
    The Inhabitants of Cambridge versus The Inhabitants of Charlestown.
    A citizen of Vermont, having resided in a town in this State ten years, and having paid taxes more than five years, acquired a settlement in such town, although he left his wife and children upon his farm in Vermont, and occasionally visited them there, and once tarried with them five or six months during the term.
    A town is not held to support an alien married to a woman having her legal settlement in such town, unless she has been removed thither ; but may resort to the Commonwealth for its indemnity.
    Assumpsit for the support of Josiah Raymond and Joseph Wheeler, paupers alleged to have their legal settlement in Charles-town.
    
    *The action was submitted to the determination of the Court upon the following facts agreed by the parties.
    £C The said Raymond is a citizen of the United States; and in the year 1803, being then more than thirty-one years of age, came to Charlestown, from the State of Vermont, where his family, consisting of his wife and several children, remained upon a farm, of which he was the owner, until the year 1810, when he removed them to Charlestown, where they have lived ever since. The said Raymond several times sent a part of bis earnings at Charlestown to his family previous to his removing them; and he went twice to visit them ; ai one time tarrying with them two or three weeks ; and at another, during the embargo of 1807, he remained with them five or six months. He has been taxed in Charlestown, and has paid the taxes assessed upon him more than five years within any ten successive years since he first resided there ; and he has several times voted in the election of governor, senators, and representatives.
    “.The said Wheeler is an alien, and married to a woman who has her- settlement in Charlestown, and has resided in that town ever since his marriage ; but has never been supported by that town.
    “ The board and necessaries sued for in this action were furnished by the plaintiffs to the said Raymond, and Wheeler, while they were imprisoned in Cambridge for debt ; from which imprisonment they were both discharged by taking the poor debtor’s oath. Notice was duly given by the plaintiffs to the defendants in both cases.”
    Upon these facts it was agreed that judgment should be rendered, upon nonsuit or default, as the decision of the Court should require.
    Baldwin, for the plaintiffs,
    was stopped by the Court as to Raymond’s settlement; and he argued that Wheeler gained a settlement by his marriage, under the first article of the second section of the statute of 1793, c. 34, and that the defendants were bound to furnish relief for him in the * first instance, and resort to the Commonwealth for their indemnity.
    
      Stearns, for the defendants,
    insisted, that the provision of the statute relied on for the plaintiffs was intended only for the case where the wife was removed, that the husband should not be separated ; but it had no application to the case of Wheeler.
    
    As to Raymond, he argued, that his residence was interrupted by his visits to Vermont, and that, his family continuing there, he must be considered as still having his home or domicil there. It may be likened to the case of a seaman, who never loses his settlement in the place where he leaves his family, let his absence be ever so long. Raymond was absent at Vermont longer than the pauper in the case of Billerica vs. Chelmsford; 
       and the Court held the absence in that case sufficient to break the continuity, and to prevent the gaining of a settlement.
    
      Baldwin, in reply.
    
      Raymond had no intention, in his visits to Vermont, to change his place of residence, as was the fact in Bille rica vs. Chelmsford. He probably paid taxes in Charlestown the same years that he visited his family.
    
      
       10 Mass. Rep. 394,
    
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. On the facts agreed in this case, we think the defendants liable for the support of one of the paupers, and not for that of the other.

With respect to Raymond, he has resided ten years in Charles- town, and has paid his taxes five years. This makes him chargeable to the defendants, according to the twelfth rule established by the legislature in their act respecting habitancy. That he had a family in Vermont, and occasionally visited them there, makes no difference ; because he did not consider it as his home, but kept his family there only until he could conveniently remove them. In the mean time he was permitted to exercise all the privileges, and was subject to all the duties, of an inhabitant of Charlestown. Had his family resided on a farm, belonging to *hitn, in another town within the Commonwealth, there might be some question respecting his domicil. At least, we do not decide on such a state of facts.

As for the other pauper, who is an alien, he would be chargeable to Charlestown only in case his wife, who has her settlement in that town, had been removed thither. But it does not appear that any such removal had taken place. The plaintiffs must, therefore, apply to the Commonwealth for the reimbursement of the expense incurred in his support.  