Majority
p. 234Appellants, Bernadus, Daniel, vs. John and James Wil liamson, Respondents. On the first day of this term, they appeared personally, and by their counsel, who read affidavits stating their inability ; and it appeared that one of them was a carpenter, and the rest cartmen, and that their means were slender. Counter testimony, on the part of the appellants was produced, establishing the ability of the respondents : and it was insisted by King, that the statute upon which the application was founded (1 R. L. p. 286, § 21.) did not contemplate a state of affluence on the part of the child : it was sufficient if he was of the ability to labor and support his father. Here are four able' bodied men, endeavoring to excuse themselves from supporting their aged father, on the ground of want of ability ! It was a libel upon human nature.
Headnote
Statute for the relief of the poor. In the matter of the Overseers of the Poor of the town of Gravesend, for the relief of Peter Williamson, a •Construction ute for the relief and ment of the L°°pr.'286, §21
King, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mulock, Counsel for the Respondents.
King, for the appellants,
applied to the Court for a rale the respondents to show cause why they should . . - , . , support their lather, a pauper, now a town charge, at Gravesend, in King’s County. The affidavits stated that fact, and that the respondends resided here, and were of sufficient ability, &c.
p. 235
The Court, after considering the circumstances, ordered, that the defendants severally pay to the appellants the ■sum of thirty cents a week, for the support of their father; and the Court, though pressed by the appellant’s counsel, refused to grant the rule so as to operate on the ents jointly.
[This case was kindly furnished the Editor by Mr. Rogers.]