some derivative or subsequent settlement.-To quash the or ders, it was insisted, that it ought to have been proved, that due diligence had been used by the parish of Whitehaven, to discover the settlement of her husband; that at least after what the husband had related of his birth in Yorkshire, some enquiry ought to have been made there, and that otherwise there could not correctly be an adjudication that this was the place of her last legal settlement.-But by lord Mansfield. Nobody has found a later. Born in Yorkshire, affords about as much of certainty, as born in England. It is not a description sufficiently precise to furnish a clue for investigation. If the husband's settlement does not appear, it is the same thing as if he had none; and then this is the woman's settlement: if it is the party that alleges she has another settlement they must shew where it is. The sessions have done right. A case was made to charge the parish of Hensingham,and they have not discharged themselves; which if they could, upon proof of the first settlement, they ought to have done.-Willes, Ashhurst, and Buller, Justices, concarring, rule discharged, and both orders affirmed. Calde cot's Cases, 206.

VI. Settlement by notice and forty days residence.

By 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12, it shall be lawful, upon com'plaint made by the church-wardens and overseers of any parish, 'to any justice of peace, within forty days after any person *shall come and settle in any tenement under the yearly value of ten pounds, for any two justices (1 Qu.) of the division where any person, likely to be chargeable to the parish, shall came to inhabit, by their warrant to remove such person to such parish where he was last legally settled, either as a native, householder, sojourner, apprentice, or servant, for the space of forty days at the least, unless he give sufficient se'curity for the discharge of the said parish, to be allowed by 'the said justices.' s. 1.

But by 1 Jac. 2, c. 17, the forty days continuance of such person in a parish, intended by the said act to make a settlement, shall be accounted from the time of his delivery of no'fice in writing, of the house of his abode, and the number of has family if he have any, to one of the church-wardens or overseers of the parish to which he shall remove.' s. 3.

And by 3 Wil. & Mar. c. 11, the forty days continuance of such person in a parish or town, intended by the said acts to make a settlement, shall be accounted from the publication of a notice in writing, which he shall deliver, of the house of his abode, and the number of his family, if he have any, to the churchwarden or overseer, which said notice in writing the said church-warden or overseer is to read, or cause to be read publicly, immediately after divine service in the church or chapel of the said parish or town, on the next Lord's day, 'when there shall be divine service in the same; and the said churchwarden or overseer is to register or cause to be re

Persons that

yer notice.

gistered, the said notice in writing, in the book kept for th poor's accounts.' s. 3.

And if any churchwarden or overseer shall refuse or n glect to read, or cause to be read, such notice in writing aforesaid, in such manner, place, and time as aforesaid, I shall forfeit for every such offence (upon proof thereof two witnesses upon oath before one justice) forty shillings the party grieved, to be levied by distress and sale, by wa rant directed to the constable of the parish or town whe such offender dwells, and for want of such sufficient i 'tress, the said justice shall commit him to the common g for one month: And if any churchwarden or overseer si refuse or neglect to register, or cause to be registered, s notice in writing as aforesaid, he, upon the like convict shall forfeit forty shillings to the use of the poor of parish or town where such offender dwells, to be levie aforesaid and for want of such sufficient distress, then said justice shall commit him as aforesaid, for the time al said.' s. 5.

But if any person who shall come to inhabit in any need not deli-or parish, shall for himself, and on his own account, ex 6 any public annual office or charge in the said town or 'during one whole year, or shall be charged with and pa share towards the public taxes or levies, then he sha • deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, though no ⚫ notice in writing be delivered and published as above.'

Also, if any unmarried person, not having child or chil shall be lawfully hired into any parish or town for one (and shall continue and abide in the same service duri space of one whole year, 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 30) such s shall be deemed a good settlement therein, though no notice in writing be delivered and published as above.

And if any person shall be bound an apprentice by i ture, and inhabit in any town or parish, such bindin inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement, thos such notice in writing be delivered and published as said.' 8. 8.

Any person aggrieved by the determination of the j as above, may appeal to the next general quarter se where the matter shall be finally determined.' 13 & 14 · c. 12. s. 2. 3 Wil. & Mar. c. 11. s. 9.

'But no soldier, seaman, shipwright, or other artif What persons work-man, employed in their majesties service, shall ha may deliver settlement in any parish, port-town, or other town, by d and publication of a notice in writing, unless the same t dismission out of their service *. 3 Wil. & Mar. c. 11

notice.

* But this clause doth not prevent the persons therein nav gaining a settlement by any of the other means permitted statute; as by paying towards the public rates, and the like.case of the K. v. St. Mary, Whitechapel, under the head S by paying public taxes, infra.

And no member of any benefit society, who shall reside in any parish or place, under a certificate from the said society, 'shall have, or be deemed to have acquired any settlement there by delivery and publication of any notice in writing, 'unless the same shall be made after he shall cease to be a mem *ber of such society, and after the revocation of his said cer'tificate.' 33 Geo. 3. c. 51. s. 22.

notice.

And finally, by the stat. 35 Gen. 3, c. 101, it is enacted No settlement 'that no person coming into any parish, township, or place, to be gained by *shall, from and after 22d June 1795, be enabled to gain any 'settlement therein, by delivery and publication of any notice in writing.' s. 3.

A person coming into a parish to reside upon his own estate, is not within the act, and consequently cannot be removed; for, by Holt Ch. J. in Rislip v. Harrow, Hil. 8 Wil. 3, a person having land in a parish will not enable him to give no. tice for the purpose of gaining a settlement; but if a person live in a parish where he has land, he may thereby gain a settlement without notice; for the act of parliament never meant to banish men from the enjoyment of their own lands. Salk, 524.

And in general a residence in any place for 40 days, being irremeteable from thence, gains a settlement. Burrow's Set. Cus. 8. 125.

And the notice for the purpose of gaining a settlement must What shall be be in writing pursuant to the statute. Thus in the K. v. Tal- deemed a sufibury, Hil. 8 Wil. 3, a person exercised the trade of a black_cient notice. Smith, was publicly employed by the parishioners, by the bailiff of the lord of the manor, the vicar and the justice. The question was, Whether this public way of living was not tantamount to notice in writing, which was only intended to prevent clandestine entries and living.-BY THE COURT. This public notice taken by the parish, might have perhaps satisfed the statute of 1 Jac. 2, c. 17; but there being doubts concerning the notice prescribed by that act, the statute of the 3 and 4 Will. & Mar. c. 11. was made to explain it; and this late statute hath particularized the notice, and what shall be tantamount to it, and what not: but this is not among the particulars of that statute. Foley, 123. Carthew, 369. 2 Salk.

476.

So in the K. v. Chertsey, Mic. 11 Will. 3, exception was taken to an order of sessions, that the only ground of settlement of the pauper appears upon the order to have been, that the banns of matrimony of a poor person were published in the parish church; and the notice given to the parish must not only be in writing, but the other ceremonies required by the statute 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11, must be observed, and that being an explanatory act, cannot be taken in equity.-By THE Corer. Let the order be quashed. 5 Mod. Rep. 454.

So in the K. v. Abbot's Langley, Hil. 2 Geo. 2, the pauper

Time and manner of residence.

kept a public alehouse in the parish for upwards of six an thirty years, which was publicly known to and frequented b the officers of the parish. During his residence in this hous the churchwardens and overseers distributed to him, amon other parishioners, certain yearly gifts given annually to th parishioners. He had also five children born in this house, ar christened by the minister of the parish; he was placed by t churchwardens in a seat in the parish church as one of t parishioners, performed watch and and ward, served as a jur man in several court leets, did his duty on the highways, paid the surveyor to be excused. The question was, Whet these facts were tantamount to notice in writing.-By T COURT. The facts as stated in this case are extremely stro The seating him in the church is strong evidence of the righ settlement: for he was seated there as a parishioner, whic an express acknowledgment on the part of the churchward and overseers that he was in fact a parishioner. But the w of the statute being positive, no collection of facts how strong, can be tantamount to a notice in writing; and to strue them in the present case as amounting to a notice in v ing would be acting in direct contradiction to the legislat 2 Bott, Const's ed. 125. Foley, 110. 2 Strange, 835.

In the case of the K. v. Cirencester, Hil. 10 Geo. 1 was held, that living 40 days successively was not necess and Fortescue J. said, that living 40 days off and on, is t ing the case stronger than living 40 days together in a pa 2 Sess. Cas. 40. 1 Strange, 579.

And in the K. v. Sowton, Hil. 12 Geo. 2, it was adm by the counsel, and held by the court, that 40 days resid in the parish in the whole, though not successive, is suffi to gain a settlement. Burrow's Set. Cas. 125.

Notwithstanding all this, as these statutes were made to vent poor persons coming into parishes clandestinely, a s ment by notice, and 40 days residence is seldom obtained the act of delivering notice constrains the parish to whom given to remove the party, if they object to his obtain settlement there.

TII. Settlement by renting a tenement of ten pou

a-year.

By 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12, C on complaint within 40 after any person shall come to settle in any tepement the yearly value of 10l. two justices (1 Qu.) may remov to where he was last legally settled for 40 days.'

And persons aggrieved may appeal to the next quart 'sions.' s. 2.

But by 9 & 10 Wil. 3. c. 30, no person who shall com

any parish by certificate shall be adjudged by any act what'soever to have procured a legal settlement, unless he really and bona fide take a lease of a tenement of the value of ten pounds, or shall execute some annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such office. s. 11.

A water-mill is a tenement within the meaning of these Renting mills. statutes; for in Evelyn v. Rentcombe, Hil. 10 Ann. an order was drawn up specially to have the opinion of the court, whether renting a water-mill of 107. a year would make a settlement.—AND BY THE WHOLE COURT. Clearly a mill is a tenement, and the renting thereof must gain a settlement within the statute. Salkeld, 536.

So also is a wind-mill.-Thus in the K. v. Butley, Tr. 10 & II Geo. 2, the question was, whether reuting a wind-mill at 14. a-year, the pauper living in the same parish, in a cottage at 31. per annum, gained a settlement? And it was insisted, that this could not gain a settlement; for though a water corn mill has been held to be a tenement within the act, yet a windmill could not be considered as such, because it has no house or place of residence, as other mills have.-BUT BY THE COURT. It has been endeavoured to distinguish between rent、 ing lands and a mill, because a miller has no stock; but this ob jection has been often overruled : if a man rent land or a mill of 10. per annum, without any house in the parish, he gains no settlement, because he cannot reside thereon without a place of habitation. But here the pauper held a cottage and lands at 3. per annum, at the same time that he held the mill at 147. per um, and therefore he gained a good settlement. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 107.

So a coney warren, and a cottage upon it, rented at 101. per Renting annum, will give a settlement.-Thus in Kinver v. Stone, Hil, warren. 12 Geo. 1, upon a special order of sessions it was stated that a poor person rented a coney warren and a cottage upon it, at 10%. per annum, which the justices were of opinion did not gain him a settlement within the statute.-BUT BY THE COURT. A mill has been held to be a tenement within that statute, and why not this? It is his ability to pay 10l. per annum that is the foundation of the settlement, and whether he pays it for ahouse, for habitation, or for a warren which brings him in a profit is not material. 2 Strange, 678.

So renting a rabbit warren, with liberty to kill rabbits for profit, with a small house on it to keep nets in, is a tenement, although it is a contract only to kill rabbits on a particular spot, with liberty to enter on the soil for that purpose. K.v. Piddetrenthide, 3 Term Rep. 772.

In the case of the K. v. Minchinhampton, Ea. 3 Geo. 2, Renting the the Court held, that the taking the pasture-catage of a piece of pasturage of ground was no more than taking the herbage or common, which land. could not be esteemed part of the tenement within the meaning of the statute; but seemed to think, that if the taking bad