share fowards the public taxes, or levies of the said parish, township, or place, for and on account, or in respect of any tenement, or tenements, not being of the yearly value of 107. Upon this last act it has been decided that the words who shall come into any parish, mean and ought to be construed and taken who shall inhabit them, and that the legislature meant that no person so inhabiting at the time of the passing the act or any other of the inhabitants should after the passing of the act gain a settlement by being rated and paying it was thereby intended to make an end of this kind of settlement law in future. The K. 1. Inhabitants of Islington, Hil. Ter. 41 Geo. 3. 1 East's Rep. 284.

However as notwithstanding this annihilation of the right to gun a settlement by paying public rates, any persons may be intitled to relief from the parishes wherein they had been previously rated, it will be still proper to notice under this head, the same cases which have been decided on the subject in the following order.

An inhabitant of a parish by paying a tax assessed for the County rates, repairs of a county bridge does not thereby gain a settlement;

for in such case the whole county is liable, and he pays as one of the county, and not as an inhabitant of the parish or town where he lives. The Q. v. St. Michael's, Cornhill, Tr. 3 Ann. Cas. Sett. & Rem. 1.

The payment of the land tax, though it is not a parochial Land-tax, tax, is a public tax within the meaning of the act.-Thus in the KY. Blood, Hil. 9 Will. 3.-By Holt Ch. 3. The payment of the land-tax has been held a sufficient notice within the sta tate, when charged and paid in a parochial limit, although it is not a parochial tax, Comber. 410.

So also in the K. v. St. Mary, Whitechapel, Ea. 17 Geo. 3, the pauper, a labourer in the dock-yard at Portsmouth, in the parsh of Portsea, was rated and paid to the land-tax at Portsea and resided there upwards of forty days. All the officers in the said dock-yard were rated to the land tax. It was contended, that as by the statute 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11. s. 4, " no arfficer or workman employed in his majesty's service shall have any settlement by delivery and publication of a notice;" and as the being assessed and paying was no more than tanta. mount to notice, the pauper could gain no settlement thereby. But by lord Mansfield Ch. J. They are different modes, but perfectly consistent. This man is not within the first, for are no notice, but he is within the latter, for he is raand that by the act of the parish, and therefore he gains a

But as the county rates are now, by the statute 12 Geo. 2. c. 29, to be paid by the churchwardens and overseers, out of the moneycollected for the relief of the poor;' it seems that this question canngt

occur again.

settlement.-Aston J. The only difference is this; That a man of this description in the public service, by giving notice, shall not acquire a settlement: but the parish, taking notice of him by assessing him, shall give him a settlement.'.. Willes J was of the same opinion (Ashhurst J. absent). Cald. Cas

24.

So in Oakhampton v. Kenton, Ea. 7 Geo. 2, the late husband o the pauper and her children was a tide-waiter residing in Ker ton, and had a salary, for which he was rated to the land-ta in Kenton, where he several years resided; it was paid son time by himself, and repaid to him by the collector of the cu toms. It was objected that a taxation without payment gai no settlement. The question then was, Whether this ma had paid his share towards the public levies of the parish? A it was insisted that he had not; for it was not his own mone but the money of the collector.-But by lord Hardwicke ( J. Suppose a landlord had agreed to reimburse his tena would not the tenant be settled? The collector did not pay to exonerate the parish, but to better the man's salary.— THE COURT. It has been settled, that the land tax is à pai tar within the act, and his being rated for his salary makes difference. Burrow's Selt. Cas. 5.

So also in the K. v. Chiddingfold, Hil. 30 Geo. 2, the q tion was, Whether the tenant's paying the land- tax (wi was allowed him again by his landlord) amounts to such a tice as shall gain the tenant a settlement? And the cou who were to have contended that it did not, admitted that point had been fully settled by former determinations, therefore acknowledged that the orders were indefensi Burrow's Sett. Cas. 415.

So in the K. v. Fulham, Mic. 33 Geo. 2, the tenant was sessed to, and paid the land-tax, which was allowed to him his landlord, on settling his account with him for the rent. was insisted, that he thereby gained a settlement, for that was a point long since and very often fully and formally tled; and upon that foot of its being a settled point, Court adjudged it to be a settlement. Burrow's Sett. C

488.

And though the landlord expressly agree to pay all t yet if the tenant is rated, and once pays a parochial tax thereby gains a settlement, though he pay it for the land who afterwards repays it to him.---Thus in Openshaw Gorton, Ea. 4 Geo. 3, the pauper, being settled in O shaw, took a house and two crofts in Gorton at the rent 10s.; and the landlord was to pay all leys and taxes e the window tax, the landlord accordingly paid all leys taxes. But, in the last year, having some disputes wit overseers, he directed the overseer to call upon his i Bowden for a quarter of a-year's poor-ley church-ley; and tell him, that he his landlord ordere to pay it, and he would allow it out of his rent. The t

ar

6

accordingly paid for a poor's-ley, and a church-ley; declaring be paid them for his landlord; and the overseer said he accepted 'them accordingly.' But the landlord,not being asked by the tenant to allow it, did not allow it out of the rent till long after he left the estate, viz. six days before the order of removal, when he repaid the money. The charge in respect of this tenement was as follows, viz. "BOWDEN'S ;" as appeared by the assessinents. It was objected, that he was neither rated nor paid in his own right; but for his landlord.---But lord Mansfield said, it was a clear case, though perhaps not so strong as some others may have been. This was the proper tax upon the tenant and he is assessed by name "Bowden's." The agreement between his Jandlord and him, that the landlord should pay it, is nothing to the parish. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 522.

But where an excise officer who resided at Weobly, was rated to the land tax, in that parish for his salary, which was proved by the land tax assessment, and it appeared by the evidence of the pauper that he never paid such rate himself, or any rate, the same being paid by the collector of excise, and not deducted out of the pauper's salary; THE COURT held this not suficient to gain a settiement. Lord Kenyon Ch. J. We cannot do better than abide by the act of parliament which requires both that the pauper should be rated and should pay in order to gain a settlement; if the rate had been paid by him through the medium or by the hands of another, that would have been a payment by himself, but here he neither paid it mediately nor immediately. He was not affected by the payment at all, it was not deducted out of his salary, nor was his income diminished by it, consequently he did not thereby gain a settlement. 2 East's Rep. 68.

And if the rate be paid by a friend of the tenant's in order to sare his goods from a distress, this, though it is not done at the express instance of the tenant, but only upon the request of one of his family, will be sufficient to entitle the tenant to a settlement. Thus in the K. v. Bridgewater, Hil. 30 Geo. 3, Thomas Bastard, the father of the pauper, inhabited for some time in a house in Saint John's, which he rented of William Lewis: while he so occupied the same, an assessment was made in St. John's for the land tax, enti, tied, A rate on the several inhabitants, owners, and occupiers of houses, lands, &c. in the parish ;" and in this

form:

Thomas Bastard having absconded and left his house and children, Lewis the landlord desired the collectors to go with him to Bastard's house in order to make a distress on his goods for the 6s. 9d. otherwise he should lose the money;' aud Lewis accompanied them to Bastard's house for that pur pose; but one of his daughters saying she had a friend whe would pay the money, went with the collectors and the land Jord to one Mrs. Owen, who gave a guinca to the collectors who received thereout the land-tax,' and both the collector signed a receipt for the tax, but the receipt was not produce to the sessions.---It was objected, that the payment by Me Owen could not be considered as the act of Bastard; she pai it without any authority or even request from him, and cou not therefore maintain assumpsit against him for money pa to his use.But THE COURT were clearly of opinion, th it was money raised for Bastard's use, for which an acti might be maintained against him. The money was advanc by a friend in order to protect him from a distress, un which his goods would otherwise immediately have been take 3 Term Rep. 550.

But a person who is rated in one parish, and resides another, does not, by paying the rate, gain a settlement either. This was decided in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Michael, at Thorn in Norwich, Ifil. 36 Geo. 3. The sessi on an appeal, confirmed an order of two justices for removal of a widow and her family, from Swanton Nover Norfolk, to the parish of St. Michael at Thorn, in the c of Norwich, subject to the opinion of the court, on a e which stated; that previous to 1793, the late husband of pauper was settled in Swanton Novers: that in 1793 he an excise officer, and resided in the parish of St. Michae Thorn, in Norwich, and, during his residence there, was sessed for his salary to the land-tax, in the parish of St. G gory in Norwich, and which assessment was paid by the coll tor of excise; that it has been the custom in Norwich, to as all the excise officers in the parish of St. Gregory,and not wi in the parishes where they respectively reside; that the pa of St. Gregory was the only parish which was relieved by payments of the assessments, for the salaries of excise offic within the city; that the pauper's late husband never resi in the parish of St. Gregory. By lord Kenyon Ch. J. single question in this case is, whether the pauper's husb gained a settlement under the statute of Will, & Mar, in parish of St. Michael at Thorn, to which the widow was moved. That statute says that any person who shall inh: in any town or parish, and be charged with and pay his sh towards the public taxes of the said town or parish,” s

*

營 See p. 260 ante.

thereby obtain a settlement. In this case the pauper's husband lived in one parish, and was charged to the land tax in another: therefore this does not come within the statute of William

Grose J. concurred, and Lawrence J. said a settlement by being rated was substituted for a public notice; but it is no notice to the parish of St. Michael, that this person was rated in the parish of St. Gregory. Both orders quashed. 6 Ter Rep. 536.

But to entitle the party to a settlement, there must be Assessment and an actual rate and assessment...Thus in the K. v, Friends-payment. Fury, Tr. 9 Geo. 3, the pauper entered himself as a rigger This majesty's service at Sheerness, where he continued to live and reside for about twenty-four years, and till his removal. Sheerness is a vill, and maintains its own poor; and the way of maintaining them is thus; the gross sum of sixpence per quarter is stopped out of the pay of every person serving in his majesty's dock-yard under the commissioners of the admiralty there, for the support of a chest for the • maintenance of the poor; the stoppage is made by the payclerks of the dock-yard at Chatham, and is afterwards paid ever, by the commissioner of Chatham dock-yard, to the clerk of the cheque of Sheerness, who therewith relieves the casual as well as settled poor of Sheerness, without the interfering * of the overseers of the poor of the vill, who never receive these stoppages, but are wholly employed in obtaining orders. * of removal." The pauper during all the time of his residence at Sheerness had the usual deduction of sixpence per quarter stopped out of his wages....It was objected, that this stoppage of sixpence per quarter for the chest was not such a contribut ing to the public levies of the parish of Sheerness as was suffi cient to gain a settlement there; for that it was no rale, nor my authoritative collection or obligatory contribution for the general maintenance of the poor of Sheerness.---And by lord Mansfield, It is impossible to make the contribution here stated a sufficient foundation for gaining a settlement under the statute, which requires the being charged with' and paying his share towards the public taxes or levies' of the town or parish. But it seems a great hardship upon these men that they should pay all this money, and yet have no benefit from it; and he expressed his disapprobation of such an inproper method of collecting the poor-tax....Yates J. In order to gain a settlement, the person must be rated as well as pay..-THE WHOLE COURT were therefore clear, that the pauper gained no settlement in Sheerness by contributing in this manner fowards the maintenance of their poor. Burrow's Sett.Cus. 644. And an assessment without payment will not gain a settle. meat; for by Holt Ch. J. The words of the act are charged 'with and pay,' and therefore taxation without payment is not sufficient. The K. v. St. Nicholas in Abingdon, Mic. 7 Will. 3. Skinner, 620.