
    Inhabitants of the Town of Oxford against The Inhabitans of the Town of Woodbridge.
    Ther« being two parishes in the same town, a pauper resided in the first four removed the second, and resided there six U °waBS,¡noot> porated into a distinct town; he remained there after the incorporation four years and six months, and then went away. Held, that he gained no legal settlement in the, (own last mentioned.
    W’RJT O. C, ror.
    This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought „ . , , ,. , , by the town of Woodhridge against the town of Oxjord, money paid, laid out, and expended, for the support 0f 0ne Philo Bradley. In the county court, the general . ,. , .. .. issue being pleaded, the jury tound a special verdict, stat¡ug-> that prior to October, Í 799, the town of Oxford was a parish 0f, the town of Derby; that about the 1st r of May, 1795, Bradley removed from Plymouth, in 
      Litchfield county, to a place in the town of Derby, without the limits of Oxford, whence he removed to a place , , r m Oxford, in May, ¡799; that in October,, 1799, the pa-run of Oxford was incorporated into a town; and that he resided in the territory of Oxford, from the 1st of May, 1799, until the 1st of May^ 1804,.supporting him* seif and family during the whale time, and then removed to Woodhridge^ where he became chargeable*
    Upon these facts, the county court decided, that the defendants were liable for his support, and rendered judgment accordingly. On error to the superior court, that judgment was affirmed,
    
      Siafiles, for the plaintiffs in error.
    The statute points out several ways in which a mat? may gain a legal settlement in a town; and one, among others, is, by residing and supporting himself' for the term of six years.
    
    
      It is contended by the defendants in error, that the P&uPer in question comes within this provision of the statute. But this, we contend, is impossible; for 'Jie towu of Oxford -had not been incorporated six years, when he moved away. [This case was argued on the supposition, that the whole time -that the pauper resided within the territory of Oxford, before and after its-incorporation, was more than six years; but as the record does not support, and the decision of the court does not appear to proceed upon, such a state of facts, a further report of the arguments of counsel is omitted.}
    
      Ingeraoll and A’. Smith, for the defendants in error.
    
      
       By Stat. Conn, tit. 91. s. ⅜ it is enacted, s( That any inhabitant of any town in this state may remove with his or her family, or if such person have no family, may remove him or herself into any other town in this state, and continue there without being liable to be warned to depart, or to be removed therefrom, except in the case hereinafter provided; and shall gain a legal settlement in the town to which he or she may have so removed, in case he or she shall reside in such town for the full term of six years next from and after his or her first removal into such town; and shall, during the whole of said terra, have supported him or herself, and his or her family, if such person have a family, at the time of said first removal, or at any time during said term, without his, her, or their becoming chargeable to such town, or tf> the town that may by law be liable to charge for the support of such person and family; but if any such person shall, at any time before the expiration of said term of six years, be. come unable to support and maintain him or herself, and family, if any be, and become chargeable to the town, that may be liable to charge for his, her or their support; in that case, every such person, with his or her family, if any be, may be removed to tho place of his or her last legal settlement/3
    
   By the Court, Mitchell, Ch. J. and Baldwin, J.

dissenting. If the pauper in question has gained a settlement in the town of Oxford, it is because he’has resided in the town for the full term of six years. Such are the plain, positive directions of the statute ; and no rights or duties exist, as applicable to this case, except what are created by statute. The only point of inquiry, then, must be, has the pauper so resided ? This is, at once, answered in the negative, by the record; and his residing in Derby, before the incorporation of Oxford, Can have no effect whatever.

Judgment, reversed.  