
    THE TOWN OF LOUDON versus THE TOWN OF DEERING.
    A warning; to persons to depart from a town, to prevent their alining a settlement under the statute of 5 Geo. i., is void, unless the time of such persons’ abode in the town is stated, either in the body of the warrant or in the return of the officer who served it.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the support of several paupers alleged to have their settlement in the town of Deering. The question was, whether the paupers were settled in the town of Weare or in the town of Deering; and it was agreed that they were settled in Weare, unless a warning; given by the selectmen of that town in 1784, to one Joshua Wiliet, on whose settlement that of these paupers depended, to depart from that town, was sufficient to prevent the said Joshua from gaining- a settlement there under the statute of 5 Geo. 1, c. 87, § 9. The only tion to the warning was, that it did not appear, either in the warrant or the constable’s return upon it, what time the said Joshua had resided in Weare.
    
      S. Green, for the plaintiffs.
    
      J. Smith, for the defendants.
    
      
       lw Laws |*ma H'
    
   By the court.

The warning given to Joshua Wiliet was " insufficient to prevent him from gaining a settlement in Weare.

It did not pursue the statute, which required that the names of the persons warned, the time of their abode in the place, and when the warning was given, should be returned to the court of sessions. The time of Willet’s abode in ' J ' Weare does not appear, either in the warrant itself or in the constable’s return. The warning was therefore void.

Judgment for the defendants. 
      
       10 Mass. Rep. 506, Hamilton vs. Ipswich.
     