While researching my ancestor the Reverend James Keith I discovered a courtcase from October 1828 involving a Keith cousin who was a paper and the towns of Bridgewater and West Bridgewater. This is from Oliver Pickering's Massachusetts Reports: Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
The Inhabitants of Bridgewater versus The Inhabitants of West Bridgewater.
Before the town of West Bride water was formed out of a part of the town ol Bridgewater, the great-grandfather of a pauper gained a settlement in Bridgewater by a residence in that part of the town which is now West Bridgewater; the pauper, his father, and grandfather, resided in that part of the town which is now Bridgewater, and the pauper owned and was taxed for real estate in the part of the town which is now Bridgewater, so that he would have gained a settlement therein if il had been a separate town. By the Si. 1821, c. 82, creating the town of West Bridgewater, it is provided, that 11 all persons who may hereafter become chargeable as paupers to the said towns of Bridgewater and West Bridgewater, shall be considered as belonging to that town on the territory of which they had their settlement at the time of passing this act, and shall in future be chargeable to that town only." Held, that the pauper's settlement was in West Bridgewater.
This was assumpsit for the support of Daniel Keith, a pauper. At the trial of the case, before Morton J., the only question was, whether the settlement of the pauper was in West Bridgewater, all the other facts necessary to the maintaining of the action being admitted.
It appeared from the evidence, that the pauper, his father, and his grandfather, (so far as the memory of the witnesses extended,) always lived on the territory now included in the town of Bridgewater, and that the pauper, previous to the St. 1821, c. 82, establishing the town of West Bridgewater, and when of full age, owned real estate of sufficient value in the territory now Bridgewater, and was taxed for it sufficiently to have gained thereby a settlement therein, in his own right, had either territory been a separate town. But the plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that the pauper's great-grandfather, James Keith, was settled as minister of Bridgewater in 1664 and resided on that part of the town now West Bridgewater until his death, which happened between 1718 and 1720. The plaintiffs contended, that if the jury were satisfied of these facts in relation to James Keith, he thereby acquired a settlement in that part of the town now West Bridgewater, and that consequently, by virtue of the above statute of 1821, c. 82, the pauper's settlement was in West Bridgewater.
The defendants, on the other hand, contended that by the statute the legal settlement of the pauper was in what is now Bridgewater. They also contended that James Keith could not, by reason of his being minister of Bridgewater, and his The defendants, on the other hand, contended that by the statute the legal settlement of the pauper was in what is now Bridgewater. They also contended that James Keith could not, by reason of his being minister of Bridgewater, and his residence as above mentioned, have acquired a settlement in Bridgewater previous to 1692, and that even on the plaintiffs'' construction of the act of 1821, they were bound to prove that the pauper's grandfather was under twenty-one years of age at the time when James Keith could have acquired a settlement under the provincial act of 1692.
The judge, in order to reserve the questions of law which had been raised, for the whole Court, instructed the jury, that if they were satisfied that James Keith was minister of Bridgewater, and resided in that part of the town which is now West Bridgewater, they should find a verdict for the plaintiffs. The jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiffs; which was to be set aside and a new trial granted, or judgment was to be entered thereon, according to the opinion of the Court. -pp55-56
Massachusetts Reports: Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Volume 26 Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Ma. 1864
No comments:
Post a Comment