
    THE TOWN OF WALPOLE vs. THE TOWN OF MARLOW.
    For what defects irt a declaration judgment must b« arrested, and what defects - ■ are cured hy a verdict*
    This was an action of assumpsit. It was alleged in the declaration, that the town of Walpole had relieved and maintained one F. M. a páuper, having her legal settlement in the town of Marlow, which was by law chargeable for her support, and had expended in her support $129 71, of which the said town of Marlow had had due notice, &e. and thereby became liable, and in consideration thereof promised, &c.
    The cause was tried here at May term, 1820, upon the general issue, and a verdict returned in favor of the town of Walpole.
    
    
      J. C. Chamberlain, of counsel for Marlow,
    
    moved in arrest of judgment: and be contended that the declaration was defective, in not alleging that the pauper had no relations in the line of father or grandfather, &c„, of sufficient ability to maintain her. The statute of Feb. 15, 1791, sec. 7, enacts, “ that the relations of any poor person standing in need of 
      “ relief, in the line of father or grand father, &x., of suffi- “ cient ability, shall be liable to maintain and relieve them, “&c.; and in case any one standing in need of relief have “ no such relations of sufficient ability,' then, and in every “ such case, the town or place in this state where such per- “ son was born or last an inhabitant, shall be considered as “ the town or place liable to relieve and maintain such per- “ son, &c.”(l) It is clear that towns are liable to maintain paupers only in cases, where there are no relations by law bound to maintain them. The declaration in this case contains no allegation, that F. M. the pauper, had no relations by law bound to maintain her: it is therefore most manifestly bad.
    
      Field, for the plaintiff.
    (1) 1 N. H. vvs 356.
    ,(2) 4 IX k E, 470, Bisliop vs. Hayward. — Í Saunrt. 2'2B, note I_1 D.& E., Spiers vs. Parker.
   Richardson, C. J.

It is contended in this case that judgment must be arrested, because the declaration does not allege, that the pauper had no relations by law bound to support her. If the title stated in the declaration be defective, the judgment must be arrested. But if this be only an instance of a title defectively stated, the defect is cured by the verdict. The true distinction between a defective title, and a title defectively stated, is this : when any particular fact is essential to the validity of the plaintiff’s title, if such fact is neither expressly stated, in the declaration, nor necessarily implied from those facts which are stated, the title must be considered as defective, and judgment must be arrested; but if such fact, although not expressly stated, be necessarily implied from what is stated, the title must be considered only as defectively stated, and the defect is cured by a verdict.(2)

The declaration in this case contains an allegation that the town of Marlow was by law chargeable with the support ot the pauper. This allegation necessarily implies and could not be proved without evidence, that the pauper had no relations bylaw bound to support her. For if she had such, relations, the town of Marlow was not chargeable with her support. This then is an instance, not of a defective title, but of a title defectively stated. The defect is cured bv the. verdict, and judgment must be rendered on the verdict.  