
    The town of Colchester against The town of East-Lyme.
    Where it was provided, by the act incorporating a new town, that “ all persons who may hereafter become paupers, and have not gained a settlement elsewhere, shall be chargeable to said town, provided they hud a residence within its boundaries, and removed therefrom, prior to the passing of this act ;” it was held, that the term “ residence,” as here used, imported a domicil only, in contradistinction to such a residence as would, by the general law, be necessary to confer a settlement; and that consequently, a person who had resided one or two years in such town, and had removed therefrom prior to its incorporation, and afterwards became a pauper, not having gained a settlement elsewhere, had his settlement in that town.
    
      The emancipation of a minor son. and its effect as to his settlement, discussed, but not decided.
    This was an action for supplies furnished to William H. B. Cone and his family, they being paupers.
    The cause was tried, on the general issue, at New-London, September term, 1846, before Hinman, J. The jury returned a special verdict, finding the following facts.
    
      William H. É. Cone was the son of William P. Cone, who was the son of Henry Cone. In June 1814, Henry Cone, who, before that time, had been a settled inhabitant of that part of the town of Lyme, which is now East-Lyme, gained a settlement, by residence, in that part which is now Lyme, which he held until his death, in 1827. William P, Cone was born in what is now East-Lyme, in August 1796 ; and lived there until August 1812; when he went to his father’s, in that part which is now Lyme.
    
    
      In the year 1812, when William P. Cone was between sixteen and seventeen years of age, an arrangement was entered into between him and his father, stipulating, among other things, that he, {William P. Cone,) should have his time, and be free from his father’s controul from that time, and be entitled to his own services ; and that his father should not, from that time, be liable, in any way, for his acts. This arrangement was reduced to writing ; but the terms of it, except as above stated, were not found by the jury. It was so far carried into effect, that from that time, his father exercised no controul over him; and he never afterwards made his home at his father’s, but occasionally visited there, until he married, in 1816 ; when he went to house-keeping for himself.
    
      William H. B. Cone was born in that part of the town which is now Lyme, in 1817. William P. Cone and his family, including William H. B. Cone, resided in that part of Lyme, which is now East-Lyme, for one or two years prior to January 1835 ; when they removed therefrom to Glasten-bury.
    
    
      William H. B. Cone was lawfully married to his present wife, one of the paupers, in 1837 ; when he separated from his father’s family, and has ever since remained living separate. He and his family, since 1837, have resided in other towns than Lyme or East-Lyme, without gaining any settlement elsewhere, and have never gained any settlement in their own right. They became paupers, in December 1844 ; and supplies were furnished to them, by the town of Colchester, as stated in the declaration. The town of East-Lyme was incorporated, in the year 1839, by an act or resolve of the General Assembly, containing the following provisions : “ All persons who may hereafter become paupers, and residing in other towns except said Lyme and Waterford, who have not gained a settlement elsewhere, shall be chargeable to said town of East-Lyme, provided they had a residence within its boundaries, and removed therefrom, prior to the passing of this bill.”
    The court accepted the verdict ; and thereupon reserved the case for the advice of this court, upon the question, whether upon these facts, the town of East-Lyme is chargeable in law for the support of the paupers.
    
      McCurdy and Culver, for the plaintiffs,
    contended, 1. That William P. Cone, whose settlement William H. B. Cone takes, having been emancipated in 1812, did not take the settlement which his father gained in 1814, but that which he had at the time of emancipation, viz, in East-Lyme. Springfield v. Wilbraham, 4 Mass. R. 493. 496. Charlestown v. Boston, 13 Mass R. 469. 472. Lubec v. Eastport 3 Greenl. 220. Wells v. Kennebunk, 8 Greenl. 200. Morse v. Welton, 6 Conn. R. 547. Colchester v. Lyme, 13 Conn. R. 247.
    2. That the pauper, having resided one or two years on territory now included in the town of East-Lyme, prior to the incorporation of that town, and immediately preceding his removal therefrom, had his settlement there, by virtue of the charter of incorporation. This point turns on the import of the word “ residence,” as used in the charter. It is not synonymous with settlement, but has every where a different meaning. It is a man’s home for the time — his domicil. At any rate, there is nothing to show that this term has a different meaning in the finding of the jury from its true import in the charter. The jury have virtually found, that the requirement of the charter in this respect, is here satisfied.
    
      Strong and Lippitt, contra,
    contended, 1. That W. P. Cone, by the general law of settlements, took the settlement in Lyme, 
      which his father acquired in that town, in 1814 ; and W. H. B. Cone, the pauper, not having gained a settlement in his-own right, took that of his father so gained.
    2. That this result was not prevented, by reason of any emancipation of W. P. Cone. In the first place, he was a minor, unmarried, and had not contracted any relation inconsistent with a subordinate situation in his father’s family. 1 Bla. Com. 363. n. The King v. Wilton See. 3 Term R. 355. The King v. Off church, Id. 114. 116. The King v. Roach, 6 Term R. 254, Bozrah v. Stonington, 4 Conn. R. 375. The King v. Wilmington, 5 B. & Aid. 525. (7 E. C. L. 180.) Secondly, the contract of emancipation was not binding on the son ; and his legal dependence for support on his father, as a member of his family, continued. Thirdly, the case was not different from that of .an indented apprentice ; yet that was never supposed in this state to constitute emancipation. Bozrah v. Stonington, 4 Conn. R. 373.
    3. That there was nothing in the act incorporating the town of East-Lyme, which interfered with the general law of settlements. The words “ had a residence,” in the second section of that act, mean had a settlement. Mansfield v. Granby, 1 Root 180. lemon v. East-Hartford, 3 Conn. R. 483. Simsbury v. Hartford, 14 Conn. R. 193.
   Stores, J.

Laying out of this case the question of emancipation, which has been raised, it is conceded, on the facts specially found by the verdict, that when the town of East-Lyme was constituted out of portions of the towns of Lyme and Waterford, the paupers to recover for whose support the present action is brought, had, derivatively, a legal settlement in the present town of Lyme, where they would now be deemed to be settled, were it not that the following provision was introduced mto the act creating the town of East-Lyme : “ All persons who may hereafter become paupers, and residing in other towns except said Lyme and Waterford, who have not gained a settlement elsewhere, shall be chargeable to said town of East-Lyme, provided they had a residence within its boundaries, and removed therefrom, prior to the passing of this bill.” Resolves and Priv. Acts of 1839. p. 41. It is also conceded, that the case of the paupers in question is embraced within the terms of this provision ; and the question is, whether the word “ residence,” as used in it, should be construed to mean the place of settlement of the paupers therein mentioned, or only their place of domicil.

We are of opinion, that this provision is substantially the same as that in the act dividing the town of Woodbridge, which we had occasion to consider in the case of Waterbury v. Bethany, recently heard before us at New-Haven ; (ante, p. 424.) and that it should therefore receive a similar construction. Hence it becomes unnecessary to consider the question of emancipation ; and the result is, that the superior court should be advised to render judgment for the plaintiffs.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Judgment for plaintiffs.  