give instruction in the first rudiments, those whose children are young may be gainers, in a pecuniary point of view, by reason of the low wages paid; but they should not lose sight of the fact, that if the same policy is pursued, their children, as they advance to manhood, will not enjoy those facilities for the acquisition of knowledge which are necessary to make them respectable members of society, and to enable them to enter into successful competition with others for its honors and emoluments.

The Superintendent has always been accustomed to direct, when applications have been made to him for the purpose, that the public moneys received by a school district should be equally divided between the summer and winter terms. This case is distinguished from any other which has come before him. Although the trustees have acted in good faith, and have employed a teacher, against whom no charge is brought, a portion of the inhabitants have set up a school in opposition to the one established by the trustees, because they are unwilling to pay their just proportion of his wages. If by allowing the whole of the public money to be applied to the sunmer term, the Superintendent were sure that the effects would fall on those only who have taken this course, he would not interfere. But as innocent persons might suffer, and as he is unwilling to abandon altogether the principle of dividing the school moneys between summer and winter terms:

It is hereby ordered, that one-third of the public money received by the trustees of school district No. 2 aforesaid, for the present year, be reserved for the fall or winter term; and that the remaining two-thirds may, in their discretion, be applied in whole or in part to the summer term.

(ANONYMOUS.)

Children in county poor-houses cannot be sent to a district school, excepting by voluntary agreement with the trustees.

By JOHN A. DIx, June 29, 1836. Superintendents of the poor cannot claim, as matter of right, the admission of pauper children into the common school of the district in which the county poor-house is established. If they are admitted, it must be by a voluntary agreement with the trustees of the district.

(ANONYMOUS.)

When trustees of districts find it necessary in assessing a tax to proceed in the same manner as assessors of towns, they are allowed twenty days in addition to the month within which the tax list is required by law to be made out.

By JOHN A. Dix, June 30, 1836. When, in consequence of a claim by an individual to a reduction of his valuation, it be

comes necessary to proceed in the same manner as the assessors of towns are required by law to do, the trustees of a school district are allowed, according to the construction which I have given to the statute, twenty days to complete the assessment of a tax in addition to the month within which the tax must be assessed and the tax list made out. Suppose trustees assess a tax twenty-five days after it is voted, and on that day a person claims a reduction. It is their duty to give a notice of twenty days, and then to meet and review their assessment. But if their right to complete the assessment expires at the end of the month after the tax is voted, it will be necessary to call another meeting with a view to vote the tax anew. By the construction above given, the two provisions are reconciled, and the embarrassment referred to can never occur. The law gives a twofold direction to the trustees, and both must be obeyed. The tax list must be made out within one month, but the meeting for reviewing the assessment is an independent act, and the time allowed for performing it must be deemed to be exclusive of the time prescribed for assessing the tax. If a different construction were adopted, it would be necessary that every tax list should be made out within ten days after the tax is voted, in order to enable the trustees to be prepared for a claim to a reduction. An interpretation which shall avoid this inconsistency and save both provisions of the law, is right in itself, and does not, as I perceive, violate any settled rule of construction.

(ANONYMOUS.)

If the assessment of a tax is delayed by an appeal, the time is not to be computed as part of the month within which the tax list must be made out.

By JOHN A. Dix, July 2, 1836. Where the assessment of a tax is delayed by an appeal, the time intervening between the presentation of said appeal and the decision thereon, is not to be computed as a part of the month within which the tax list is required to be made out. The regulations of the Superintendent relating to appeals, provide, that "after copies of the appeal in any case have been served, all proceedings, from the operation of which relief is sought, will be suspended until the case is decided." While an appeal is pending, the proper officers have no authority to act, and when that disability is removed, their rights and the rights of those whose agents they are, are not to be prejudiced by a delay for which they are not answerable.

The Commissioners of Common Schools of the town of Chatham, ex parte.

The number of a joint school district should not be changed without the concurrence of the commissioners of all the towns within which the district partly lies.

This was an application for the opinion of the Superintendent as to the authority of the commissioners of common schools of the town of Chatham, to alter the number of a school district lying partly in that town and partly in an adjoining town.

By JOHN A. Dix, September 1, 1836. The commissioners of common schools of one town should not alter the number of a school district lying partly in another town without the concurrence of the commissioners of the latter. By referring to sub. No. 3 of sec. 19 of the common school act, (1 R. S. page 470,) you will perceive that the commissioners of common schools in each town are required "to describe and number the school districts, and to deliver the description and numbers thereof in writing to the town clerk," &c. The specification of the powers of the commissioners under this section, has reference to single districts, or districts lying wholly within the limits of one town. But with respect to joint districts, or districts lying partly in several towns, none of those powers can properly be exercised, excepting with the concurrence of the commissioners of all the towns in which such districts partly lie. The numbering of a district may be considered as an act pertaining to the regulation of the district; and by reference to section 20, page 471, 1 R. S. you will perceive that in respect to joint districts, or districts formed out of two or more adjoining towns, the concurrence of the major part of the commissioners of each of such adjoining towns is necessary, in order to "regulate" or alter them. When, therefore, the number of a joint district is altered, the commissioners of all the towns of which such district constitutes a part, should meet together and concur in the alteration, and the new number must be delivered in writing to the town clerk of each town.

Harvey Loomis, a taxable inhabitant of joint school district No. 1 in the towns of Milton and Ballston, against the Trustees of said district.

If a person removes from one school district into another in the same village, and takes lodgings for his family until he can find a permanent place of residence to suit him, he is a taxable inhabitant of the district into which he has so removed.

The facts of this case are stated in the Superintendent's order.

By JOHN A. DIx, September 10, 1836. On the 16th day of January, 1836, the commissioners of common schools of the towns of Milton and Ballston divided joint school district No. 1, lying partly in both those towns, and comprising within its boundaries the village of Ballston Spa, and formed a new district by the designation of district No. 12. By this division, Harvey Loomis, who had for several years been a resident of said district, and of that part of it which was set off to No. 12, became an inhabitant of the latter district. About the first of May, the said Loomis removed with his family into that part of the former district which retained its original number, and took lodgings at the house of his brother-in-law, Reuben Westcott, having sold his dwelling house in district No. 12, and surrendered the possession thereof to the purchaser on the said first day of May. On the 7th of May a site was fixed, and a tax voted for a schoolhouse in district No. 1. On the 26th of May, Harvey Loomis gave notice that he should claim a reduction of the amount of his assessment. The trustees made out their tax list on the 6th of June, having given twenty days' notice of the time and place at which they would meet to review their assessment. At the time and place appointed, Harvey Loomis did not appear to claim a reduction of the amount of his tax. He was therefore assessed on $20,000, the amount of his personal property as ascertained by the last assessment roll of the town, and was taxed $80, his just proportion of the whole tax. From this proceeding he appeals, and claims a total exemption on the ground that he was not a resident of the district at the time the tax list was made out.

The liability of Mr. Loomis to be taxed in district No. 1 depends altogether on the fact of his being a resident of the district at the time the tax list was made out. If he was so, he was liable to be taxed. If not, he was not taxable, and the trustees should not have included him in the tax list. The question of residence is one which is to be settled by the facts of the case, and with regard to these there is no dispute. Mr. Loomis went into district No. 1 with his family, and engaged rooms there until he could find a permanent place of residence. The act of removing from one house to another in the same village, even as preparatory to a future permanent removal from the county, did not, so far as regards the village and town, amount to a change of residence. The intention of establishing himself permanently at some future time at a different place, if he should succeed in finding one to suit him, seems to the Superintendent to be conclusive against the position assumed by him, that he had changed his residence. The proposed change of residence is future and contingent, and must be consummated by an actual removal; and certainly such actual removal is altogether

inconsistent with the intention to remove at a future time. Mr. Loomis is clearly taxable in the town. Did not the assessors include him in the town assessment for the present year? Doubtless they considered it their duty to do so. The fact that Mr. Loomis went to the city of New-York with his family shortly after he took rooms at the house of his brother-in-law, Mr. Westcott, and afterwards travelled into the western part of the state, does not, when taken in connection with other circumstances, vary the case; nor does the fact of going to Troy in quest of a "suitable place for the intended permanent future abode of his family," amount to an actual change of residence. At the termination of these several movements, he regularly returned to the village of Ballston Spa; and if his intention can be inferred from the facts, it would seem to have been to make that village his temporary place of abode until he could find a permanent one. Certainly, there was not such an actual removal as to terminate his residence in that village.

The same reasoning is applicable to the question of his residence in district No. 1. He ceased to be an inhabitant of district No. 12 when he gave up the possession of his house and took rooms in the former district, and by virtue of this removal from a house in one district to a house in another in the same village, he became an inhabitant of the district into which he so removed, unless he lost his residence in the village altogether. This point having been disposed of, he must be considered an inhabitant of district No. 1 at the time the tax list was made out, and he was therefore taxable on his personal property for common school purposes. He might have appeared and claimed a reduction of his tax, agreeably to his notice to the trustees; but having failed to do so, the tax must be collected as assessed. It is hereby ordered, that the appeal of Harvey Loomis aforesaid, be, and it is dismissed.

(ANONYMOUS.)

The collector of a school district is answerable for moneys lost to the district by his neglect, though he may not have given a bond to the trustees.

If the term of service of the trustees and collector has expired, and a warrant for the collection of a school bill has run out in the hands of the latter, the successors of such trustees must renew the warrant and direct it to the successor of such collector.

By JOHN A. DIx, September 12, 1836. If by the neglect of a collector, moneys which might have been collected by him within the time limited, are lost to the district, he is liable for the amount, whether he has given a bond or not to the trustees. The bond is an additional security; but if it is not required of him, he is not released from any obligation which the law im