
    Overseers of the Poor of the Town of East-Greenwich vs. Henry Card.
    By the 3d section of the “Act providing for the relief, employment and removal of the Poor,” a father is not compelled to pay for the entire support of his son, when by so doing he might be deprived of the means of supporting himself, but to pay in proportion to his ability.
    This was a complaint under the third section of “ an act providing for the relief, employment and removal of the poor,” and alleged that Henry Card was the father of one George Card, who was lawfully settled in said town, and, as such father, was bound to support said George, if a pauper, he being of sufficient ability so to do; that previous to March, 1849, said town had been at great expense in supporting said George at the Butler Hospital, and at the poor house in said town. That on or about the 13th of March, 1849, said George was ad* judged a lunatic, and was committed to the Butler Hospital, where he remained until the 13th of June, 1849, when said Henry, refusing to support said George, said town paid the sum of $52,27, for his support in said Hospital, and removed him to the poor house in said town, where he has remained ever since as a poor and indigent person — said Henry refusing to support said George — and had been at the expense of $20,00 therefor; that ever since the first of March, 1849, and long before, said Henry had been of sufficient ability to support said George. And the complainants pray the Court to assess such sum as they shall judge reasonable for said payment and expenses upon said Henry to the time of such assessment, with costs ; and also such weekly sums for the future as they shall judge sufficient for the support of said George.
    The respondent made defence without filing any formal answer.
    The complainants proved payment of $52,27, to the Butler Hospital, for the board of said George, and his maintenance at the poor house, where he died October 28th, 1849, and also that the father is possessed of some property.
    For the respondent it was contended among, other things,
    1st. That no request or notice to Henry Card by the Butler Hospital, or by the town of East-Greenwich, to pay these expenses, had been proved.
    2d. That the Butler Hospital should have sued Henry Card for the board of his son while there, said Hospital being authorized by statute to sue any person or town, chargeable, &c., and the payment by the town of East-Greenwich, being voluntary, said town had no right to recover of the respondent for the board of his son at the poorhouse, after they had voluntarily removed him from the Hospital. George Card being a lunatic, his father, if liable to pay his expenses, had a right to have him provided for at the Butler Hospital, where proper care would be taken of him.
    3d. That this respondent is of sufficient ability to pay but part, if any, of the maintenance of his son.
    Bowen and Blake (Attorney General) for the complainants.
    Winsor for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We think the respondent in this case is liable to pay for the support of his son, but considering his ability and circumstances, we think it would not be within the intention of the statute to order him to pay all the expenses of his son. To order him to pay for the entire maintenance, might have the effect of bringing both father and son upon the town. The father is ordered to pay one half the sum claimed by the town up to the time of assessment. The lunatic being dead, no weekly assessment is necessary.  