
    No. 3.
    OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF ST. ALBANS against OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF GEORGIA.
    
      Franklin,
    
    1818.
    A town which maintains a poor stronger, so dangerously sick, that he cannot be remov- - ed, without endangering life, may recover the amount of necessary expenditure, of the town where the pa.-.per was last legally settled, without having obtained an order oil removal.
    THE plaintiffs decíared, in a plea of the case, for that, where, as, one James Goodwin, on the 14th day of October,. 1811, being a stranger in St. Albans, and whose last place of legal set' tlement, was in said town of Georgia, was taken dangerously sick, in said town of St. Albans, and could not be removed to said town of Georgia, without endangering his life ; of which the said overseers of the poor, of said town of Georgia, on the same day and year, last aforesaid, had notice. And, whereas, the said town of Georgia, neglected to provide for the cure and maintenance of said Goodwin, and, said town of St. Albans, tvas at gfeat expense, in procuring assistance and necessaries, for the said Goodwin, during his sickness, and before he could be retiioved to said town of Georgia, to wit, the sum of $57,44. of which the overseers of Georgia, on the 28th day of June, 1813, had legal notice, in writing;
    
      Plea — Non assumpsit.
    On the trial, at June term, 1817, the defendants objected i
    
    1. That the plaintiffs could not recover, without first shewing an order of removal.
    
    2. That no evidence could be given, to prove any sum expended for said Goodwin, over five dollars, unless the same had been expended under an order from a Justice Peace.
    Both objections were over-ruled by the Judge.
    Verdict for plaintiff; and motion for new trial', founded on exceptions to the opinions of the Judge.
   Opinion of the Court. That this case comes under the 4th section of the Act concerning legal settlement, and providing for the poor, 1 Stat. p. '385 ; the words “such stranger,” in the 4th section, refer to the “stranger who shall have come to reside in sufcb town or place, and has not gained a legal settlement thereinand not to the poor stranger, on whom an order has been made. ' Jt would not be a rational construction of the Act, that a town should be compelled to order the removal of a pauper, who cannot be actually removed, or even examined, touching his ability, and last place of legal settlement.

2. On the second point, the Court consider the order of the. Justice bas no concern with the claim of the town, sued for in this action, and the objection was properly over-ruled.

Motion dismissed.

New trial not granted.  