
    East Windsor vs. Montgomery.
    1. Under the act of 1744 (1 Ne.ve.ll ed. of N. J. Laws, 256, and 1 Allison’s ed. 1 IS), “living one full year at one time, m one house or family gave a settlement.”
    2. The question of tlie credibility of a witness offered in a pauper ease, belongs exclusively to the Court of Quarter Sessions. The Supreme Court-is not to judge of the fact, but only of the law arising upon the fact.
    This was a certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Somerset to bring up an order of removal, and was argued at the last September term hy Wall and Wood for the overseers of East Windsor, and J. S. Green, for the overseers of Montgomery, upon the following state of the case :
    This was an appeal from an order of removal made by John Stout and James Stryker, two of the justices of the peace in and *for the county of Somerset, on the 9th [*40 December, 1822, removing Sarah Robeson, aged seventy-eight years, from the township of Montgomery, to the township of East Windsor, the place of her settlement, as they adjudge; which order was confirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Somerset in the sessions of June, 1824.
    On the hearing of the appeal, the appellees proved by the deposition of Sarah Robeson, the pauper, that she was told by her parents that she was born in the county of Monmouth, and the first place she recollects living at, was at Allentown, in the township of Upper Freehold, in the county of Monmouth. Her father’s name was John Riley; he removed from Allentown to Hightstown, in the township of East Windsor, in the said county of Middlesex. He never owned any real estate in the state of Hew Jersey. Pie was an Irishman, a day laborer, and was married to pauper’s mother before he left Ireland. She was in the 79th year of her age on the 13th May, 1824, and was eight or nine years of age when she removed to Hightstown. Shortly after which she went to live with one Christopher Hoagland, in the township of East Windsor, in said county, and continued to live with him until he died, when she was about thirteen years of age. Is sure that there never was an indenture of apprenticeship. She never saw one, signed one, or heard it read. Hoagland was not to teach her auy art or trade, but she was to do the ordinary work about the house. He told her she was bound to him. After Hoagland's death she worked about Hightstown wherever she pleased, without any control from Hoagland’s family. When about seventeen years old she was married to one William Britton, by John Chamberlain, Esq., a justice of the peace, with whom she lived eight or nine years at Hightstown, or its neighborhood, when he died. He was a carpenter by trade. He rented of one John Oausman. After his death she made a vendue and sold her furniture, and in about six months removed to Princeton, in the township of West Windsor, and lived with Jacob Berger two years in West Windsor, and continued to work about. About nine years after (he death of her husband, she was married by Joseph Olden, one of the justices of the peace of the county of Middlesex, to one John Robeson, who resided in the township of Montgomery in the county of Somerset. He owned a house and lot in said township, for which he paid fifty pounds, and resided on it at their marriage *and [*41 until his death. Her marriage with Robeson was in the presence of Jacob "Berger and wife. Her father rented a house with about an acre and a half of land, of one David Lee, about a mile and a half from Hightstown, and lived there until his death, about eight years after he moved from Allentown; her mother died before him and he continued to keep house, and hired some one to work for him. She went to live at Hoagland’s, by the direction of her father. She never went to school while living at Hoagland’s. Ann Jack, the daughter of her husband, John Robeson, visited her husband once, but does not; recollect the conversation.
    Tile said appellee did further prove by Ann Jack, that she is fifty-six years of age in 1824. That she is the daughter of John Robeson, who lived with the pauper in this case. She does not know that they were said or considered to be married. John Robeson died at Princeton in the year 1813. Her mother’s name was Sarah. She never was in this country. Her mother was born and lived and died in Glencarn, in the county of Antrim, Ireland. Witness removed to this country in 1784, hut used to hear from her every year, and had a letter from her in 1817. Her father oaine to America in 1774 or 1775, when she was between five and seven years old. She could run about and go errands smartly. She visited her father three times at Princeton, at all of these visits she had conversations with him respecting his leaving his family and living with the pauper, who was then living with him. He always denied being married to her. In these conversations he always said he was sorry for his conduct, for having left his family, and for living as he was then living; that he meant to sell his property in Princeton. He said that he had raised his children by the pauper, and had done a great deal'for the other children; he would go and leave the pauper, and live with witness at some other place. That he was too old to go back to Ireland, unless he could gó as he wished. That he was so ashamed and confounded, he could not think of showing his face in Ireland, where every one knew him. At her first visit he told the pauper he would give her a part of what he had, if she would go her ways and let him go his. ' The pauper made no reply at first, but said she would speak to him about it afterwards. At the second visit witness asked the pauper how she could go on living with her father so, while she was in this country. This *42] was in the presence *of her father. Witness asked the question two or three times before she could get an answer. At length she said he could go and leave her'.' Robeson said that all of them could do for themselves now, both his children by her and her other.s. He had worked for them all many years and now could not work hard but few years more. He then said to the pauper, you know I made you an offer formerly, now let us part in peace. The pauper was silent and went out. This was some years before Robeson’s death. , On the third visit her father confessed his shame at his way of living, and his great regret that he could do no more for witness. He said that the pauper lived in the family where he boarded, and she had given him opportunities to meet her and enticed him to lie with her. She further recollects that on her first visit to her father, he said to her in the presence and hearing of the pauper, in answer to her rebukes for living with her as he did, that he never married the pauper, and she knew it well, pointing at her, and she made Ho answer. Witness’ mother was alive at these several visits. Never heard the pauper say that she was married to her father. After her father’s death, she told Robert, the son of the pauper, in her presence, how she regretted her father’s dying whilst he was living so. He asked how. Witness answered, in adultery with his mother so many years. He asked her what she would call his mother. Witness said wliat the world calls a loose woman — he then looked at his mother and said then she is a whore. Witness answered, certainly. At which Robert was very much troubled, and went away. The pauper said nothing all this time. Witness said that the said John Robeson did cohabit and live with witness’ mother at Glencarn aforesaid, as lawful husband and wife, where they were both born and bred. They were esteemed, reputed, and believed by their neighbors, acquaintances, relations and friends, as lawful husband and wife, and as such visited and received. Her father and mother, as she best remembers and solemnly believes, did always and upon all occasions, acknowledge and declare each other to be lawful man and wife. They lived happily together, and must have lived •eight or nine years together after their marriage, before her father left Ireland, and she was then from five to seven years of age.
    The appellants offered a deed from William Whitehead to John Robeson, dated the eighteenth day of March, 1788, .and it *was admitted that the premises were worth [*43 upwards of fifty pounds at the time of the purchase.
    Reasons for reversal:
    1. Because the place of the last legal settlement of the pauper was not in the township of East Windsor, in the -county of Middlesex.
    2. Because the said Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, in and for the county of Somerset, ought to have quashed the said order of removal.
    3. Because the order of removal is informal and illegal.
    4. Because the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of the county of Somerset, gave judgment in favor of the appellees, whereas by law they ought to have given judgment for the appellants.
    5. Because the court had no evidence before them that he said Sarah Robeson was a pauper.
   The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court as-follows :

In the examination of this case we are first to enquire whether Sarah Robeson, the pauper, was ever legally settled in the township of East Windsor?

At the age of eight or nine years she removed from the township of Upper Freehold, in the county of Monmouth,, where, as she was informed, she had been born, to Hightstown, in the township of East Windsor, and went to live there with Christopher Hoagland. She continued to live with him, and do the ordinary work about the house until he died, which occurred when she was about thirteen years-of age. Without control from his family, she afterwards worked about at her pleasure. From her statement of her age at the time of her examination, it appears she was born in the year 1745. She therefore went to live with Hoagland in 1753 or 1754, and his death was in 1758. During the intervening period, the act of assembly of 1740 prescribed the terms of settlement, and by that act to live one-full year at one time, in one house or family, gave a settlement. Under its operation she lived one full year at onetime in one family in the township of East Windsor. Such a mode of acquiring a settlement, may, at the present day, and under the much more rigid provisions of the act of 1774, seem so extremely easy and liberal as almost to excite a doubt whether the words of the act, literally understood, indicate precisely the intention of the legislature. But the *44] language is very *clear and explicit, and the circum•stances of the country at that day, doubtless rendered it. politic for the legislature to give great facility to the acquisition of settlements. We are, however, relieved from difficulty by the case of Woodbridye v. Amboy, Coxe 213, decided in this court more than thirty years ago. Patience Longworthy, the pauper, when quite young, came into the township of Woodbridge as one of the family of Richard Carman, who removed to that place from Long Island, an she lived in that township several years, in the family o Carman. The court said she came within the express words of the act of 1740, and adjudged that she had acquired settlement in Woodbridge.

Erom the clear and unequivocal terms of the act, and from this case so strikingly similar in its circumstances t the present, it most manifestly appears that Sarah Robeson, the pauper, did obtain a legal settlement in East Windsor.

It remains to enquire whether a subsequent settlement was acquired in Montgomery.

In the year 1779 or 1780, the pauper was married by a justice of the peace to John Robeson, who had, as is agreed by the counsel of both parties, a legal settlement in the township of Montgomery. This marriage, it is said, wa illegal and void, because Robeson had been previously married and his wife was then living. To establish these facts, became by the prima facie evidence of the marriage to Robeson, the duty of the township of Montgomery, and they relied in the sessions on the evidence of Ann Jack. She testified that she was the daughter of Robeson ; that he was an Irishman, and came to America in 1774 or 1775, when she was from five to seven years of age; that her mother remained at Glencarn, in Ireland, whore both her father and mother were born and bred, and where her mother died in the year 1817 ; that she came to this country in 1784, after, as it may deserve to be noticed, the marriage of the pauper with Robeson, and used to hear every year from her mother, from whom she had a letter in 1817. She further testified that the said John Robeson did cohabit and live with her mother at Glencarn as lawful husband and wife ; that they were esteemed, reputed and believed, by their neighbors, acquaintances, relations and friends, as lawful husband and wife, and as such visited and received by them ; that her father and mother did always and upon all occasions, acknowledge and declare each other to be lawful man *45] and wife ; that they lived happily together and *rnust have lived eight or nine years together before her father left Ireland.

If this evidence of Ann Jack were admissible and true, the prior marriage of Robeson is established, and the settlement of the pauper in Montgomery is repelled.

Upon the competency of cohabitation and reputation, as evidence of marriage in a settlement case, the opinion of this court was fully expressed in the case of Westfield v. Warren, 3 Halst. 249. We denied, on the one hand, the competency of mere hearsay; and on the - other, expressly stated and recognized the well established admissibility of facts and circumstances, among which are cohabitation and reputation, in proof of marriage.

This point was not indeed drawn in question by the counsel of East Windsor. The purpose of their argument was to demonstrate and to convince us that Ann Jack was not credible. They insisted she was too young to have a knowledge of the facts of which she undertook to testify, and labored under a strong bias from her own situation, as the daughter of Robeson and his alleged former wife.

It is, however, a conclusive answer to the objections raised on this head, that with the sessions and not with this court rests the question of credibility. This court, on certiorari, in-a settlement case, has no jurisdiction or authority to enquire 'into or weigh the credibility of a witness examined in the sessions. In support of this position, it might suffice to refer to the general and well known doctrine applicable to this writ, but a reference to cases may be perhaps more satisfactory. In the case of Rex v. Preston, Burr. sett. cases 77, Lord Hardwicke said, “ The observation made by the counsel for supporting the orders ‘ that the justices at sessions are judges of fact as well as law; that they are jury as well as judges, and that it is in their breast only whether to believe or disbelieve the evidence,’ is very material.” Probyn, Justice, said, “The proceedings of the justices are in a summary way. They are judges of the credibility of the evidence.” “ We can only judge upon the law admitting the fact te be one way or the other.” "'‘These summary jurisdictions are given to gentlemen of the neighborhood, who arc supposed capable of knowing the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. Their determination is certainly final as to facts.” In 'the case of Rex v. Tedford, Burr. sett, cases 60, Lord Hardwicke said, “ The justices are judges of the fact; we aro judges of the law' upon the facts, * though not of the facts themselves.” [*46 And by Probyn, Justice, “The justices were judges of the facts that appeared before them, of which we cannot enquire or determine so as to take it out of their hands into our own.” And in the case of Rex v. Haughton, 1 Strange 83, the court said, “We cannot judge of the fact, but the law upon the fact.”

In the case before us, the sessions of Somerset having disallowed the alleged settlement in .Montgomery, have sustained the credibility of Ann Jack; for we are not at liberty to suppose they disbelieved and rejected her evidence in this respect, and reposed on the conversations with her father and the pauper.

The competency of the evidence then being established, and the question of credibility being fixed as it respects the case before us by the decision of the sessions, it follows that the settlement in Montgomery is not sustained.

The settlement in East Windsor remains unchanged, and the order of the sessions and of the justices should be affirmed.  