
    Samuel Adams versus the Inhabitants of Wiscasset.
    Prisoners committed for crimes against the commonwealth are a charge u .ion the commonwealth, and the town, in which the prison is situated, is not answe-able for their support, or for medical aid furnished them,
    This was an action for medical and surgical aid, rendered by the plaintiff, a physician, to sundry persons confined in the county gaol in Wiscasset, charged with offences against the commonwealth.
    In a case stated by the parties for the opinion of the Court, it was agreed, that the plaintiff administered the medicines and made the visits for which he has brought his action; that the prisoners, who were thus assisted by him, were poor, and unable to procure medical assistance for themselves; that the assistance furnished by the plaintiff was necessary to them; and that due notice and request were made to the overseers' of the poor of the town of Wiscasset.
    
    If upon these facts the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in this action, it was agreed that judgment be entered for him for the sum of 117 dollars, 50 cents, and costs: otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit, and the defendants recover their costs.
   The cause being submitted without argument, the opinion of the Court was delivered to the following effect by

Parsons, C. J.

The plaintiff, in support of his demand, must rely upon the statute of 1793, c. 59. § 9. & 13. [*329 ] *By the former of these sections it is made the duty of the overseers of any town to provide for the immediate comfort and relief of all persons residing or found therein, not belonging thereto, when they fall into distress and stand in need of immediate relief, until they be removed. By the latter section, any town is holden to pay any expense, which shall be necessarily incurred for the relief of any person by any inhabitant not liable by law for his support, after notice and request to the overseers.

It has been in several cases determined, that these sections extend to paupers confined in gaol on civil process, it being the humane intention of the law that no person shall be left to perish from his poverty; and that a prisoner in gaol, without any means of support, is a person in distress found within the town in which the county gaol is situated.

In the present case, the plaintiff would extend this provision to prisoners committed foi crimes; and if the question was to be de cided by this statute, there does not seem to be any foundation for making a distinction among prisoners confined for different causes.

But the statute of 1794, c. 48., must govern this cause. By this statute the support of all prisoners, confined on a charge or conviction of crimes or offences against the commonwealth, is made a public charge upon the commonwealth, not to exceed five shillings per week. Poor prisoners in gaol for crimes are therefore not paupers within the former statute.

It appears in this case, that the expenses necessary for the relief of these prisoners necessarily exceeded the public allowance ; and the Sessions cannot allow the plaintiff his demand, or compensate the gaol-keeper, * if he should pay it. In cases [ * 330 ] of this kind, application must be made to the legislature, who will doubtless make the party a reasonable allowance. The plaintiff cannot maintain this action, and he must be called.

Plaintiff nonsmt 
      
       2 Mass. R. 547. 564.
     