
    The Inhabitants of Athol versus The Inhabitants of Watertown. Same versus The Inhabitants of New Salem.
    Where a person lived in a town nine years and four months and then absconded and never returned, but his wife remained there eight months longer, it was held that he had not resided there ten years actually or constructively, and so had not gained a settlement in the twelfth mode in St. 1793, c. 34. [Revised Stat. c. 45. § 1.]
    Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in supporting'Seth Stone, a pauper.
    Upon a case stated it appeared, that the pauper was ti e legitimate son of Jonathan Stone, whose settlement was in Watertown. The pauper removed to New Salem in April, 1794, and resided there till August, 1803, when he absconded, leaving his wife there. He never returned. He had no fixed place of residence, after he absconded, until after the lapse of ten years from the time when he went to New Salem to reside. His wife remained there until May, 1804. Before the ten years had elapsed she stood in need of relief and received assistance from the town. The pauper paid taxes for more than five years during the time of his residence in New Salem.
    
      Oct. 2d.
    
    
      Oct. 4th.
    
    The plaintiffs were to recover judgment against Watertown oí New Salem, according as the settlement of the pauper snould be determined to be in one or the other of these towns.
    Newton, for the inhabitants of Watertown,
    contended that the pauper had “ resided” in New Salem ten years, within the meaning of St. 1793, c. 34, residence being used as equivalent to domicile, and that where a residence is once fixed, the burden of proof is on the other side to show that it has been changed. Prov. St. 4 W. $• M. c. 13; 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 10 ; St. 1789, c. 14 ; Lincoln v. Hapgood, 11 Mass. R. 350 , Chelsea v. Malden, 4 Mass. R. 131 ; Granby v. Amherst, 7 Mass. R. 1 ; Billerica v. Chelmsford, 10 Mass. R. 394 ; Ab ington v. Boston, 4 Mass. R. 312 ; Hardwick v. Raynham, 14 Mass. R. 363.
    
      Bigelow and Brooks, for New Salem.
    
      Merrick, for the plaintiffs.
   Per Curiam.

The pauper has not had a residence for ten years, either actual or constructive, in the town of New Salem. There is no evidence, that when he absconded, he had animus revertendi. The inhabitants of Watertown must be defaulted ; and in the action against New Salem the plaintiffs must become nonsuit.  