Town of Canton v. Town of Simsbury.

tion whether the plaintiffs could or could not institute twelve suits; nor the question as to the effect of a suit and judgment upon a single note upon the right to a subsequent judgment upon the others. Only this, that when property has been sold on time and the price is made to become due in installments payable on different dates, and all become. due and are unpaid, the creditor may allege in one count that the debtor owes him to an amount equal to the entire price and that his obligation to pay is evidenced by several promissory notes, and prove this debt by the introduction. of the notes in evidence. It is simply the indebitatus count in general assumpsit with such additional narrative of facts as the Practice Act requires. Under the facts of this case it would be a reproach to the law, if, contrary to the will of the plaintiffs, it permitted the defendants to draw upon themselves the consequences of their prayer, namely, the payment of several bills of costs where only one is necessary. There is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

THE TOWN OF CANTON vs. THE TOWN OF SIMSBUry. Hartford District, May T., 1886. PARK, C. J., CARPENTER, Pardee, LOOMIS AND GRANGER, Js.

A minor, born in Massachusetts, was supported by that state for several years during his minority at the Deaf and Dumb Asylum at Hartford in this state. From there he went, about three years before his majority, to the town of C, where he staid nearly two years. He then went to the town of S, where he became of age and remained for nearly twenty years, supporting himself, but with no taxes assessed against him. Held that he acquired a settlement in S.

While residing in C he was an inhabitant of that town, though having no settlement there, and although a minor, and when he removed from there to S he began to acquire a settlement in the latter town as an inhabitant of one town removing to another, under Gen. Statutes, p. 196, sec. 4.

[Argued May 18th-decided June 18th, 1886.]

Town of Canton v. Town of Simsbury.

ACTION to recover money expended in the support of a pauper claimed to belong to the defendant town; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, and heard before Calhoun, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

T. M. Maltbie and P. S. Bryant, for the appellant.

C. H. Briscoe and J. P. Andrews, with whom was F. M. Mills, for the appellee.

PARDEE, J. Moses G. Wise was born in New Hampshire and came thence into the town of Canton in this state in his minority and has there since continued to reside, a voter but not a settled inhabitant either by admission or the ownership of real estate. During a temporary stay in Massachusetts in 1846 his son Henry A. A. Wise, the pauper, was born. From 1853 to 1865 the last named state supported this son as a pauper-for eight or nine years at the Deaf and Dumb Asylum in Hartford in this state. He left the Asylum some three years or more before attaining majority and went thence to his father's house in Canton and remained a few months, and then to the house of his employer in the same town for about eighteen months, and from thence to Simsbury in 1866, where he has had his domicil to this present; voting there from 1867 to 1884, two years perhaps excepted. He was self-supporting, and no taxes were assessed against him, from the time of leaving the Asylum to July, 1885. In that month he was temporarily in Canton, was injured and required immediate public aid from that town. It was given and this suit is for repayment. The plaintiff had judgment in the court below, and the defendant appeals.

It is the contention of the defendant that the pauper could not become a settled inhabitant of Simsbury without admission or ownership of real estate.

The fact that the state of Massachusetts supported him

State v. Basserman.

during several years does not determine the law of this case. The condition of being a pauper is not unalterable; the brand is not ineffaceable. Two or three years before his majority that state ceased to aid him; he then went to and became and during two years continued to be a self-supporting inhabitant of Canton-none the less so if we should concede that he had a legal settlement in Massachusetts; he I could elect to have his domicil elsewhere. A minor is an inhabitant in the eye of the pauper law. An inhabitant of Canton, he removed thence into Simsbury in 1866; attaining majority there in 1867, there he has resided hitherto, self-supporting, with no taxes assessed. Thereby under the statute he acquired a legal settlement in his own right in the last named town. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 54 Conn., 39.

There is no error in the judgment complained of.

THE STATE vs. GEORGE A. BASSERMAN.

New Haven Co., June T., 1886. PARK, C. J., CARPENTER, Pardee,
LOOMIS AND GRANGER, Js.

The act of 1882 (Session Laws 1882, ch. 107, part 2, sec. 2,) provides that where any town shall have voted against the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, a delivery of such liquors within such town shall be deemed a sale in such town, although the contract for the sale shall have been made in another town. Held not necessary that the prosecuting officer, to avail himself of this statute, should found his complaint upon it, but that an ordinary charge of a sale of the liquors in the town would be sufficient.

It is never necessary to aver more than the legal effect of the acts constituting an offense.

Under that statute a delivery by an agent is in all respects the same as a delivery by the vendor himself.

Aside from the statute, a delivery in one town of liquors ordered in another

State v. Basserman.

town, is a sale in the former town if the liquors were not separated from others until the delivery.

Proof of a sale of liquors will sustain a charge of offering to sell. Where a general verdict has been rendered on several counts, a defendant who has not requested the court to order separate verdicts, can not complain of it.

[Argued June 1st-decided July 8th, 1886.]

COMPLAINT for the sale, and the offering and keeping for sale, of intoxicating liquors; brought, by the appeal of the defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace, to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the jury in that court before Andrews, J. There were four counts in the complaint. The jury rendered a general verdict of guilty; and the defendant appealed to this court for error in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

L. N. Blydenburgh, with whom was D. Strouse, for the appellant.

T. E. Doolittle, State's Attorney, for the State.

GRANGER, J. This is a prosecution for a violation of the statute of 1882, (Acts of 1882, ch. 107, part 6, sec. 1,) which provides that "any person who, without license therefor, shall sell or offer or expose for sale, or shall own or keep with intent to sell, any spirituous and intoxicating liquors *** shall be fined for the first offense not more than fifty dollars." The information contains four counts. The first charges that on the 22d day of May, 1885, the defendant, at the town of Hamden in this state, sold and delivered certain spirituous and intoxicating liquors without having a license therefor; the second and third counts that on the 8th day of July, 1885, he offered and exposed for sale spirituous and intoxicating liquors at Hamden, without a license therefor; and the fourth that on the 8th of July, 1885, at Hamden, without a license therefor, he owned and kept spirituous and intoxicating liquors with intent to

State v. Basserman.

sell them. The case came to the Superior Court by the defendant's appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, and was tried to the jury on a single plea of not guilty. The jury brought in a general verdict of guilty and the defendant appeals to this court.

It appears by the finding of facts by the judge on the appeal that the defendant was a brewer, living and carrying on his business in the town of New Haven, to which Hamden adjoins, where he had a license for the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, ale and lager beer, at wholesale and retail, and that he was in the habit of sending a wagon on regular trips, once or twice in each week, through the town of Hamden for the delivery of ale and lager beer to various persons residing there; and the State's Attorney offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that one Adolph Kleiber was the driver of the wagon and the agent of the defendant in making such deliveries. It was also proved and admitted that the town of Hamden, at its annual town meeting in October, 1884, had voted against the granting of licenses for the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors in the town.

Among other witnesses the State called Bela Mann, who testified as follows:-" I know Adolph Kleiber. He drives Basserman's beer wagon. I have seen him frequently with that wagon. I saw him the 8th day of July last with the wagon in Hamden. He delivered a case, or two cases, of beer on that day at the house of Mr. Rosenthal in Hamden. I had one of the bottles. It was lager beer. A case is a box with partitions in it for the bottles to stand in. A case sometimes contains a dozen bottles and sometimes two

dozen. It was Basserman's wagon. The name George A. Basserman, Rock Brewery,' was painted on the side of it. I have seen the same wagon stop at Mr. Cresswell's and at Radcliff's." The defendant objected to the evidence for the reason that the State could not, under the averments in the complaint, prove a delivery of spirituous liquors in Hamden, the contract for which was made in New Haven. But the court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.