« PreviousContinue »
husband, it was no rate at all. By the court order of sessions quashed *. 6 Tern Rep. 540.
And evidence of the rating may be given without the produce tion of the original rate... Thus in the K. v. St. Issey, Ea. 16 Geo. S, the pauper occupied a tenement of about 21. 10s. per annum, and until the year 1762 or 1763, never paid any land tas, or other rates, or taxes for the same ; but in one of those years there was an alteration made in the land tax rate of the parish; and about three months after, the collectors came to the pauper's house, and demanded of him 3s, 4d. or 33. 10d. for the laud tax of the said tenement: and upon his refus. ing to pay, the officers shewed him a paper writing, in order 10 enforce the payment, and read over the sum he was to pay ; but he still refusing, the officers soon after came and took a Distress for the same; the pauper then went and paid the son demanded of him for the land tax as aforesaid ; and he continued in the possession of the said tenement for about fouc or five years after ; and during such time, paid the like sum for land tax. The church and poor rates of the parish were produced to the sessions on botice; and the pauper was never rated in either of them: but no land tax rate or assessment was produced, nor any duplicate thereof; nor did it appear that any notice or application was made or given by the appellants to the commissioners or assessors of the land tax, or at the office of the clerk of the peace, or to any other person except to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish which were respondents. It was objected that the assessment Iseli ought to have been produced to the sessions ; or, at least, proof of application to the proper persons who could have predeced it.-But lord Mansfield treated it as a quite clear case; and that there could not be the leas: doubt of this man's having been rated to the land tax. The officers shewed him a writing, la order to enforce the payment: they afterwards distrained upon him for it. The justices were not to presume that this was done without his being rated ; they conld not doubt of his being rated. What rule of law obliges the original rate to be produced to them? - The other judges concurred. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 826.
But it has been since determined in the K. v. Coppal, Mic. Ter. 41 Geo. 3, that a settlement by being rated and paying rates cannot be proved by pazol evidence of paying only, without the production of the rate, or accounting reasonably for the noi. production of it. FOR BY Ld Kenyon Ch. J. It is impossible to argue that parol evidence may be given of rates which are list produced, for any notice proved to produce them, nor any
See also the case of St. Olave's v. Warblington, where it was also decided that the party must be rated before payment, to gain a settle morat.
reasonable account given for their non-production. Grose, It is in every day's experience to reject parol evidence of writing which may and ought to be produced. 2 East's Re 25.
And where the land tax rate is paid by the tenant, and other person is put on the rate, he shall be considered as rate
Thus in the K. v. Endon, 8c. Mic. 24 Geo. 3, the panp Thomas Lowell, being settled in Endon, repted a cottage Tittestorth, at the rent of 20s. a-year; and at the time of ta ing, it was agreed between the pauper and the landlord's ager that the pauper should pay the land tax and all other taxe but it did not appear that this agreement was known by officers of Tittesworth ; the pauper entered at Lady-day 177 and continued in possession of the premises till he was remove and during all the time was called upon by the parish officers Tillesvorth to pay, and did pay the land tax for the premis but at Michaelmos 1780, being ill, and reduced in ciren stances, he desired the parish officer that he might be excuse which the parish officer promised to use his endeavour to and he never paid the land tax aster Lady day 1781. « An
appeared from the rates of 1781 and 1782, that neither pauper's name, or that of any other person living in the
premises were inserted therein ; or that the landlord was ra “ for the same, though the pauper continued on the premi “ till the removal ;" but it appeared, that in the year 11 the form of the assessment of the said premises was as lows :
- It was urged, that the time at which the tenant's name inserted in the rale, deserved consideration; that it was in year 1780, the time when an act passed *, for regulating right of voting at county elections; which act directs the form of assessment bere used for the land tax rate : « tb 6 must therefore be presumed, that the tenant's name was " introduced for the first time merely in compliance with “ requisitions of the act, and not with any view of making " alteration in the person charged."...But by lord Mans/ The question is, Who is rated ? It is a question of fact, is no title to the rate; and upon the face of the rate it sta
* See stat. 20 Geo: 3. c. 17. s. 9, under title PanlianENT head
indifferent. What then are the circumstances? In the first place, the parish officers have applied to the terunt, and he has paid. He afterwards, ia consequence of his poverty, applies to them to be exempted from payment in future; this is complied with. And what follows? They never charge any body else; "they therefore thought the tenant ought to pay, or nobody ; " and this is slecisive, that the landlord was never intended to " be rated.” No inconveniences need be incurred from the provisions of the late act of parliament: it does not prevent the parish from rating any body by name; they may still declare their intention to rate the landlord... The other judgas concurred. Caldecot's Cases, 374.
And where both the landlord's and the tenant's name appear upon the rate, it is prima facie a ratiog of the tenant, for the land tax is a tenant's tax, as between him and the public. Thus in the K. v. Mitchum, Eu. 23 Geo. 3, John Heard the pauper inhabited for several years a house at More don, at the clear yearly rent of five pounds, clear of all taxes, parliamentary and parochial; whilst he so occupied the same, an aisesstaent was made on the said parish for the land tax; intitled "An assessment on the inhabitants of the parish of Alaredon, for raising a sum by a land tax," in manner fol.
It professes to be an assessment on the inhabitants ; that i the occupiers : the landlord may or may not be an inhabitan the tenant must be. Then, of whom is it demanded ? Of t occupier. Who pays it ? the occupier. We may therefo supply from the circumstances that which is omitted in the ra itself; namely, that the tenant was the person meant to charged. --The other judges delivered their opinion, to the sa: effect. Cald. Cas. 276.
So in the K. v. St. Lawrence, Winchester, Mic, 25 Geo. the pauper Charles Scullard, resided in the parish of Pete field, under a certificate from St. Lawrence Winchester. afterwards removed into the parish of Eustmeon, and occup a house there, belonging to one William Clarke, until making the order of removal; on 7th June 1783, a la tax assessment of the parish of Eastmeon was made in the f lowing form :
The pauper - Scullard, paid Joseph Terrell (who called at house) 25. Old. for one half year of the said assessment; Terreil gave him the following receipt: “ October 20th 17 « Received of Mr. Charles Scullard 2s. and old. for ha “ year's land tax for Mr. Clark's house, due at Michael * last past,
L. 0 25. 01d. per Joseph Terrell, Assessor. -By lord Mansfield, Ch. J. It has been decided over over again, that the occapier must be presumed to be ra 6 against whom the first remedy lies, as between him and 6 public.' Ilere his name is in the rate, and the officer rece of him. There is not a tittle to shew that the parish me to rate the landlord. The receipt only describes the prem upon which the assessment was made.—Bullor J.... It was pressly determined in the K. v. Mitchan, that the land ta prima facie a tenant's tax. Why? Because all the re
dies are against him;' and without some new ingredient the case the point ought not to have been stirred again. I decot's Cases, 379.
But if the receipt given to the tenant states, that the paid was assessed upon the landlord, the payment thereo! the tenant does not give a settlement. Thus in the K y
James, Bury, Mic. 25 Geo. 3, the pauper, Samuel Cross Parkis, being settled at Hopton, became the occupier of a tellement in the parish of St. James, at the yearly rent of 51. and had, daring his residence there, paid the land tax there when demanded of him by the officer; the rate was made in the following manner :
All the other assessments were made in like manner ; and when her pauper paid the same, the collectors gave him a receipt in le usual printed form, as follows: “ the 25th day of Decem. ter, 1783, Received of Mr. Samuel Purkis, the sum of 4s. so much teing assessed on the landlord for the third quarterly payment, persuant to an act of parliament for granting an aid to his majesty by a land tax to be raised in Great Britain, for the service of the year 1782. By John Law. rene, collector," THE SESSIONS adjudged that the pauper, the above rating and payment, had acquired a settlement A. James's. But by lord Mansfield, Ch. J. (after the case been argued) Regularly the fact ought to have been found, to here it sent down again would only create unnecessary peuce, as the receipt is stated ; and it does not appear that re is the smallest probability that any evidence beyond it can dided, I stated, in the last case of the K, v. St. Lawrence. nchester, that where it was uncertain who was rated, where
rate is silent, and there is no other collateral evidence to ply this defect, the law would presume that the tenant was nded to be rated, because prima ficie it is a tenant's tax, he is consequently first liable. But where the landlord expressly rated, or where there is any collateral matter to or that he is intended to be, there the legal presumption Tay be rebutted. Here is a strong piece of evidence coming
colbe tenant's hands to shew that the landlord was the bject of the rate.' .--Buller J. This is not a presumption
e de fure: it admits of contradiction. The receipt lates back to the time of the rate, and so it is not a rate of e tenant but of the landlord.' Besides the receipt is strong eace as to the payment, that he paid it as agent to the