Page images
PDF
EPUB

pled together to make up the forty days residence.-Thus id the K. v. the Inhabitants of South Lynn, Tr. 34 Geo. 3, the father of the paupers was legally settled in East Bilney, prior to 24 Oct. 1792: on 23 Oct. 1792, he being then, and for some time before, in possession of a cottage and land in Wiggenhall St. Peter's, at the yearly rent of 21. 2s. 6d. hired a house in South Lynn, at the yearly rent of 91. and paid 10s. 6d. in part of the rent; and on the following day he and his wife and four children entered into possession, and resided thereon till his death, on the 8th Nov. 1792 (being sixteen days), still keeping possession of the cottage and land in Wigger. hull. He died intestate,aud no letters of administration had beer granted to his widow or any other person. Upon his deceas his widow kept possession of, and occupied the house and cot tage in South Lynn and Wiggenhall, but she and her childre resided in South Lynn, until 11th Dec. 1792 (being thirty three days); and on her quitting possession of the house i South Lynn, she paid the landlord 12s. which with the mone paid him before by her husband was for half a quarter's rent after this she remained in possession of the cottage in Wigge hall. It was contended that the wife had gained a settleme in South Lynn by her residence there; for it was urged, th if the husband had continued to reside for forty days in Sou Lynn, he, and consequently his wife, would have gained settlement there; and then if the succeeding residence of t widow for thirty-three days after the death of the husband h been extended to forty, it is clear that that would have confe red a settlement: that during the sixteen days the husba lived there the settlement was going on progressively. T husband and wife had come to settle upon a tenement of t yearly value of 101. And they were consequently irremoveabl that this was a new case, and there was no reason why the sidence of the husband should not be coupled with the subseque residence of the wife, so as to make out the forty days in whole. By ford Kenyon Ch.J.If a mere residence for forty & irremoveable were sufficient to give a settlement, every lod

and

every servant residing for that length of time would ti acquire a settlement; but in order to gain a settlement residing on a tenement of the yearly value of 107. the pa 'must stand in the relation of tenant to the property for fo 'days.' Here there was an inchoate right in the husband, afterwards in the widow, which if completed by a full reside of forty days, in either case would have been sufficient: that one act of residence for forty days by the same tenant the property was wanting; the husband after residing sixt days on this estate died, and then the wife resided on it thirty-three days, but there was no privity of contract o interest whatever between the pauper and her late husba and we cannot connect the residence of the husband as ten with the residence of the widow as tenant, so as to complete forty days residence by both: though this case is new in

pies, it is not new in principle; and upon the principles established in former cases, I am of opinion that the widow did not quire any settlement in South Lynn.--The other judges concurred in opinion. 5 Term Rep. 664.

And a residence of 33 days by a widow on a tenement of 10%. fear cannot be coupled with a residence on the same tone. Bent with her husband for sixteen days preceding.

But if a a person rent several tenements of the yearly value of 14. in one parish, and reside for 40 days in another parish on tenement for which he pays no rent, he will gain a settle. ment in the latter parish.-The K. v. the Inhabitants of Frit. all, E. 37 Geo. 3, the pauper and his family were removed by 1 order of two justices from Stoke Lyne to Fritwell. The ses

on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case:-The pauper's father, about 22 years inc, rented two farms in the parish of Stoke Lyne, the one of 351, and the other of the yearly value of 106; during the last four months that he occupied the above farms, he, together with his family, dwelt in the adjoining parish of Fritwell, in part of a base belonging to a near relation, who permitted bim to live in it rent free. The house consisted of two sepa rate tenements, one of which the pauper and his family occupies, together with a barn, stable, and yard appurtenant. He kept a team there, and drew his corn from his farm at Stoke Lane to Fritwell. In this separate tenement he continued Bratly two years from his entering into it, but he never occupany lands in the parish of Fritwell, The separate tene

and use of the barn, stable, and yard, were of the yearly Yale of 359. or thereabouts. He never paid any rent to his Tiimia respect of them, but the relation had all the dung and usade by the pauper's cattle, and spread it upon his own and an adjoining parish. The Court, after hearing the ar ut against the order of sessions, delivered their opinion as Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. It is now too late to inquire the propriety of all the decisions that have been made on dement laws since the passing of the statute of the 13th 14th Car. 2, for even though it should appear on such en(which I do not suggest in this case) that the words of the statute have been, in some instances, strained; yet, as there series of cases decided on the subject, we ought not now to art from them. If, when the question first arose, it had been that the party must have one single teuement in the paof the annual value of 10. perhaps such a construction at would have fallen in with the general opinion of manHowever, it was long ago decided, that it need not be divided tenement, held under one landlord, nor ali iyfor that distinct tenements, held under dif

[ocr errors]

parish;

landlords, and lying in several parishes, may be joined r, and provided they all together amount to the annual 10 they will confer a settlement on the party;' and bing soce decided, I think it puts an end to this question;

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

S

The taking necessary to @void a certificate.

Here the pauper's father rented two tenements in Stoke Lyne, went to the parish of Fritwell, where he entered on part of a house, forming a distinct tenement by itself, and belonging to his relation, where he was permitted to live, but not out of charity. This is not like the case where a pauper was taken into the house of his son-in-law as a lodger; for here were two separate tenements, the whole of one of which he occupied; and I am not prepared to say, that his relation could have turned him out of possession on a day's notice; and though it is stated in the case, that the pauper paid no rent in money, it appears that there was an equivalent; there was a quid pro quo; the pau per brought all his dung and manure from his other tenements and this relation had the benefit of it; as therefore, he was in the occupation of more than 107. a year in the whole, and some part of it lay in the parish of Fritwell, I am of opinion that thi case was properly decided, as well by the justices who removed the pauper, as by those who confirmed the order, on hearing the appeal. Ashhurst J. The only question here is, Wha kind of occupation this was by the pauper's father? It seem that it may be fairly collected from the facts stated, that th parties were in the situation of landlord and tenant; the for mer having one tenement more than he wanted for himself, le the other have it, who, instead of paying his rent in money gave his relation the manure that he brought from a farm in a adjoining parish. Grose J. of the same opinion. Lawren J. It is stated in the case, that no rent was paid for the tend ment in Fritwell, from which I understand, merely, that money was paid for rent: for the manure seems to have bee given as a compensation for the use of the tenement; and should have no doubt but that a landlord might recover on quantum meruit, on such an occupation as the present.-Orde confirmed. 7 Ter. Rep. 197.

In respect to the taking necessary to avoid a certificate, t following cases have occurred, viz. In Cranley v. St. Mar Guilford, Hil. 8 Geo. 1, upon a special order of sessions was stated, that a certificate man agreed with the lessee of mill, that he should occupy the mill and pay 127. per annum that there was no underlease or assignment, but in pursuan of that agreement, the certificate-man occupied the mill t years, and paid the rent. THE SESSIONS adjudged it no sett ment. BUT BY THE COURT. The order must be quashed; 1 if this be not an absolute lease for a year (as Eyre J. said was, the reut being reserved as the rent for a year), yet it undoubtedly a lease at will, which is sufficient to gain a sett ment. 1 Strange, 502.

And in the K. v. Lutledean, Tr. 9 Geo. 1, it was stat that a man took a lease for seven years, and objected that might be only by parol, and then it is void for the whole, a

K. v. Topcroft, supra.

there can be no settlement.-Bur by THE COURT. Then it should have been stated to be by parol: we must take it to be by deed, otherwise it is no lease at all.

555.

1 Strange,

In Hertford v. Amwell, Mic. 9 Geo. 1, a certificate-man took a farm of 10l. per annum, part of which was in St. John's, and part in Amwell: but the greatest part together with the house, being stated to lie in the parish that received his certificate, the Court held it a settlement there. 1 Strange, 529.

Also in St. Mary Calendar v. St. Thomas, Hil. & Geo. 2, it was said, that the statute had been favourably expounded; and that renting 101. per annum in two parishes, had been determined in the K. v. Broxford to be sufficient to avoid a certificate. 1 Sess. Cas. p. 389.

So in the K v. Stapleford, Ea. 4 Geo. 2, a person took 31. a. year in the parish where he was certificated to, and 40%. a.year in the next parish, but lived where the 31. was; and it was held a settlement there. 2 Strange, 849.

So in Bouling v. Bradford, Ea. 15 Geo. 2, a certificateman rented and resided upon a tenement of 91. a-year in Bouling; and, at the same time, also rented lands of the value of 17. 15s. a-year in Wybsey. The Sessions adjudged it a settlement: and it was objected, that to avoid a certificate, the party ought to rent 10l. a year in the parish to which he came by certificate; for the words of 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 11, are, "That no certificate-person shall gain a settlement in the parish "unless he shall take a lease of a tenement of the yearly value "of 10%. or shall execute some annual office in such parish."But BY THE COURT. The words "in such parish" do not restrain the tenement to the same parish: for they relate only to the latter clause of executing some annual office;' and not at all to the former, of taking a lease of a tenement of the yearly value of 101. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 177.

[ocr errors]

In the K. v. Findern, Ea. 24 Geo. 3, the pauper lived one month in the parish of Melbourne, on a tenement of 10%. ayear; after the expiration of which time the parish of Findern gave him a certificate.' The pauper continued to reside on this tenement till the end of the year; and there was no fresh taking of the tenement after the certificate was granted; for which reason, the sessions were of opinion, that he gained no settlement in Melbourne.-But by Willes J. who delivered the judgment of the Court, The pauper came into the parish of Melbourne without a certificate; and before he obtains it he rents a tenement in the parish, of 107. a-year. This made him an inhabitant, and therefore he had no occasion for a certificate. It is not stated that the parish of Findern, at the time they granted the certificate, knew that he rented a tenemeat of 10%. a-year; and if they had known it, they would in all probability have refused to grant one. It is true, that he had not lived long enough on this tenement to gain a

Settlement by

paying public

taxes.

Scavengers and highway rates.

settlement; but the statute does not say whether the taking shall be before or after the certificate. The reality of the taking, and the fairness of the transaction, in the present case, is not disputed. He did really and bona fide take a tenement of the value mentioned. We are, therefore of opinion, that notwith. standing the certificate was granted after he came in and took the tenement, he thereby gained a settlement. 2 Bott, Constsed 216. Caldecot's Cases, 426.

،

[ocr errors]

VIII. Settlement by paying public taxes.

[ocr errors]

By 3 Will. & Mar. e. 11, If any person who shall cor to inhabit in any town or parish shall for himself, and on I own account, be charged with and pay his share towar the PUBLIC TAXES or levies of the said town or parish, he sh be deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, tho no notice in writing be delivered and published, as is requi by the statute.'

But by 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11, No person who shall c into any parish by virtue of a certificate shall be adjudged " any act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in < parish, unless he shall really and bona fide take a lease a tenement of the value of ten pounds; or shall execute s annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such offi [and consequently not by being charged with, and pa towards the public taxes.']

[ocr errors]

Also by 33 Geo. 3. c. 54, ( no member of any, be society, who shall reside in any parish or place, under a, tificate from such society*, and who shall be assessed tow any of the rates, taxes, or levies of the place, and shall 6 pay the same, shall thereby have any legal settlement in place. s. 23.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

And by 9 Geo. 1. c. 7,5 no person who shall be assesse the scavenger or the repairs of the highway, and shall pay the same, shall be deemed to have any settlement it city, parish, town, or hamlet, by reason thereof.? 6. Also by 21 Geo. 2. c. 10, the payment of any of the houses and win- <ties on houses, windows, and lights, shall not entitle the sons paying the same to a settlement.?

Duties on

dows.

6

[ocr errors]

s. 13.

Also by 18 Geo. 3. c. 26, the payment of the duties £ ed by that act on houses worth the yearly rent of 51. an wards shall not gain a settlement.'

s. 37.

And finally by the stat. 35 Geo. 3. c. 101, it is enacted 'from and after the 228 June 1795,no person whatsoever, whe come into any parish, township or place, shall gain a settl there by being charged with and paying his, her,

ΟΙ

* See title FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, in vol. ii. and head. Rem the Poor, infra.

« PreviousContinue »