marriage conveys no settlement; but if the second marriage be abroad, although no such second marriage can convey any settlement, it is no offence punishable here.* On the expression which denotes the offence itself," the marriage," it is to be observed that, in the trying it as a crime, the first and true wife cannot be admitted a witness against the husband (nor vice versa) but the second wife, being in truth no wife at all, may be admitted.† But on the removal of a woman to her sup- Evidence of posed husband's settlement, the illegality of the the crime. marriage may be proved by either the man himself, or by his real wife; for,' said the Court upon one occasion, the woman was clearly an admissible witness, though she could not have been so in any case where her husband was a party; because the husband and wife are in law one person. But here the husband himself, if he had been alive, might have been a witness; and wherever the husband may be a witness the wife may."+ But the fact of marriage cannot be inquired when the into after an order of removal, stating the enquiry espar- topped, ties to be husband and wife, if such an order be not appealed against; for the time being * Kel. R. 79. +1 Hale's Hist. 693, 2 Bott. Cons't. Edit. $1. Women's past for taking advantage in regular course, even though the fact were not then discovered, the parties who are damnified must abide by the consequences, for they are estopped after.* . On the last words of the paragraph," the former husband or wife being alive," it is enough to observe, that three exceptions are made by subsequent clauses of the statutę, which are, "where one of the Parties shall continue beyond the seas for seven years together; or, being within the kingdom for seven years together, shall be so secreted, that one party shall not know whether the other is alive; and thirdly to persons whose former marriage is void ab initio, or rendered so by sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction." These exceptions however, apply only to the trial of polygamy as a crime: Their consequences, as affecting settlements, present views of the subject somewhat different, but which have been already sufficiently considered in Chap. 2nd. respecting non-access in questions of bastardy, and under title, Evidence. The last point under this division, necessary not suspend to be noticed, is one which was long controed during verted, and agitated in many cases,† but which @overture. is at length settled, viz. whether the settlement of a woman marrying a man whose settlement is not known be suspended during coverture: * Burr, S. C. 551. † Burr. S. C. 367.—Cald. Ca. 39, 371.-2 Bott. 86. and revive after his decease, or whether it continue during coverture; and also as to the mode of proceeding upon an Appeal under these circumstances. One case out of many was the following, which exhibits the best illustration of the point. w A widow and her four children were remo, ved from the parish of Woodsford to the parish of Winborne Minster, The Sessions on Appeal adjudged the settlement to be at Woodsford, and quashed the order, stating, That by a rule of the Dorsetshire Sessions, upon all Appeals the appellants are to begin, and in the first place shew some settlement of the pauper out of the parish appealing. That in pursuance of the said rule, the appellants produced a copy of the register of the birth of Mary Scutt in Asspuddle; and the pauper Mary Pitman, swore that Mary Scutt was her maiden name. The counsel on the part of the respondents objected, that this was not sufficient; but that the birth of the pauper's husband, or some other settlement of his, ought to have been shewn; and farther, that to identify the said Mary Scutt, it was necessary for the appellants to prove the marriage of the said Mary Scutt with the said Robert Pitman. The Session adjudged, that the proof of the birth of Mary Scutt was sufficient; and that the onus probandi of the marriage lay upon the respond ents in order to prove their case; and quashed the order of removal. It was moved to quash the order of Session, upon the ground that, the pauper having been removed in the character of a widow, it imported, that it was a removal to the place of her late husband's settlement; that, unappealed from, it would be conclusive evidence of his settlement; and that as this must consequently have been the only point meant to have been brought in issue be tween the parties, the maiden settlement of the woman was nothing to the purpose, and did not apply to the question before the Court. But by THE COURT. "It may be, the husband had no settlement; and if he had, till discover ed, her own would in the mean time remain. It is enough in the first instance, The Sessions have done right. Motion denied."* In a later case it was decided, that an order of Justices for removing the wife and children of a pauper to the place of their settlement, is supported prima facie, by shewing that the place to which the removal was made, was the place of settlement of the wife before marriage, and although it also appeared by a copy of the marriage register, that the husband was therein described of another parish, (such description was held to be no evidence of his having a settlement there.) Cald. Ca. 236. '13 East's R. 311. The next head of acquired settlement is Renting a RENTING A TENEMENT.. tenement. By the statute of 9 and 10 W. 3, c. 30, before introduced as creating exceptions to the previous one of Car. 2l, one of those exceptions is, i "the bona fide taking a lease of a tenement of the value of ten pounds." This communicates a settlement, even to the avoiding a certificate. Four questions may occur upon the words of this statute, in deciding Appeals.. of the statute 1. What shall be construed a " tenement ?" Construction 2. What shall be a " bona fide taking ?" 3. What shall be considered " a lease?" 4. What shall be the interpretation of the words" of the value?" ' Tenement. It has been determined by numerous cases, too numerous indeed to be cited here, that tenement is a term of such comprehensive meaning, that it may extend, to hereditaments incorporeal, as well as corporeal, and generally therefore, that any thing permanently attached, to, or necessarily and immediately arising out of, land, may be considered as a tenement.* Thus the term, as applied by the constructions which have been put upon the act, covers rabbit warrens, even though the tenant have Warrens, no direct interest in the soil, because, as was said in one case, "it was a pernancy of the profits of the land by the mouths of the rabbits."t * See Pract. Expos. Title, Poor, sub. 5. † 3 Term R. 772. |