
    [76] EVESHAM v. NEWTON.
    The township to which a pauper is improperly removed, is to be allowed the expense of maintaining such pauper, pending the action by which it is determined.
    
      Certiorari to the Sessions of Gloucester.
    Two justices of Gloucester county had removed one Delap from Newton, in Gloucester, to Evesham, in Burlington county. Evesham appealed, and the Sessions of Gloucester confirmed the order of the two justices. On a certiorari, this order of the Sessions was quashed in this court, and a bill of costs and expenses taxed. The bill contained an allowance for the maintenance of Delap’s wife and child by Evesham, pending the controversy. On a motion to re-tax the bill, there was an exception to this part of it. It appeared that Delap, his wife and child, had, in fact, been delivered by the constable of Newton, in Gloucester, to the overseer of Evesham ; at the same time, the order only specified the name of Delap, the husband ; and Evesham had maintained them all. It was contended that they were not removed by the order to Evesham, and therefore the court ought not to tax their maintenance against Newton. Oo the other hand, it was argued that Newton ought to pay the expenses of keeping them all, pending the appeal and eertiorari, as the constable had delivered all of them to Evesham, under that order.
   Kinsey, C. J.,

and Smith, held that the allowance was right; they said Evesham had, in fact, maintained them under this order, and that it was unreasonable for Newton to avail itself of this exception, against its own construction of the order.

Chetwood, J., hesitante.  