
    Pierce, ex parte.
    
    An appeal does not lie from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas ou a complaint against the kindred of a pauper, under Stat. 1821, ck. 123, see. 5.
    The overseers of the poor of Poland complained to the Court of Common Pleas against Pierce, as the grandfather of a pauper chargeable to that town, to whose support they alleged that he was of sufficient ability to contribute; and for that purpose prayed process against him. In that court he moved for a trial of the question of his ability, by the jury; which Whitman C. J. overruled, on the ground that it was a question to be determined by the court; and after a hearing, adjudged him of sufficient ability, and entered judgment against him for a weekly payment, till the farther order of the court. From this judgment he claimed an appeal to this court, which was refused in the court below, as not provided for by any statute.
    
      Fessenden now moved for leave to enter the appeal.
   Which the Court refused, observing that the term actions,” in the statutes granting appeals, was never understood to apply to complaints, and processes not according to the course of the common law; and that in this case, moreover, the statute contemplated farther proceedings, from time to time, in the Court of Common Pleas, to increase or diminish the amount assessed, for which purpose it was necessary that the record should remain in that court.  