Selectmen of Bennington vs. McGennes

Selectmen of Bennington vs. McGennes. A party to a suit cannot be admitted as a witness. Monies expended by the overseers of the poor for the support of a pauper, cannot be recovered of such pauper, without a special contract for repayment. Indebitatus assumpsit, for money paid, laid out, and expended. Plea — Non assumpsit. Bennington August, 1790. It appeared in evidence, that in the year -the defendant was resident at Bennington, but had gained no legal settlement therein. The defendant, his wife, and two or three children were taken .sick and in distressed circumstances, being poor and unable to provide for themselves. The Selectmen of Bennington provided for them as paupers, and advanced, for their relief the sum demanded in the declaration. The wife, and one or more of the children died. The defendant, on his recovery, removed out of the State, and returning afterwards on business, the present action was brought. A motion was made that one of the plaintiffs, a Selectman, might be sworn, to prove a special agreement of the defendant to repay. [MAJORITY — By the Court. Chipman, Ch J.,] By the Court. He cannot be admitted. Chipman, Ch J., in his charge to the Jury observed — This is an action wholly unsupported by precedent, and the question is, Are there any principles of law or reason on which it can be supported ? The action is brought by the town against a pauper, to recover back money, which the town had expended for his relief. There is in this case no special agreement to repay. It rests on the general implication of law in such cases. As the money was advanced, if the law implies, generally an obligation on the part of the pauper to repay such monies, as the town may have advanced for his re. lief, then the plaintiffs ought to recover. This may be gathered from the intention of the law, in the provision made for the relief of the poor. The provision made, by law, for the relief of the poor i?, in my opinion, a charitable provision. To consider it in any other light, detracts much from the benevolence of the law, and casts a reflection on the humanity of the richer part of community. Poverty and distress give a man, by law, a claim on the humanity ©f society for relief; but what relief, if the town have a right immediately to demand a repayment, and to imprison the pauper for life, in case qf inability to pay ? This, instead of a relief, would be adding poignancy, as well as perpetuity to distress. If this be so, certainly the law raises no promise. Verdict 'for defendant