
    PAUPER CASES.
    No. 1.
    TOWN OF PAWLET against TOWN OF RUTLAND.
    
      Rutland,
    
    1818.
    Á town, in which a Jail is situated, may recover the expence of supporting a pauper,' in such prison, of the town where he was last legally settled.
    ERROR brought to reverse a judgment of Rutland County Court.
    The original case, was an action of Indebitatus assumpsit, brought by Rutland against Pawlet, to recover money, paid in supporting a transient person, belonging to Pawlet, under'the 11th section of the Act concerning legal settlement and providing for the poor, 1 Stat. 388’.
    The declaration did not alledge that the person provided for was poor and unable to respond.
    On the trial, in the County Court, it appeared' that the person provided for, was a prisoner, confined in Jail, in the town of Rutland, on civil process ; that, being in need of relief, he was-supported by the town of Rutland as a pauper, and that his-place of legal settlement, at the time, was in Pawlet.
    The County Court charged the Jury, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
    Verdict and Judgment for the plaintiff.
   Decided by the Court. That there is no error.

1. The omission to state in the declaration, that the person provided for, was unable to defray the expence, is not fatal,after verdict.

2. A person, brought from one town, and confined in Jail in another, is a transient person, • within the meaning of the Act; and, his imprisonment is a disability and confiwmmt, within the spirit of the 11th section of the Act; and the towii Where the Jail is situated, may, under the said 11th section, recover the expence, incurred in support of such pauper, of the town where he was last legally settled. 2 Mass. 547, 564. 5 Do. 244.  