
    The Inhabitants of Shutesbury versus the Inhabitants of Oxford.
    A town sends notice to another town that “ A. B. and Ms family ” had become chargeable, and had their lawful settlement in such other town ; to which an answer was returned that the said A. B. had no such settlement: on no objection being taken to the insufficiency of the notice as to the family, it was hold en that such objection was waived.
    
      Assumpsit for expenses incurred in the support of the wife and eight children of David, Rich. At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, at the last August term * in Franklin, [ * 103 J the plaintiffs proved a notice to the overseers of the poor of Oxford, informing them that “ David Rich and his family ” were chargeable to the plaintiffs, and that they had their lawful settlement in Oxford, and requesting their removal.
    The overseers of Oxford, within two months, returned to the overseers of Shutesbury the following written answer, viz. “ Gentlemen, we received your letter of the 4th of May last, giving information that David Rich has become chargeable in your town , and you seem to think that he is an inhabitant of Oxford; therefore, we write this to inform you that the said D. R. has no legal inhabitancy in Oxford. All the information we can give you on the subject is, that he was an inhabitant of Charlton; and is at this time, unless he has gained a settlement with you. With sentiments of esteem we are, gentlemen, yours respectfully.”
    It appeared by the testimony of one of the overseers of Oxford, that no objection was made at any time to the notice, either before or at the time of sending the answer. The jury were instructed, that if the notice was originally defective by reason of its generality, the defendants had waived the right to object, by receiving it without. objection to its sufficiency, and answering it.
    
      Allen and Brigham, for the defendants,
    contended that the notice was insufficient. In the case of Embden vs. Augusta 
      , this Court expressly decided that a notice that “ the family of ./. S. had become chargeable ” was insufficient.; and that decision is recognized and affirmed in the case of Andover vs. Canton 
      . It does not seem possible to distinguish that notice from the one in the case ■ at bar, as to their legal operation.
    Nor have the defendants waived their right to avail themselves of this objection. Their answer was very guarded. Considering the notice as sufficient, so far as it respected David Rich, they answer explicitly respecting him, and deny his settlement to be in their town. Knowing * the notice to be insufficient, [ * 104 ] as it related to his family, they take no notice of it.
    
      Mills, for the plaintiffs.
    It is to be remembered that the laws, respecting the settlement and support of paupers, are intended for the information and direction of laymen, and not of lawyers. To such the notice in this case would immediately convey the idea that by the family was intended the children of David Rich. This case is not exactly like the cases cited for the defendants. In one, the Court say that “ the family of J. S.” is insufficient; in the other, that notice of a pauper’s becoming chargeable does not include his children. The present notice is clear of both these determinations. But if the notice was insufficient, the defect was cured by the answer. The defendants took no exception to it. They say that D. M. was not settled in their town; and they say nothing of the family, because it was perfectly understood that children, while remaining in the family of their lather, must have the same settlement with him. If they had entertained any doubts who were meant by the family, they would naturally have called for an explanation, 01 objected to the notice for its uncertainty.
    
      
       12 Mass. Rep. 307
    
    
      
      
         13 Mass. Rep. 555.
    
   Parker, C. J.

The notice given by the overseers of Shutesbury was defective, for want of particularising the family of David Rich; and had the overseers of Oxford been silent, that town could not have been charged upon such notice. But defective notices may sometimes be cured by the conduct of the party to whom they are sent. The letter, of the overseers of Shutesbury was received by the overseers of Oxford; and they make a complaisant reply with respect to David Rich, whose settlement they deny to be in their town. They chose to say nothing about his family; and the presumption ought to be against them, viz. that they considered D. R. as the head of the family, and that their denial would go to the family, as well as to him. If they did not mean this, they [ * 105 ] must have intended to deceive their correspondents * into the belief, that they had no objection to the form of the notice. If they really had such objection, and wished to be informed of whom tbe family consisted, they ought to have suggested it in their answer. We think the ground taken by the Court of Common Pleas was correct; and the judgment of that Court must be affirmed . 
      
      
        [Andover vs. Canton, 13 Mass. 547.—Embden vs. Augusta, 12 Mass. 307 —Ed ]
     