
    The Inhabitants of Walpole versus The Inhabitants of Hopkinton.
    Incorporating a district into a town makes no alteration in regard to the settlement of persons residing within the territory.
    Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the burial of Henry Snell and the support of his wife and three children, paupers whose settlement was alleged to be m Hopkinton. Trial before Morton J., upon the general issue.
    It was proved that John Snell had a settlement in Hopkinton, and that Asa Snell was the son of John, and Henry the son of Asa. In 1791 Asa removed with his family to Rutland District, where he resided till the close of the revolutionary war, when he returned with his family to Hopkinton, where he died.. In 1753, the northwestern part 01 Rutland was incorporated into a district, by the name oi Rutland District, and in 1774, into a town, by the name oí Barre.
    
      July 1826 in Suffolk.
    
    A verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiffs ; but it the Court were of opinion that Asa Snell, by the incorporation of Barre, or in any other manner, gained , a settlement in Barre, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit; otherwise judgment was to be rendered on the verdict.
   Per Curiam.

The incorporation of the town from a distrjct^ mac]e n0 alteration in regard to the settlement of persons residing within the territory. If they were lawfully settled in the district, they became so in the town; if the district was not chargeable for their support, the town was not  