give that warning. They must do it on receiving information that a person, who is likely to become chargeable, has come within their town-, ship to reside, and they are not required, under any circumstances, to repeat it. "When it has once been given within the time designated, the officers have discharged their duty, and nothing more is required of them until the suspected person becomes a public charge. Then, and not till then, it is made their duty to remove him. In the interim he may remain where he is, but always liable to be removed when he ceases to have the means of self-support.

If a repetition of the warning had been intended it would have been provided for. If, at the expiration of a year from the first warning, the pauper is to be considered as having come again into the township, and if a knowledge of his continuance by the overseers is to be considered as fresh evidence of that fact, the legislature ought to have said so, and should have made it the duty of the officers to repeat the warning in proper season. Rut as the law now stands, if they have warned the pauper once within the time prescribed, it is made their duty to remove him, when he shall become chargeable, whether more or less than a year has elapsed since the warning was given ; there is no limitation as to time.

It appears to me that the construction put on the first part of the section is inconsistent with the only construction that can be given to the concluding part of it. We are required to construe statutes so that every part may stand, if it be possible, and one part of a statute frequently points out the construction that must be given to another. The first part of the section in question is carelessly drawn, but taken in connection with the concluding part, the meaning of it is apparent. Residing one year must mean a year from the time when a suspected person first comes into the ^township to reside, and with this qualification the case presents no difficulty.

It is generally admitted that the sense of a statute is not. changed by transposing the parts of it. In this case, it appears to me that the parts of section 4 are not placed in their natural order. By changing the order the section will read thus: “ The overseers of the poor, on receiving information that any person has come within the limits of their township to reside, who will be likely to become a township charge, shall issue their warrant or order to any constable of the township, commanding said constable forthwith to warn such person to depart the township by reading said warrant, etc.; and any person or persons residing one year in any township in this state, without being warned by the overseers of the poor for said township to d.epart the same, shall be considered as having gained a legal settlement in such township.” On this reading it seems to be evident that the gaining of a settlement is the consequence of not being warned within a year after the person first moves into the township, that being the only warning required, and consequently the only one referred to, and on this supposition it must follow that a warning within the year excludes a settlement.  