OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF FAIRFIELD against OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF ST. ALBANS

No. 2. OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF FAIRFIELD against OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF ST. ALBANS. Franklin, 1820. AÑ order of removal, unappealed from, is not conclusive, that the pauper was settled in the town, to which the pauper was ordered to remove; if such town had no notice of the order. A general notice and demand of the sum expended in supporting the pauper, is nó * sufficient notice of the order of removal. THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money, &c. expendéd in providing for one Schuyler Chicester, a pauper, in his last sickness ; and the last legal settlement of the pauper was al-ledgedto be in the town of St. Albans. Plea — General issue. Verdict for plaintiffs t Bill of exceptions filed as follows : On the trial, to prove the settlement of the pauper, in St. Al-bans, plaintiffs Offered the record of the court of examination and their order unappealed from, which was objected to by defendants, as an expacte proceeding, from which they could have no appeal. 'The Judge decided: That in case the plaintiffs should prove that the defendants had received fifteen days’ notice, in writing, agreeable to the 4th section of the Act directing the mode of proceeding, that the defendants might have appealed, and they would in such case, be concluded by the record. Record admitted. To prove notice to the defendants, the plaintiffs offered the following, viz : “State Of Vermont, Fairfield, Sept. 19, 1816; “To, &c. Select men and Ovefseers of the poor of the town of St. Albans, Greeting: . , “Gentlemen — You are hereby ndtified that we have expended, for the maintenance^ &c. the sum of. $267,98, for Schuyler Chichester, a .stranger, whose, last legal settlement, was in the town of St. Albans, who died, in this town, in February last, and who could not be removed, after hé became chargeable, without endangering life, which sum you a,re hereby requested to pay, immediately, to-treasurer of the town of Fairfield^ “Signed, &c. Select men and Overseers of the poor of Fair-field;” . . Defendants objected, on several grounds $ one that the notice did not contain, or mention, the order of removal. The Judge decided, the notice sufficient; [MAJORITY — By the Court.] By the Court. The order of removal,' unáppealéd from, is not conclusive, as an adjudication, that the pauper was settled in St. Albans, unless St. Albans had been notified of such or-derj so that they could have appealed; In this case* the notice’ was not sufficient to render the order conclusive ; no notice was given, that an order óf removal had been made ; nor could St. Albans infer that an order had been made, from the demand óf money, as Fairfield might have demanded and recovered the money, without any order of removal. New trial granted.