child, or children so left and abandoned, and proper vouchers shall be taken thereof. § 131. Guardians for minors; proceeds not to be mingled with other funds; officer to give security and to account. Whenever any child or children, entitled to the benefits provided by this article, shall be a minor or minors whose mother is dead and whose father has absconded from his children, or whose mother, being a widow or living apart from her husband, has absconded from her children, and such minor or minors shall have no guardian, the court of sessions or county court. having jurisdiction of this matter shall appoint some suitable per son guardian ad litem or next friend of such minor or minors, whose duty it shall be to see that the provisions of this article are carried into effect. The proceeds of the sale of said personal property and the rents and profits of said real estate shall not be mingled or placed with any other funds held or owned by the officer or officers receiving the same, but shall be kept separate and distinct. Such superintendent, overseer of the poor, board of charities or other authorized officer shall give sccurity for the faithful performance of the duties hereby imposed in such form and in such sum as the aforesaid court may direct, and shall account to the court of sessions for all moneys so received by them and for the application thereof from time to time and may be compelled by the said court to render such account at any time. § 132. Notice of accounting. Notice of such accounting shall be given to the wife or children, so left and abandoned, as the case may be, and to the guardian of such children, if any of them be minors. And in the event that no guardian or next friend has been appointed, as herein before provided, the said court shall, prior to such accounting being had, appoint some suitable person to attend upon such accounting in behalf of said minors, and notice of such appointment and of such accounting shall be given to the person so appointed. § 133. Penalties, how applied. All penalties received from the prosecution of any recognizance given by any person who shall have abandoned or neglected his wife or children, or who shall have threatened to run away and leave his wife or children a burden on the public, shall be retained by the officer at whose instance such recognizance was prosecuted, and applied for the same purpose and in the same manner as in section one hundred and thirty of this chapter provided for the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of personal property and the rents and profits of real estate seized under the provisions of this article. § 134. Superintendents and overseers may redeem on sheriff's sale. County superintendents and overseers of the poor may redeem real property, which may have been seized by them pursuant to sections nine hundred and twenty-one to nine hundred and twenty-six of the code of criminal procedure, the same as judgment creditors under sections fourteen hundred and thirty to fourteen hundred and seventy-eight of the code of civil procedure. No such redemption shall be made, unless at the time of such redemption the seizure of the property sought to be redeemed shall have been confirmed by the county court of the county where the premises may be situated, nor unless such property shall, at the time of making such redemption, be held by the superintendents or overseers, under and by virtue of such seizure. § 135. Redemption, how made. To entitle such superintendents or overseers to acquire the title of the original purchaser, or to be substituted as purchaser from any other creditor, they shall present to and leave with such purchaser or creditor, or the officer who made the sale, the following evidence of their right: 1. A copy of the order of the county court, confirming the warrant and seizure of such property, duly verified by the clerk of the court. 2. An affidavit of one of the superintendents or overseers that such property is held by them under such warrant and seizure, and that the same have not been discharged, but are then in full force. § 136. Moneys therefor, and how paid. The superintendents or overseers of the poor may, for the purpose of making such redemption, use any moneys in their hands belonging to the poor funds of their respective towns, or counties, which moneys shall be replaced, together with the interest thereon, out of the first moneys which may be received by them from the rent or sale of the premises so redeemed. § 137. When warrant of seizure may be discharged. If such redemption shall be made, and the person against whom the warrant was issued and seizure made shall apply to have the warrant discharged, he shall, before such warrant and seizure are discharged, in addition to the security required to be given by section nine hundred and twenty-four of the code of criminal procedure, pay to such superintendents or overseers the sum paid by them to redeem such property, together with interest thereon, from the time of such redemption. § 138. Boards of supervisors may abolish or revive distinction between town and county poor. The board. of supervisors of any county may, at an annual meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose, by resolution, abolish or revive the distinction between town and county poor of such county, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to such board, and until such abolition or revival, such county, or the towns therein, shall continue to maintain and support their poor as at the time when this chapter shall take effect. The clerk of the board shall, within thirty days after such determination, serve, or cause to be served, a copy of the resolution upon the clerk of each town, village or city within such county, and upon each of the superintendents and overseers of the poor therein. Upon filing such determination to abolish the distinction between town and county poor, duly certified by the clerk of the board, in the office of the county clerk, the poor of the county shall thereafter be maintained, and the expense thereof defrayed by the county; and all costs and charges attending the examinations, conveyance, support and necessary expenses of poor persons therein, shall be a charge upon the county. Such charges and expenses shall be reported by the superintendent of the poor, to the board of supervisors, and shall be assessed, levied and collected the same as other county charges. In order to render the expense of maintaining all the poor of the county a county charge pursuant to the above section, the board of supervisors must not only determine to abolish the distinction between county and town poor, but must file such determination with the county clerk. Until such determination be filed, the duties of the officers arising out of such change in the poor system do not attach. The service of the resolution of the board of supervisors on the town clerks is not essential to effect a change of system; the provision respecting such service is only directory. Supreme Court, January, 1846, Thompson v. Smith, 2 Den. 177. In order to abolish the distinction between town and county poor, in a particular county, a resolution to that effect must be passed by the board of supervisors, and the same must be filed in the county clerk's office. Supreme Court, January, 1854, Baldwin v. McArthur, 17 Barb. 414. The town is charged with the support of the poor, when there is no action taken by the supervisors to abolish the distinction between town and county poor, and a city stands under the poor laws in place of the town. Supreme Court, May, 1888, Nuns of St. Dominic v. Long Island City, 48 Hun, 306. The act of 1882, ch. 28, making the town of Oswegatchie, a separate and dis tinct poor district, did not operate as a repeal of the privilege extended to the supervisors of St. Lawrence county by the act of 1846, ch. 245, to adopt the "Livingston County Act," chap. 334, of 1845. Court of Appeals, November, 1886, People v. Supervisors of St. Lawrence, 103 N. Y. 541. A board of supervisors has no authority to make a distinction, in part, between county and town poor. STATE OF NEW YORK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Hon. ROBERT W. HEBBERD, Secretary, State Board of Charities, Albany, N. Y.: SIR. I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 10th instant in which you ask if under the provisions of section 134 of the Poor Law, the board of supervisors have authority to abolish the distinction between town and county poor in part; that is, so far as the care of idiots is concerned. I will take the liberty of quoting a portion of the law referred to, section 134, chapter 225, Laws of 1896, as follows: The board of supervisors of any county may, at an annual meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose, by resolution, abolish or revive the distinction between town and county poor of such county, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to such board, and until such abolition or revival, such county or the towns therein, shall continue to maintain and support their poor as at the time when this chapter shall take effect." Under this law it is within the province of the board of supervisors to provide for the care and support of the poor in the county at the county's expense or to provide that each town in the county shall maintain its own poor. When a distinction is made by the board of supervisors between county and town poor it was undoubtedly the legislative intent to predicate the distinction upon the residence of the pauper in conformity with existing stat utes relating thereto. It is clear to my mind upon a careful consideration of this statute that it is not the purpose of the law to make any class distinc tion other than above suggested. I am therefore of the opinion that a board of supervisors has no authority to abolish the distinction between town and county poor in part, but if a distinction be made it must conform with the provisions of the statute relating to town and county poor as a whole. Yours very truly, JOHN C. DAVIES, Attorney-General. § 139. Overseers, when to pay money to county treasurer. Within three months after notice shall have been served upon the overseers of the poor, that the distinction between town and county poor has been abolished, they shall pay over all moneys which shall remain in their hands as overseers for the use of their town, after discharging all demands against them, to the county treasurer, to be applied by him toward the future taxes of such town; and all moneys thereafter received by them, as such overseers, for the use of the poor of their town, shall be paid by them to the county treasurer within three months after receiving the same, and by him credited to the town whose overseers shall have paid the same. It shall be the duty of all officers or persons to pay to the county treasurer all moneys which shall be received for, or owing by them to the overseers of the poor of any such town, for the use of the poor thereof, pursuant to any law or obligation requiring the same to be paid to such overseers, and credited by such county treasurer to the town for whose use such moneys were received or owing. Any overseer or other person having received or owing such moneys, who shall neglect or refuse to pay the same within thirty days after demand thereof, shall be liable to an action therefor, with interest at the rate of ten per centum thereon, by such county treasurer, in the name of his county. In counties where the poor are a county and not a town charge, money paid for either the permanent or temporary support of a pauper is the money of the county, and not of the town. Hence the town can have no right to recover it back from a person alleged to have obtained it fraudulently. Su preme Court, April, 1867, Robbins v. Woolcott, 66 Barb. 63. § 140. Invested town money. When any town shall have any moneys raised for the support of the poor, invested in the name of the overseers of the poor of such town, such overseers shall continue to have the control thereof, and shall apply the interest arising therefrom to the support of the poor of their town, so long as such town shall be liable to support its own poor, but when |