
    The Inhabitants of Taunton versus The Inhabitants of Westport.
    The town in which certain paupers had their legal settlement was holden liable to the town wherein the county gaol was situate, for the support of the paupers ; who were committed to the gaol, as idle and disorderly persons, by i magistrate, the gaol-keeper not having been appointed, by the Sessions, master of the house of correction, nor any overseers thereof having been appointed, and there being no other house of correction in the county.
    
    This action, which was brought to recover the amount of certain expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the support of Humphrey Mien, Perry Trip, and Lydia Trip, was tried upon the general issue before the Chief Justice, at an adjourned session of the last October term in the county of Bristol, holden at Taunton in May last.
    It appeared, on the trial, that the persons named were all inhabitants of Westport, and had their legal settlement in that town ; and that they were in distress in Taunton, having been committed to the public gaol in that town as idle and disorderly persons, by virtue of precepts from a justice of the peace for the county of Bristol, residing in Westport. There was no other house of correction in said county but the said gaol in Taunton. The said persons were committed to the gaol, and taken into custody by the gaoler, neither he nor any other person having been appointed keeper or master of the house of correction ; nor were there any overseers thereof appointed by the Court of Sessions.
    The said persons so committed, being unable to support themselves, and having no kindred of ability to support them, and no work having been assigned them, there being no materials therefor provided by the county, they were supported during their confinement by the gaoler, at the expense of the plaintiffs.
    It was agreed that the amount of the charges was correct, if the plaintiffs were entitled to recover ; and that due notice was given to the overseers of Westport.
    
    [*356] * A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs for the sum demanded, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the above facts. If the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, judgment was to be entered on the verdict, with interest, as additional damages ; otherwise, the verdict was to be set aside, and the plaintiffs to become nonsuit.
    
      Tillinghast, for the plaintiffs.
    Holmes, for the defendants.
    
      The opinion of the Court was delivered by
    
      
       [On this subject of the maintenance of poor convicts, &c., see Rev. Stat. chap. 143 sect. 15 and 16, and supplemental provisions enacted nearly every year from A. D 1836, to this, A. D. 1843. — Ed.]
    
   Wilde, J.

Upon the facts reported in this case, it has been argued by the counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs have no right to recover ; because the persons named in the writ, having been committed to gaol by virtue of a warrant, and taken into custody by the gaoler, must be considered either as criminals lawfully committed, or as being in the custody of the gaoler, as master of the house of correction, or as being imprisoned without authority of law. That, in the first case, application ought to have been made by the gaoler to the proper authority, to have the expenses paid out of the county treasury, at the charge of the Commonwealth. That, in the second, case, it was the duty of the master of the house of correction comfortably to provide for them, he to be reimbursed as the statute in-such case directs, and not by the town in which the house may be situate. But that, if the commitment was unlawful, and. the imprisonment without authority to justify it, the overseers of the poor of the town of Taunton ought not to have aided the gaoler in such unlawful act, in violation of his official duties, by relieving him from the expenses to which he might thereby be exposed.

As to the first point, it seems clear that the persons named in the writ were not lawfully committed to gaol as criminals, they not having been convicted or accused of any crime or misdemeanour punishable by law ; and the warrant stating that they were committed to the gaol as a house of correction, no other having been provided by the county.

* As to the second point, although by law the gaol may [*357] be made use of as a house of correction where no other is provided, yet certain previous measures are required to be adopted by the Court of Sessions, before it can be considered to be legally established as such. In the present case, it appears that the gaol had never been" recognized by the Sessions as a house of correction ; no rules and regulations had been made by them ; and no overseers ot master had been appointed. The gaol, therefore, cannot be considered as a house of correction, within the meaning of the statutes cn that subject; nor the gaoler or master thereof be liable to the duties of that office, nor authorized in that capacity to recover any expenses he might incur from a mistaken notion of his authority and obligations.

As to the third point, if the imprisonment of the persons claiming relief from the town of Taunton was unlawful, it remains to be considered, whether this was, in law, sufficient to justify a refusal of the overseers of the poor to provide for the relief and supp urt of the persons thus unlawfully restrained ; and we are all of opinion that it is not.

The law makes it the duty of the overseers, in their respective towns arid districts, to provide for the immediate comfort and relief of all persons residing or found therein, not belonging thereto, when they fall into distress, and stand in need of immediate relief. And it might, in many cases, defeat this humane provision of the law, if relief could be denied until inquiry should be made into the circumstances under which persons in distress may have been reduced to such a situation. Whether they were brought to want by their own fault, or the fault of others, or by misfortune, are considerations which cannot vary the duties of the overseers. Suppose a person, having no color of authority, should arrest a stranger passing through a town, and should imprison him until he should become sick and unable to support himself, his case requiring medical aid, nurses, &c., the expenses of which the wrongdoer should refuse or be unable to [*358] advance ; could the overseers be justified in suffering * the injured person to perish from want ? Most certainly not. In the case before us, the magistrate and the gaoler doubtless acted from a mistaken notion of the law. But, however that may be, we think the overseers did right in providing for the relief of the persons imprisoned, and, of consequence, that the plaintiffs have a good right 'o recover in this action.

Judgment on the verdict. 
      
      
        Stat. 1787, c. 54.
     