
    J. C. MACE versus NOTTINGHAM-WEST.
    Towns are not liable to the keepers of prisons for the support of paupers who are in close confinement in prison.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover seventy-eight dollars and fifty cents, for the support of one Isaac Lawrence, a pauper, having his legal settlement in said Nottingham-West, from the 27th December, 1815, to the 24th July, 1816. he being during all that time in close custody upon execution in the gaol in Amherst, in this county, and supplied by tiie plaintiff, the keeper of said gaol.
    This cause was tried at October term, 1816, in this county, and a verdict taken by consent for the plaintiff, subject to the opinon of the court upon the following facts :
    It was agreed that said Lawrence was a pauper, and legally settled in Nottingham-West, and that he was committed to the gaol in Amherst on the 27th December, 1815, upon execution, where he remained in close confinement, and was supported by the plaintiff, keeper of said gaol, till July 24, 1816, and that due notice had been given to Nottingham-West. And it was agreed, if upon these facts the court should be of opinion this action could be maintained, judgment to be rendered upon the verdict; otherwise the verdict to be set aside and the plaintiff to become nonsuit.
    
      E. Parker, for the plaintiff.
    
      Atherton, for the defendant.
   Per curiam-.

We are clearly of opinion that this action cannot be maintained. There is no moral obligation which binds a town to support its poor-inhabitants. Our whole system of poor laws is founded upon the provisions of our statutes. No action can be maintained against any town for the support of a pauper, unless it be given by statute. But we have no statute that gives an action to an individual against a town for the support of a pauper. Persons standing in need of relief are to be supported by the overseers of the poor in the town where they happen to be. 1 Laws 359, 360.-— And in case they are not settled there, an action is given to such town against the town in which they have a settlement. Should a town employ an individual to take care of a pan-per, he might, without .doubt, have an action against the town in such case, but it must be founded on the special contract. In Massachusetts, if the overseers of the poor, upon application made to them, neglect or refuse to relieve a pauper an individual may relieve and Stave an action against the town. But this is by a special provision of their statute. 12 Mass. Rep. 333. Mitchel vs. Cornville.

Verdict set aside and plaintiff nonsuit.  