
    The Inhabitants of Middleboroulh versus The Inhabitants of Rochester.
    One, not having sufficient understanding to be able to make a valid contract respecting property, or to deal with discretion in the common affairs of life, cannot contract matrimony ; and a supposed marriage with such an one by a female does not change the place of her lawful settlement.
    Assumpsit for the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in supporting one Susannah Winslow and her child, the lawful settlement of the said paupers being, as the plaintiffs alleged, in the town of Rochester.
    
    A verdict was taken, at the sittings here after the last October term, for the defendants, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case stated by the parties, in which it was agreed that the charges by the plaintiffs were reasonable, and that due notice had been given by the overseers of Middleborough to the overseers of Rochester, to which a seasonable answer was returned ; and that the said Susannah was born in Middleborough, and still had her legal settlement therein, unless her marriage with Ebenezer Winslow was valid in law, so as to change her settlement to Rochester, the place of the lawful settlement of the said Ebenezer, at the time of the said marriage and after-wards.
    * On the 2d of November, 1806, the said Susannah, [*364] then Susannah Thomas, was married to the said Ebenezer Winslow., by a settled minister in Middleborough, at the house of her father, the intention of marriage having been previously published according to law. But long before that time, namely, in July, 1793, the said Ebenezer had been declared to be non compos mentis by a decree of the judge of probate for the county of Plymouth, an inquisition having been first returned, by the selectmen of Rochester, to the said judge, upon which he made his said decree, and issued letters of guardianship over the said Ebenezer and his estate, pursuant to law ; and the said letters of guardianship had continued unrevoked until the time of the trial.
    The said decree and proceedings were considered at the trial as prima facie evidence only, and both parties were permitted to give evidence touching the state of mind of the said Ebenezer at and about the time of said marriage ; he not being a lunatic, but considered non compos for defect of understanding.
    The jury were instructed, that, if upon all the evidence, including the decree and papers accompanying it, they were satisfied that he had sufficient understanding to be able to make a valid contract respecting property, or to deal with discretion in the common affairs o, life, they should consider the marriage valid, and in that case return a verdict for the plaintiffs. But, if they were satisfied that he was not capable of so contracting, for want of intellect, they should find for the defendants.
    It was agreed by the parties, that, if, under these circumstances, the paid Susannah gained a settlement in Rochester by the said marriage, the verdict should be set aside, and judgment be rendered for the plaintiffs for the sum by them demanded, with interest from the commencement of the suit and costs ; otherwise, judgment should be rendered on the verdict, that the defendants recover their costs.
    
      Wood, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Holmes, for the defendants.
   * Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The verdict having established the fact, that Ebenezer Winslow, to whom the pauper was formerly married, was, at the time of the solemnization, void of understanding, so as to be incapable of making a valid contract, judgment must be entered for the defendants, unless a marriage, solemnized under such circumstances, will change the settlement of a female pauper from the place of her nativity to the place of her supposed husband’s settlement. No authority has been cited to show that such a marriage is valid to any intent or purpose whatever. On the contrary, it is laid down by Blackstone, that, like all other contracts, if made with a fool, or person non compos at the time of it, it is absolutely void. And it is but reasonable that these unhappy persons, who are prohibited by law from making any binding contract for the merest pecuniary trifle, should be protected from the effects of a covenant of so high a nature, which never could be entered into by the other party without some base or sinister design. If it would be hard that the issue of such marriages should be deemed bastards, it would be as much so, that human beings, without reason, or their families, should be the victims of the artifice of desperate persons who might be willing to speculate on their misfortunes.

Judgment according to the verdict. 
      
       1 Black. Comm. 438.
     
      
       [“No insane person or idiot shall be capable of contracting marriage.” — See Rev. Stat. c. 75, § 5.— Ed.]
     
      
      
        Poynter, 147. — Browning vs. Reame, 2 Phil. 69.— Turner vs. Meyers, 1 Haggard, 414.
     