
    The Inhabitants of Groton versus the Inhabitants of Lancaster.
    Notice from the overseers of one town to those of another, respecting a pauper’s becoming chargeable, &c. is not sufficient, if sent by the mail.
    Assumpsit for the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the support of certain paupers alleged to have their legal settlement in Lancaster. The action was tried at the Court of Common Pleas for this county, and was brought to this Court pursuant to the provisions of the statute of 1817, c. 185, § 5.
    The only question at the trial was, whether the plaintiffs had given the defendants such notice, as the statute requires, to make them liable. On this point the evidence was, that a letter, sealed and directed to the overseers of the poor of Lancaster, signed by the chairman of the overseers of the poor of Groton by order of that board, stating the facts relating to the paupers who had become chargeable, asserting their settlement to be in Lancaster, and requesting their removal, and the payment of the charges for their support, was sent by the mail, (the postage not being [*111 ] paid,) from the post-office in Concord; which letter * was received on the same day by the post-master in Lancaster, and within two days afterwards was by him offered to the chairman of the overseers of the poor of Lancaster, who refused to receive the same, and it was never taken out of the post-office.
    Upon this evidence the Court below instructed the jury, that legal notice had not been given, and that their verdict ought to be for the defendants ; and a verdict being so returned, the plaintiffs filed their exceptions to the said opinion of the Court.
    
      Butler, for the plaintiffs.
    The statute of 1793, c. 59, ■§> 12, provides that the overseers, in a case circumstanced like the present, shall send a written notification, stating the facts, &c., to one oi more of the overseers of the place where the settlement of the paupers is supposed to be.” It is contended that the mode adopted in this case was a sufficient compliance with the statute. It may be well supposed that the legislature had in contemplation the notifications required to be given to endorsers of bills of exchange protested; and with respect-to these it has been decided by this Court, that the putting of a letter into the post-office is sufficient notice, even although it may never be received . If the legislature had intended to require a mode of conveyance different from the ordi nary one by mail, such mode would have been pointed out in the statute; as is the case respecting the removal of paupers in .he same act. The method adopted in the case at bar is the most usual as well as the most convenient, and attended with the least expense.
    In the present case a letter was not only sent, but it came to hand, and was tendered to the chairman of the overseers, to whom it was directed. If his refusing to open and read it will protect the defendants from a charge, to which' they are otherwise legally liable, the same course of conduct would have the same effect, although a special messenger had been despatched with the same letter.
    
      Smith, for the defendants.
    
      
       6 Mass. Rep. 316, Munn vs. Baldwin & Al
      
    
   * Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. [ * 112 J The fact of notice being so important in most of the cases of settlement which arise in the Courts, it ought to be proved in a manner which will admit of no doubt of its being received. The town, which calls upon another town for reimbursement of expenses, or for the removal of a pauper, ought to be able to prove that the notice, made requisite by the statute, was actually delivered. To put a letter into the mail is not sufficient, as it would be among merchants, whose business it is to go daily to the post-office, and who may always be presumed to have received letters, which had been directed to them, and forwarded in due course of mail. It is not so with municipal officers in country towns. Their business does not oblige them to watch the arrival of the mails ; and it would often happen, that letters would lie a long time without being re ceived by those to whom they were directed.

Further, we think that, a town thus called upon is not obliged to pay the expense of postage, or any other expense, which may be incurred by giving them notice of the demand against them. They have to answer the notice, and to send the answer at their own expense ; and it is not reasonable that they should be at the expense both ways, or be obliged to sue their correspondents for so trifling a claim. The direction of the Court below is affirmed, and there must be Judgment on the verdict.  