
    The Inhabitants of Ward versus The Inhabitants of Oxford.
    In an action brought by the town of W against the town of O, for expenses incurred in the support of a pauper, on the question whether the pauper derived a settlement in O from his grandfather through his father, it was held, that copies of a deed, executed by the grandfather in 1754, in which he was described as being of O, and of his last will, made in 1758, in which he was described as “ now resident in O,” were admissible evidence to prove that the grandfather gained a settlement in O, under Prov* St. 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 10.
    
      Held, also, that evidence proving that the grandfather, for a long time before 1754, had a settlement in the town of S, and that afterward, for years previous to 1784, the father of the pauper was supported as a pauper by S, was admissible to rebut the presumption arising from the description of the grandfather in the deed and will.
    This was an action brought to recover the expenses incurred in the support of Abner Putnam and his family, paupers, whose settlement was alleged to be in Oxford. At the trial, in the Common Pleas before Strong J., the plaintiffs contended that the settlement of Abner Putnam was derived from his grandfather, Elisha Putnam, through his father. In order to prove that the settlement of the grandfather was in Oxford, they offered in evidence a registry copy of a deed of land, dated September 30, 1754, executed by him, in which he was described as being of Oxford ; and a copy of his last will, dated May 20, 1758, in which he was described as “now resident ■n Oxford.”
    
      Oct 3d,
    
    The defendants objected to the admission of this evidence, but it was admitted by the judge ; and it was read to the jury, as evidence of the grandfather’s gaining a settlement in Oxford under Prov. St. 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 10.
    The defendants then offered evidence to prove that the grandfather, for a long time before the year 1754, had a legal settlement in Sutton ; and that afterwards, for a series of years previous to 1784, the father was supported as a pauper by that town ; but did not offer to prove that his legal settlement was m that town. But this evidence was rejected by the judge.
    The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants filed their exceptions to the foregoing directions of the judge.
    Barton, for the defendants.
    The descriptions of the grandfather in the deed and will are mere hearsay evidence, and are not the less inadmissible because reduced to writing. 1 Phillips on Ev. 186, 195; King v. Erith, 8 East, 539; Bartlet v. Delprat, 4 Mass. R. 702; Gray v. Goodrich, 7 John's R. 95; Davis v. Wood, 1 Wheat. 6. The words “ now resident in Oxford,” used in the will, indicate a temporary residence only.
    
      J. Davis and Allen, for the plaintiffs,
    in order to show that the will and deed were admissible in evidence, cited 1 Stark. Ev. 307; Brune v. Rawlings, 7 East, 279; Higham v. Ridg way, 10 East, 109; Doe v. Robson, 15 East, 32; Doe v. Pembroke, 11 East, 504. The evidence offered by the de fendants, in regard to the settlement of the grandfather in Sutton, was rightly rejected, for it has no tendency to prove that lie had a settlement there, at the time when we show it to have been in Oxford. The fact of the father’s subsequently receiving relief as a pauper in Sutton, is no evidence of his settlement there. King v. Chaderton, 2 East, 27; King v. Chatham, 8 East, 498.
   Parker C. J.

__ delivered the opinion of the Court. We think the registry copy of the deed and the copy of the will were properly admitted in evidence, as facts tending to show that the residence of the grandfather was in Oxford ; from which his settlement, Qnder the then existing pauper laws, might be inferred by the jury. We consider this species of evidence as different from the mere verbal declaration of a pauper as to his residence, which has been ruled not to be evidence. The designation of his residence m a solemn instrument, such as a deed or a will, is in the nature of a fact rather than a declara tian, being made when there was no controversy, and when no possible interest could exist to give a false designation.

• But this evidence, which is merely presumptive, being admitted, it was proper to let the other party into proof of facts and circumstances, which would have a tendency to rebut the presumption arising from it. And we consider the facts offered to be proved by the defendants, to be of this character.

The original settlement of the grandfather being in Sutton, his temporary residence in Oxford was not inconsistent with it; for he might have been in the place at both the periods mentioned in the deed and will, and yet never have gained a settlement there. He might have been warned out, or not have remained there a year at any one time.

Then the fact offered to be proved, that the father, many years afterwards, was maintained as a pauper by the town of Sutton, might furnish presumptive evidence, that the grandfather’s settlement in Sutton continued and was transmitted to the father, or that the latter had gained a settlement there in his own right.

This would not be sufficient, independently, to prove his settlement in Sutton, but was admissible to contradict the inference, drawn from the presumptive evidence, that the grandfather had gained a settlement in Oxford. On this ground only, we think that the verdict must be set aside, and a new trial granted.  