« PreviousContinue »
pled together to make up the forty days residence. Thus iti the K. t. 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 cottago and land in Wiggenhall St. Peter's, at the yearly rent of 21. 2s. 6d. hired å 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 Wiggene hull. He died intestate, and no letters of administration had been granted to his widow or any other person. Upon his decease his widow kept possession of, and occupied the house and cot. tage in South Lynn and Higgenhall, but she and her children resided in South Lynn, inntil 11th Dec. 1792 (being thirty. three days); and on her quitting possession of the house in South Linn, she paid the landlord 12s, which with the money paid him before by her husband was for half a quarter's rent ; after this she remained in possession of the cottage in Wiggen. hall. It was contended that the wife had gained a settlement in South Lynn by her residence there ; for it was urged, that if the husband had continued to reside for forty days in Soul Lynn, he, and consequently his wife, would have gained a settlement there; and then if the succeeding residence of the widow for thirty-three days after the death of the husband had been extended to forty, it is clear that that would bave confer red a settiement: that during the sixteen days the husband lived there the settlement was going on progressively. The husband and wife had come to settle upon a tenement of thd yearly value of 101. And they were consequently irremoveable that this was a new case, and there was no reason why the re sidence of the husband should not be coupled with the subsequen residence of the wife, so as to inake out the forty days in the whole. Byford Kenyon Ch.J.If a mere residence for forty day! irremoveable were sufficient to give a settlement, every lodge and every servant residing for that length of time would then acquire a settlement; but in order to gain a settlement by
residing on a tenement of the yearly value of 101. the part 'must stand in the relation of tenant to the property for fort
days.' Here there was an inchroate right in the husband, an afterwards in the widow, which if completed by a full residenc of forty days, in either case would have been sufficient: bu that one act of residence for forty days by the same tenant t the property was wanting; the husband after residing sixteel days on this estate died, and then the wife resided on it fc thirty-three days, but there was no privity of contract or interest whatever between the pauper and her late husband and we cannot connect the residence of the husband as tenau · with the residence of the widow as tenant, so as to complete the forty days residence by both i though this case is new in sp
sies, it is not new in principle; and upon the principles esta. blished in forider cases, I am of opinion that the widow did nut acquire any settlement in South Lynn... The other judges concurred in opinion. 5 Term Rep. 601.
And a residence of 33 days by a widow on a teuement of 10%. Lyear cannot be coupled with a residence on the same tene. ment with her husband for sixteen days preceding.
But if a persoa rent several tenements of the yearly valile of 101. in one parish, and reside for 40 days in another parish oa a tetement for which he pays no rent, he will gaia a settle. ment in the latter parish,-The K. v. the Inhabitants of Frita well, Eu. 37 Geo. 3, the pauper and his family were remored hy 10 order of two justices from Stoke Lyne to Fritwell. The sesbion, on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case:— The pauper's father, about 2 years since, 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 house belonging to a near relation, who permitted him to live in it rent free. The house consisted of two sepaFate tenenents, one of which the pauper and his family occupied, together with a barn, stable, and yard appurienant. He kept a team there, and drew his corn from his farm at Sloke Lyne to Fritwell. In this separate tenement he continued bearly two years from his exteriog into it, but he never occu. pied any lands in the parish of Fritwell. The separato tenement and use of the barn, stable, and yard, were of the yearly value of 358. or thereabouts. He never paid any rent to bis Telation in respect of them, but the relation had all the dung and manures made by the pauper's cattle, and spread it upon his own lands in an adjoining parish. The Court, after hearing the ar. gument against the order of sessions, delivered their opinion as ollows: Lord Kenyon, Ch, J. It is now too late to inquire
to the propriety of all the decisions that have been made on he settlement laws since the passing of the statute of the 131 and 14th Car. 2, for even though it should appear on such enmity (which I do not suggest in this case) that the words of Hat statute have been, in some instances, strained ; yet, as there a series of cases decided on the subject, we ought not now to epart from them. II, when the question first arose, it had been ilden that the party must have one single teuement in the pa. as of the annual value of 101. perhaps such a construction we act would have fallen in with the general opinion of manndlowever, it was long ago decided, that it need not be the undivided tenement, held under one landlord, cor all ly
in one parish: for that distinct tenements, held under difTerent landlords, and lying in scveral parishes, may be joined together, and provided they all together annount to the annual value of sol, they will confer a settlement on the party,' and al being goce decided, I think it puts an end to this question ; Vol. IV.
Here the pauper's father rented two tenements in Stoke Lyse went to the parish of Fritæell, where he entered on part of house, forming a distinct tenementby itself, and belonging to h relation, where he was permitted to live, but not out of charity This is not like the case # where a pauper was taken into t1 house of his son.in-law as a lodger; for here were two separa tenements, the whole of one of which he occupied ; and I a not prepared to say, that his relation could have turned him of of possession on a day's notice'; and though it is stated in t! case, that the pauper paid no rent in money, it appears thu there was an equivalent ; there was a quid pro quo ; the pa per brought all his dung and manure from his other tenement and this relation had the benefit of it; as therefore, he was the occupation of more than 101. a year in the whole, and so part of it lay in the parish of Fritwell, I am of opinion that tl case was properly decided, as well by the justices who remor the pauper, as by those who confirmed the order, on hear the appeal. Ashhurst J. The only question here is, W kind of occupation this was by the pauper's father? It see that it may be fairly collected from the facts stated, that parties were in the situation of landlord and tenant ; the mer having one tenement more than he wanted for himself, the other have it, who, instead of paying his rent in mon gave his relation the manure that he brought from a farm in adjoining parish, Grose J. of the same opinion. Laure J. It is stated in the case, that no rent was paid for the te ment in Frilwell, from which I understand, merely, that money was paid for rent: for the manure seems to have b given as a compensation for the use of the tenemeot; and should have no doubt but that a landlord might recover o quantum meruit, on such an occupation as the present.- Ord confirmed. 7 Ter. Rep. 197.
In respect to the taking necessary to avoid a certificate, Thie taking following cases have occurred, viz. In Cranley v. St. Va
6. Guilford, Hil. 8 Geo, 1, upon a special order of session avoid a certifi. cate.
was stated, that a certificate man agreed with the lessee mill, that he should occupy the mil and pay 121. per ann that there was no underlease or assignment, but in pursua of that agreement, the certificate-man occupied the mill years, and paid the rent. The Sessions adjudged it po set ment. BUT BY Tue Court. The order must be quashed ; if this be cot an absolute lease for a year (as Eyre J. sa was, the reùt being reserved as the rent for a year), yet undoubtedly a lease at will, which is sufficient to gain a sc ment. 1 Strange, 502.
And in the K. v. Lütledean, Tr. 9 Geo. 1, it was stat that a man took a lease for seven years, aod objected the might be only by pärol, and then it is void for the whole,
There can be no settlement.-Bur by TUE 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. I Strange, 555.
In Hertford v. Amuell, 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 certifi. cate, the Court held it a settlement there. 1 Strange, 529.
Also in St. Mary Calendar v. St. Thomas, Hil. 8 Geo. 2, it iras said, that the statute had been favourably expounded; and that renting 101. per annum ia two parishes, had been determined in the K. v. Broxford to be sufficient to avoid a certiácate. 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 401. a year in the next parish, but lived where the 31. was; and it was held a settlement there. 2 Strange, 849.
So in Bowling v. Bradford, Ea. 15 Geo. 2, a certificateman rented and resided upon a tenement of 91. a-year in Bozling; and, at the same time, also rented lands of the va. Ise of 1l. 155. a-year in Wybsey. The Sessions adjudged it a settlement: and it was objected, that to avoid a certificate, the party ought to rent 101. a year in the parish to which he came y certificate; for the words of 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 11, are,
That no certificate-person shall gain a settlement in the parish " udless he shall take a lease of a tenement of the yearly value
of 101. or shall execute some annual office in such parisi.." bor by THE COURT. The words in such parish” do not res. sain 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 10. Burrore's Sett. Cas. 177.
la the K. . Findern, Ea. 24 Geo. 3, the pauper lived one monta in the parish of Melbourne, on a tenement of 101. a. Year; after the expiration of which time the parish of Fina! Lera gave him a certificate.' The pauper continued to reside n this tenement till the end of the year; and there was no Ceah taking of the tenement after the certificate was granted;
which reason, the sessions were of opinion, that he gained settlement in Melbourne. But by Willes J. who delivered judgment of the Court, The pauper came into the parish Aidbourne without a certificate ; and before he obtains it he us a tenement in the parish, of 101, a-year. This made In an inhabitant, and therefore he had no occasion for a cer. ucate. It is not stated that the parish of Findern, at the me they granted the certificate, knew that he rented a tene.
of 101. a year; and if they had known it, they would all probability have refused to grant one. It is true, **Le had not lived long enough on this tenement to gain a
settlement; but the statute does not say whether the taking sh be before or after the certificate. The reality of the takit and the fairness of the transaction, in the present case, is r disputed. He did really and bona fide take a tenement of 1 value mentioned, We are, therefore of opinion, that notwi standing the certificate was granted after he came in and to the tenement, he thereby gained a settlement. 2 Bott, Const's 216. Caluecots Cases, 426.
VIII. Setllement by paying public taxes... Settlement by By 3 Will. & Mar. 6. 11, · If any person who shall c paying public to inhabit in any town or parish shall for himself, and on taxes, own account, be charged with and pay his share towi
the PUBLIC TAXES or levies of the said town or parish, hes
act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in parish, unless he shall really and bona fide take a lease tenement of the value of ten pounds; or shall execute annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such of [and consequently not by being charged with, and pa towards the public taxes.']
Also by 33 Geo. 3. c. 54, no member of any, by society, who shall reside in any parish or place, under a
tificate from such society*, and who shall be assessed tov 6 any of the rates, taxes, or levies of the place, and shall
pay the same, shall thereby have any legal settlement in
place. s. 23. Scavengers and Aud by 9 Geo. 1. c.7,! no person who shall be assess Highway rates the scavenger or the repairs of the highway, and shall
pay the same, shall be deemed to have any settlement i
city, parish, town, or hamlet, by reason thereof. $.6. Duties on Also by 21 Geo. 2. c. 10, the payment of any of Jouses and win-s ties on houses, windows, and lights, shall not entitle th dows.
sons paying the saine to a settlement.?
Also by 18 Geo. 3. c. 26, the payment of the duties sed by that act on houses worth the yearly rent of 51. ar - wards shall not gain a settlement.' S. 37.
And finally by the stat. 35 Geo. 3. c. 101, it is enacte from and after the 290 June 1795,no person whatsoever, w come into any parish, township or place, shall gain a settl there by being charged with and paying his, her,
* See title FRIENDLY SOCIETies, in vol. i. and head. A the Poor, iufra.