
    The town of Bethany against The town of Oxford.
    Where a portion of the territory of one town, is, by an act of the legislature, annexed to another, a person having a settlement in the former town, at the time of such annexation, by virtue of a residence of more than six years on the territory annexed, has his settlement transferred, with the territory, to the latter town, though he may have previously resided in a different part of the former town, a sufficient length of time to gain a settlement therein.
    Where a man, having a family, had resided, with them, more thar. six years, on the territory annexed, and had thereby acquired a settlement thereon, but, a few months before the time of annexation, his wife being dead, and his family broken up, lie went to reside at the alms-house, in another portion of the town, and was there supported by the town, at the time of annexation ; it •Was held, that this change of his local habitation, did not prevent a transfer of his settlement, with the territory, from the one town to the other.
    The judgment of the county court in this cause, having been reversed, on a writ of error, pursuant to the advice of this court, ante 253., the cause was entered in the superior court, and was tried at New-Haven, January term, 1843, before Waite, J.
    
      New-Haven,
    
    July, 1843.
    The only question was, as to the settlement of Zebulon Lines, the husband of Marietta Lines, the pauper for whose support the action was brought. By a resolve of the General Assembly, passed in May, 1839, a part of the territory of Oxford was annexed to Bethany. Resolves of 1839, p-15, 6. At that time, Zebulon Lines was a pauper of the town of Oxford, residing in their alms-house, within the present limits of that town; and in December, 1839, he was married to Marietta, for whom the supplies were subsequently furnished.
    The plaintiffs claimed, that the settlement of Zebulon Lines was in the present town of Oxford; and in support of their claim, they introduced evidence to prove, that he was born in the town of Woodbridge, and in the year 1798, removed to Oxford, and continued to reside within the present limits of that town, until the year 1816, and by virtue of such residence, acquired a legal settlement therein.
    This residence was not denied by the defendants; but they claimed, that his settlement was in the present town of Bethany, in consequence of a subsequent residence, for a period of more than six years, in that part of Oxford, which was, by said resolve, annexed to Bethany; and they offered evidence to prove the last-mentioned residence. To the admission of such evidence the plaintiffs objected, on the ground that the settlement originally acquired by Lines in Oxford, could not be changed, or his relation in any way affected, by a six years’ residence in another part of the same town ; and that the question, whether he was transferred, by said resolve, to the town of Bethany, depended entirely on the fact, whether being an inhabitant of the town of Oxford, he was at the time of passing said resolve, residing on the territory annexed to Bethany. The court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence.
    It was thereupon proved, that Lines removed from the town of Woodbridge, in the Spring of 1820, to a place called Nyumphs, part of the territory annexed in 1839 to the town of Bethany, and there continued to reside, with his family, until the Spring of 1829, a period of more than six years, and then removed to Derby; that from that time, he resided at different places, without gaining any new settlement, until the Spring of 1837, when he removed back to Nyumphs, and there remained, until the Autumn of that year, when, his wife having previously died, and his children left him, he broke up house-keeping, and disposed of his furniture, and went to live with his son-in-law, Letsom Lounsbury, in Ny-umphs ; that he continued to live there, and at other places, as he could find employment and accommodations, until the Autumn of 1838, when application was made to the selectmen of Oxford, by some of the neighbours, that he might be taken care of as a pauper; that in consequence of such application, one of the select-men, in December, 1838, went to Lines, at Lounsbury1s house, and requested him to go to the alms-house ; that Lines declined going then, but promised to go, when the weather became warmer; that he remained with Lounsbury until the month of April, 1839, when, being told by his son-in-law, that he could not support him any longer, he, some time between the 5th and 10th of that month, went to the alms-house, within the present limits of the town of Oxford, and there continued to reside until after the passage of said resolve, supported, by the town of Oxford, as a pauper.
    The question between the parties, was, whether upon these facts, the settlement of Lines was in the town of Oxford, or in the town of Bethany. The plaintiffs claimed, that the court ought to instruct the jury, that if, at the time of the passage of said resolve, Lines was residing in the town of Oxford, but not on the territory annexed to Bethany, his settlement continued in the town of Oxford, notwithstanding his previous residence at Nyumphs, for a period of more than six years : and further, that if, at the time when Lines voluntarily went to the alms-house in Oxford, he had no home or place of residence in Nyumphs, and no family living there, he is to be deemed to have been residing in the town of Oxford, within the present limits thereof, where he actually was, at the time of the annexation.
    The court did not so instruct the jury, but stated to them, that, upon the facts proved and admitted, the settlement of Lines was in Bethany.
    
    
      The jury thereupon returned a verdict for the defendants; and the plaintiff’s moved for a new trial.
    
      Baldwin, in support of the motion,
    contended, 1. That Lines having acquired a settlement in Oxford, by a residence from 1798 to 1816, within the present limits of that town, which settlement has never been lost, it was not competent for the defendants to prove a subsequent residence in a different part of the same town, for the purpose of varying his place of settlement. A settlement once acquired, continues until it is lost, by the acquisition of another, in some other town. A subsequent residence, however long, in another part of the same town, can have no effect on a settlement already acquired. Princeton v. West Boylston, 15 Mass. R. 257.
    2. That by the resolve of 1839, all the settled inhabitants of Oxford, then residing on the territory annexed to Bethany, and no others, were transferred to Bethany. Resolves of 1839, p. 75. s. 1. By the term “ residing ” as here used, is meant, having their domicil; and this is irrespective of the length of time they had resided on the territory, and irrespective also of any temporary absence from such domicil. Lines had no domicil or home at Nyumpks. His son-in-law, who had sheltered him for the Winter, refused to keep him any longer. He voluntarily went to the alms-house in Oxford, without any intention of returning to Nyumphs. His residence, and his only residence, was in the place where he was then living.
    
      R. I. Ingersoll and Blackman, contra,
    contended, 1, That the last domicil of Lines being upon the territory transferred to Bethany, where he had resided for more than six years, and he never having acquired a new settlement elsewhere, the legislative resolve of.1839 transferred him, with the other inhabitants of the territory, to the town of Bethany. Vernon v. East-Hartford, 3 Conn. R. 475. Simsbury v. Hartford, 14 Conn. R. 192. Oxford v. Bethany, 15 Conn. R. 252.
    2, That the fact of Lines’ being in the Oxford alms-house, at the time of the annexation, made no difference. This point also was decided in Oxford v. Bethany, 15 Conn. R. 252. Paupers in an alms-house, gain no habitancy, by being there.-, The very act of placing them there, at the expense of the town which sent them, would continue their relation to the place of their former residence. Soulhbridge v. Charl-ton, 15 Mass. R. 252.
    
    
      3. That it is immaterial whether Lines left a family at Nyumphs, or not, at the time he went to the alms-house; for having been once attached to the territory, as a legal inhabitant, nothing could detach him from it, but a settlement gained elsewhere.
   Waite, J.

When this case was before us, at the last term, we held, that if Zebulon Lines, at the time of the annexation of a part of the town of Oxford to Bethany, had his settlement in the part so annexed, his settlement would continue in it, and be transferred with it to Bethany, 15 Conn. It 252.

1. It is now claimed, that inasmuch as he had acquired a settlement by residence, in that part of the old town which is now Oxford, that settlement would remain there, unaffected by any subsequent residence in the same town. This proposition would, undoubtedly, be true, had there been no division of the town. In a controversy between Oxford and another town, it would be immaterial in what parts of the town the pauper had resided, provided it had been such as to give him a settlement in that town. But by the construction which has been given to our laws relating to the settlement of paupers, when a town has been divided, each part becomes liable to support such paupers as may have gained a settlement in that part, provided the legislature, on the division, has not prescribed a different rule. Hence, so long as Oxford continued as it formerly was, the enquiry as to the part of the town where Lines had resided, for the purpose of determining his settlement, was immaterial. But, upon the division, the question becomes material. Bethany must take all the paupers who have their settlement in the part annexed to that town.

The question as to the settlement of paupers must be determined as if the two towns had always been as they now are, except so far as the legislature may have otherwise provided. Now, if the residence of Lines in the two parts, had been subsequent to the division, the change of residence would clearly be material. His settlement in Oxford would be lost, upon gaining another in Bethany, So, in like manner, his removal from the part which still continues Oxford. into that part now constituting a part of Bethany, becomes a proper subject of enquiry. The testimony, therefore, was dearly admissible.

2. It is further insisted, that by the resolve of the General Assembly, all the inhabitants residing upon the territory annexed to Bethany, became inhabitants of that town ; and consequently, it became necessary to ascertain the domicil of Lines, at the time of the annexation, for the purpose of determining his settlement.

It is very obvious, that a person may be an inhabitant of one town, and have his settlement in another. He may have his domicil in one town ; have a right to vote there; to sue and be sued as an inhabitant of that town; and yet, when he becomes poor, another town may be liable for his support.

The language of the resolve must be understood according to the manifest intent of the legislature. That was, to transfer to Bethany a part of the old town of Oxford, with all the inhabitants residing thereon ; and not to change or affect the settlement of those inhabitants, except so far as it might be affected by the division of the town, as has already been stated ; that is, those who had their settlement on the part annexed to Bethany, would thereafter have their settlement in Bethany instead of Oxford.

We, therefore, do not advise a new trial.

In this opinion the other Judges concurred.

New trial not to be granted.  