
    Inhabitants of Starks versus Inhabitants of New Portland.
    In an action for supplies furnished to a pauper, who is proved to have once had his settlement in the defendant town, the burthen is on that town to prove a subsequent settlement gained elsewhere.
    This was an action of assumpsit to recover for supplies furnished, in 1856, by the overseers of the poor in Starks, to Stimson Paine, a pauper, alleged to have a settlement in New Portland.
    The evidence was, that the pauper was born in New Portland in 1819, and resided in his father’s family, in that town, until March 15, 1846; that, at the latter date, he, with his father, removed to Starks; and that he continued to reside in his father’s family for some time afterwards. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the pauper broke up his residence in Starks, before the lapse of five years from his removal to that town.
    The Court instructed the jury that, if satisfied that Paine once had a legal settlement in New Portland, the burthen was upon the defendant town to prove a continued residence of five years in Starks, without assistance as a pauper; otherwise the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.
    Some other points were raised in the case, but they were unimportant.
    The verdict was for the plaintiffs. The defendants excepted.
    
      J. H. Webster,
    
    in support of the exceptions, cited 1 Starkie on Ev., 55; 2 lb., 688; Martin v. Fishing Ins. Co., 20 Pick., 389; Sawyer v. Knowles, 33 Maine, 208; Brewer v. Linneus, 36 Maine, 428; Warren v. Thomaston, 43 Maine, 406 ; Wayne v. Greene, 21 Maine, 351; Powers v. Russell, 13 Pick., 69; Ross v. Gould, 5 Maine, 204; Wilmington v. Burlington, 4 Pick., 114; Gilmore v. Wilbur, 18 Pick., 511; Lane v. Crobie, 12 Pick., Ill; Robinson v. White, 42 Maine, 209.
    
      
      J. S. Abbott, contra.
    
   The decision of the Court was announced by

Goodenow, J.

Exceptions overruled; Judgment on the verdict.  