Citation Numbers： 6 N.Y.S. 358, 2 Silv. Sup. 463, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 838, 53 Hun 631, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 575
Judges： MacOmber
Filed Date： 6/22/1889
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/14/2024
The plaintiffs, who are the superintendents of the poor of the county of Steuben, bring this action to recover of the overseer of the poor of the town of North Dansville, in Livingston county, certain sums of money which had been expended by them in behalf of one Martin lioff, who was alleged to be a poor and indigent person, sent or removed, or who came of his own accord, from the town of North Dansville to the town of Hornellsville. For a number of years prior to 1886 this Martin Roff was domiciled with his family in the town of North Dansville. In the month of November or December, 1886, as the referee finds, he “ went of his own accord from his res
The evidence shows that Martin Roff, while living in Dansville, was not a pauper, but, on the contrary, was a freeholder; his wife having a house and lot there, for the purchase of which he had materially contributed. He was not a tramp. He seems to have gone from North Dansville to Hornellsville for the purpose of bettering his condition or earning more wages at his trade. At Hornellsville he fell ill, and, being without funds, became a charge upon the authorities there. He was not, however, a pauper, within the meaning of the term used in this statute; nor has the referee found him to be a pauper. He has simply found that, being domiciled and residing at North Dansville, he went of his own accord from his residence, etc., and engaged in services as a barber. This finding is as broad as the evidence could warrant.
Hence the conclusion reached by the referee is founded, not upon the fact that Roff was actually a pauper when he left North Dansville, but rather upon the fact that the overseer of the poor of that towrn failed to notify the county superintendents from whom the notice had been received that he denied the allegation of such improper removal, or that his town was liable for the support of such pauper.
In pursuance of section 60, as amended by chapter 546, Laws 1885, the overseers of the poor are required, when notified, within 30 days to take and remove the pauper from the county where he has gone to their own town, and support him, and pay the expenses of the notice, and the expense of the support of such pauper; “or they shall within the said time, by a written instrument under their hands, notify the county superintendents from whom such notice was received, or either of them, that they deny the allegation of such improper enticing or removal, or that their town is liable for the support of such pauper.” It is conceded that the overseer of the poor of North Dansville did neither of these alternative acts. Section 61 makes the town’s liability absolute, and precludes it from contesting the allegations of the notice, unless the facts and the liability are denied by the counter-notice. Liability immediately attached in behalf of the superintendents giving succor to this supposed pauper, against the municipality from which he came, and an action might be maintained therefor, together with the expense of notifying the overseer of the town, provided the notice which the plaintiffs served was sufficient. That notice is as follows: “County of Steuben,—ss. To the Overseer of the Poor of the Town of North Dansville, Livingston County: You are hereby notified that Martin Roff, who lias gained a settlement in your town, to which he belongs, is in the town of Hornellsville, in said county of Steuben, and is supported at the expense of Steuben county, for which the undersigned is county superintendent of the poor. You are therefore required to provide for the relief and support of the said pauper. Given under our hands at Hornellsville, this the 28th day of January, 1887. JamesS. McKay. Chas. G.