The Overseers of the poor of Waterbury, appellees, vs. the Overseers of the poor of Fairfax, appellants

The Overseers of the poor of Waterbury, appellees, vs. the Overseers of the poor of Fairfax, appellants. An omission of the justices making an order of removal, to cause an attested copy of such order to be delivered td one of the overseers of the poor of the town to which the pauper is ordered to remove, within thirty days from the making such order, is a defect for which the proceedings will be quashed on motion, or plea in abatement; but cannot bo taken advantage of under the plea of unduly removed. THIS cause came up on a motion for a new trial, predicated upon the exception appearing in the following. CASE STATED. This was an appeal from an order of removal. Plea, that the pauper was unduly removed, and issue joined. On the trial of said issue, the overseers of Waterbury gate in evidence the warrant of removal, by which the pauper was removed, and offered to prove the legal settlement of the pauper in said Fairfax; but admitted that an attested copy of said order of removal had not been left with or served upon some one of the overseers of said Fairfax, agreeably to the 5th section of the statute, passed Nov. 4, 1817. Whereupon the court decided, that in as much as an attested copy of said order of removal had not been left with some one of the overseers of said Fairfax, agreeably to the statute aforesaid, the said pauper had not been duly removed, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the overseers of said Fairfax. To which opinion of the court, the overseers of said Waterbury excepted. Wm. Upham, for the appellants. Nicholas Bay lies, for the appellees. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The question presented in this case was decided at the last term in Orange county, in the case Bradford vs. Corinth, and we áre persuaded that an argument here would be unavailing, as that case wás fully considered. The verdict, therefore, must be set aside, and a new trial is granted.