
    Inhabitants of Jay vs. Inhabitants of Gray.
    The latter clause of § 5, c. 37, of the Public Laws of 1858, was not repealed by c. 110 of the Public Laws of 1859, or c. 182 of 1880, or e. 57 of 18G1.
    On report.
    Debt founded upon the latter clause of § 5, c. 37 of the Public Laws of 1858, to recover money paid by the plaintiffs to the superintendent of the State reform school, for the clothing and subsistence for thirty weeks of one Farwell, a hoy between the age of eleven and sixteen years, convicted of an assault and battery, before the justice of this court, in and for this county, at the April term, 1867, and by the court sentenced to the reform school during his minority, and committed to the reform school in pursuance of the sentence on the 6th of May, 1867, he then being a resident of the town of Jay, but liaving a legal settlement in the town of Gray.
    All the facts, essential to a recovery, were proved. And the only question raised was, whether the latter clause of §; 5, c. 37 of the Public Laws of 1858, was still in force.
    
      It. Washburn, for the plaintiffs.
    
      W. II. Vinton, for the defendants, contended that:
    Section o, c. 87 of the Public Laws was repealed by c. 57, of 1861. The institution is a school and not a poor-house, and the inmates scholars and not paupers. Hence, the town where the hoy was a scholar, and hot where he had his pauper settlement, was intended by the legislature to be responsible for his clothing and subsistence.
    
      
       Latter clause of § 5, e. 37 of the Public Laws of 1858. And an action shall accrue to such city or town, to recover the money so paid, against the parent, master, or guardian of such boy, or against the city or town in which he may have a legal settlement.
    
   Danforth, J.

This action is founded upon the latter part of § 5, c. 37 of the statutes of 1858. If that clause is still in force, the plaintiffs cannot recover, otherwise their action must fail. The 'amendments made to this act in 1859, c. 116, and 1860, c. 182, do not affect the clause in question. If repealed, it is by the act of 1861, c. 57. This latter act does not purport to be amendatory of the former, or a revision of it, but does reenact two sections of it, with slight alterations, one of which provides for the payment of the support of the convict by the town “ where such boy resides,” not exceeding one dollar per week. It does not reenact the clause in question, giving the town a remedy “ against the parent, master, or guardian of such boy, or against the city or town in which he may have a legal settlement.” The act of 1861 repeals only such acts ■ and parts of acts as are inconsistent with it. It is not easy to see in what respect these two provisions are inconsistent. They stood together in the act of 1858, and no reason is perceived why they may not stand together in different acts, according to the agreement of the parties there must be judgment for the plaintiff for $30 and interest from date of writ.

Appleton, C. J.; Walton, Dickerson, Barrows, and Tapley, JJ., concurred.  