
    The Inhabitants of Great Barrington versus The Inhabitants of Lancaster.
    A pauper had a derivative settlement m a part of the town of A, which was annexed to the town of B; but being of age, and out of the commonwealth at the time of such annexation, his settlement continued in A. Afterwards the town of C was incorporated, and contained within its limits the tract of land in right of which the settlement was held, In the act incorporating C. it was provided that persons who had gained a settlement in the part of B which by the act was made a part of C, and who should thereafter need support, should be supported by C. This latter town was holden liable for the support of the pauper, although never, in fact, settled in B.
    Assumpsit for expenses incurred in the relief and support of John Bixby, a pauper, whose legal settlement the plaintiffs aver to be in Lancaster.
    
    * At the trial of the cause, which was had upon the general issue before Jackson, J., at the last May term in this county, the only question made in the case was, whether the said Bixby had his settlement in Lancaster, as the plaintiffs allege ; and the following facts were in evidence : —
    The pauper was born in 1747, at Lancaster, where his father was then settled; and he had never acquired a new settlement within the commonwealth.
    Whilst the father was still living, viz., in February, 1781, that part of the town of Lancaster in which he resided was taken off and annexed to the town of Shrewsbury.
    
    In March, 1786, a part of Shrewsbury, including that part in which the pauper’s father had resided, was erected into a separate town, by the name of Boylston.
    
    In January, 1808, the town of West Boylston was incorporated, including a part of the towns of Boylston, Sterling, and Holden; and that part of Boylston which was included in West Boylston is the same in which the pauper’s father had resided as aforesaid.
    In the two first-mentioned acts, there is no special provision respecting paupers; but in the act for incorporating West Boylston, 
       it is enacted, “ that any person who may have gained an inhabitancy at any time before the first Monday of March [then] next within that part of either of the said towns which is by this act incorporated into the town of West Boylston, and who shall hereafter need to be supported as a poor person, shall be supported by the town of West Boylston.’’
    
    Upon these facts the judge directed a verdict for the defendants, which was returned accordingly; and the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, on account of the said direction.
    
      Whiting, for the plaintiffs.
    It is very clear that this * pauper has his settlement in Lancaster, unless it has been transferred to M^est Boylston by the act incorporating the latter town. The father’s settlement in Lancaster was not transferred to Shrewsbury by the annexation of his land to the latter in 1781; as, before the statute of 1793, c. 34, the division of a "town or the annexation of a part of one to another did not change the settlement of the inhabitants.
    • It cannot be inferred, fropi the act incorporating West Boylston, that the pauper’s settlement was transferred to that town. The provision in that act extended only to the three towns named in it, and of parts of which the new town was to consist. It extends to persons who had gained a settlement in one of the said towns. Lancaster is not named in the act, and was no party to the convention which the statute was intended to ratify. The pauper had never had a settlement in either of the three towns. His father had died long before the incorporation of West Boylston, and the settlement of the son being merely derivative from his father, his case was not within the expression of the statute, which refers only to those who might have gained a settlement in their own right by inhabitancy. The construction contended for by the defendants would operate with great hardship upon West Boylston.
    
    
      
      Ashmun, for the defendants,
    contended that the settlement of the pauper’s fa°ther was transferred, in 1781, from Lancaster to Shrews-bury ; which he argued to be the natural and necessary effect of the act of annexation, since it contained no provision to the contrary. The act of 1808, incorporating West Boylston, is so clear in its provision on this subject as to put it beyond a doubt that this pauper is chargeable to that town. The supposed hardship arising in cases of this kind has often been urged, and as often disregarded by this Court. Such suggestions can have no operation, when opposed to the will of the legislature; by a close adherence to which, upon questions relating to the settlement of paupers, all the hardships will probably in the course of time be equalized.
    
      
      
        Stat. 1807, c. 48
    
   * Parker, C. J.

The pauper’s original settlement was in Lancaster, that being his father’s settlement at the time of his birth. On the annexation of that part of Lancaster where the father dwelt to Shrewsbury, his settlement was transferred to the latter town; for although no express provision respecting paupers appears in the act providing for their annexation, yet it is a necessary effect of such annexation, that the town which acquires the new inhabitants and new territory should also incur such burdens as may be incident to the new relations.

It does not appear, however, that the pauper was, in 1781, when the annexation took place, a member of his father’s family. On the contrary, it was stated at the bar, and not denied, that, before that time he had removed without the commonwealth; and as he came of age long before that period, it is to be presumed that he was emancipated, and capable of gaining a settlement for himself; so that his settlement was not transferred with his father’s ; nor did the annexation operate upon him personally to change his settlement, on account of his absence, as was settled in the case of Windham vs. Portland.

The pauper’s settlement therefore remained in Lancaster, but for the provisions in the statute incorporating West Boylston. By that act the part of Lancaster in which the pauper’s father had resided, and which afterwards became a part of Shrewsbury, was constituted, with parts of other towns, the town of West Boylston.

It has been contended that, to bring a pauper within the provision of this statute, he should literally have gained a settlement in one of the towns out of which West Boylston was created ; and so that this pauper, never having had a settlement in any town but Lancaster, which is not one of the component parts, cannot be charged to West Boylston, but belongs still to Lancaster.

The obvious meaning, however, of the legislature was to make West Boylston liable, in respect to the territory of which it had acquired the municipal jurisdiction ; in order that, as it acquired by its incorporation * all the rights and priv ileges, which the several towns that were dismembered had enjoyed, it should also succeed to all the duties and burdens to which they had before been liable, according to the reasonable maxim, Qui sentit commodum, sentiré debet et onus. Lancaster there fore, which had, ever since the year 1781, lost the privilege of tax ing the lands and property of the inhabitants of that part of its former territory which had successively been transferred to Shrews-bury, Boylston, and West Boylston, is discharged from the burden of supporting any of those inhabitants, or others who derive a settlement under them,

Judgment on the verdict 
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 384
     
      
      
         [Fitzburgh vs. Westminster, 1 Pick. 144. — Southbridge vs. Charlton, 15 Mass. Rep. 248. — Hallowell vs. Bowdoinham, 1 Gr. 129. — Lancaster vs. Sutton, 16 Mass. Rep. 112.— Westborough vs. Franklin, 15 Mass. Rep. 254.-Princeton vs. Boylston, 15 Mass. Rep. 257. — Ed.]
     