
    Alanson Stacey versus David Benson.
    Oct. 29th
    
    In this case it was resolved, that under St. 1783, c. 38, §7, providing, that where any person, by excessive drinking, &,c. shall endanger or expose “ the town to which he belongs ” to expense for his maintenance, the selectmen thereof shall make complaint to the judge of probate of the county to which the person belongs, and authorizing such judge thereupon to appoint a guardian to such spendthrift, the appointment of a guardian upon the complaint of selectmen of the town where the spendthrift was domiciled, was valid, although such spendthrift had his legal settlement in a town in a different county from that in which such appointment was made.
    
      Mann and S. Williams, for the plaintiff.
    
      Warren, for the defendant.
   [In the Revised Statutes, c. 79, § 11, the matter is put beyond doubt, the authority being conferred on the selectmen of the town of which the spendthrift is an inhabitant, or in which he resides.]  