
    THE TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN versus THE TOWN OF ACWORTH.
    A person, in order to gain a settlement in a town under the statute of January 1, 1796, by having real estate of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, and paying all taxes assessed upon his poll and estate for four years, must have at least an estate of freehold in lands, either by lawful title or by dis-seizin.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of certain expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the relief of William Lyon, a pauper, who, as the plaintiffs alleged, had his legal settlement in Acworth.
    The cause was tried upon the general issue at October term, 1816, in this county, and the only question between the parties was, whether Lyon had his legal settlement in Acworth.
    It appeared in evidence that Lyon, in the beginning of the year 1798,-had agreed to purchase a farm in Acworth, and under the agreement moved to the farm on 9th March, in the same year, and resided on it more than four years, and paid all taxes assessed upon his poll and said farm during the. four years ; that the farm was of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars and more, and was taxed as land of greater value than one hundred and fifty dollars. But Lyon did not take a deed of the land, nor had he any title till 1799.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, whether Lyon, upon the foregoing facts, gained a settlement in Acworth; and it was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that he did, judgment should be rendered upon the verdict; otherwise the verdict to be set aside and a verdict entered for the defendant.
   Per curiam.

The statute of January 1, 1796, declares that “ any person, of twenty one years of age and upwards, “ having real estate of the value of one hundred and fifty “ dollars, or personal estate of the value of two hundred “ and fifty dollars, in the town or district where he dwells “ and has his home, and shall for the term of four years pay “ all taxes duly assessed on his poll and estate aforesaid, shall gain a settlement.”

We are clearly of opinion, that “ having real estate,” within the meaning of the statute, is the having at least of an estate of freehold, either by legal title or by disseizin. In this case Lyon during the first year had no title even by disseizin. He went upon the land not claiming it adversely to the owner, but under an agreement that admitted the title of the owner. He cannot, therefore, be said to have had real estate” the first year, within the meaning of the statute. (Conway vs. Deerfield, 11 Mass. Rep. 327.) The verdict must be set aside and a verdict entered for the defendants.

Judgment for the defendants.  