
    
      Inhabitants of Poland vs. Inhabitants of Wilton.
    When a man has a wife and children under his immediate care and protection, and with his family is unable to support himself and them, lie is to be considered a pauper, within the meaning of the stat. 1821, c. 122.
    In such case if the notice be applicable only to the man himself, the amount expended ibr his support can be recovered by the town furnishing the supplies.
    Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Whitman C. J. presiding.
    The action was brought to recover the amount expended by the plaintiffs in furnishing supplies to one Jonathan Reed, alleged to have fallen into distress in Poland, and to have had a settlement in Wilton. The writ was dated May 15, 1837, and a part of the supplies were furnished in January and February, 1836, and the residue in the winter of 1837. On March 29, 1836, the plaintiffs gave notice to the defendants, that Jonathan Reed, a pauper of that town, had become chargeable in Poland, and on April 7, following, the defendants sent a reply acknowledging the notice, and stating, “ we acknowledge him to be a resident of our town, and wish you would have the goodness not to help him when he can maintain himself, if he is well he can support himself. We shall see to it as soon as convenient.” On the trial it appeared, that Reed had a wife and four small children; that he was exceedingly poor, and when the supplies were furnished, was destitute of provisions, that he had neither bread, nor meat, nor house of his pwn ; that in the winter his children were without shoes and ragged, and that winter he had been reduced to the necessity of living entirely upon potatoes. It however appeared, in the opinion of the witnesses, that if Reed had been an unmarried man, and was not sick, he might have supported himself, but could riot have supported his wife and family. The counsel for the defendants contended, that they were not liable for any of the supplies thus furnished, if the jury believed, that Reed could have supported himself, and had not been a married man and burdened with a family, on the ground that the notice applied to Jonathan Reed only, and that Reed himself could not be considered a pauper, but his family only were paupers; and requested the Court so to instruct the jury. The Judge declined to give the instruction requested, and did in-, struct them, that if they believed, that the supplies were necessary for Reed in connection with his family, they were all paupers together, and that the plaintiffs in such case would have a right to recover so much of the supplies furnished as were consumed by Reed. The amount of the bill charged was $ 63,10. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for $37,00, and the defendants filed exceptions.
    
      Codman and Pox,
    
    in a written argument, insisted that the instructions requested ought to have been given, and that those given were erroneous. They cited Danvers v. Roston, 10 Pick. 513; Dover v. Paris, 5 Greenl. 430; Walpole v. West Cambridge, 8 Mass. R. 279; Bangor v. Deer Isle, 1 Greenl. 332; Wilson v. Broolcs, 14 Pick. 344 ; 3 T. R. 637.
    
      J. C. Woodman, for the plaintiffs,
    submitted the case without argument,
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Shtsplet J.

The case finds that Jonathan Reed was able to support himself without a wife and children, but he had a wife and children in his dwelling, and under his care and protection although not mentioned, in the notice to the defendants.

' The defendants contend, that Reed was not a pauper or liable to be removed as such.

The cases of Green v. Buckfield, 3 Greenl. 136, and Hallowell v. Saco, 5 Greenl. 143, decide, that when supplies are properly furnished to any member of a family thus situated, with whose support the head of it is chargeable, he thereby becomes a pauper, and may be dealt with as such. The case of Bangor v. Deer Isle, 1 Greenl. 329, authorized the instructions so far as related to the amount to be recovered.

Judgment on the verdict.  