landlord, as well as that the officer did not receive it of him. his own right; so that the tenant does not appear to be e titled either way.--- Willes and Ashhurst Justices were abse Caldecot's Cas. 385.

So if it expressly appear on the face of the rate that the sessment is upon the landlord, the tenant by paying it will thereby gain a settlement.---Thus in the K. v. Carshalton, i 15 Geo. 3, the pauper, Thomas Rummels, living in a h at Carshalton, belonging to William Bridges, esq. paid land tax there; but the assessment was as follows:

-THE COURT, with very great and declared regret gav opinion, that the landlord is here the person rated, and : tenant. It appeared to be a very hard case upon the po who was removed; but they thought the objection tor to be gotten over. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 809.

So in the K. v. St. John, Southwark, Tr. 19 Geo. 5 peared that the pauper's husband Daniel Turner, was in the land tax rate, within the parish of Mitcham, in lowing manner :

The tenant paid the tax, but THE COURT were cles gained no settlement thereby, for this was precisely case as that of the K. v. Carshalton. Caldecots Case: So also if the poor's rate be assessed upon the house

ways paid by the landlord; the tenant, although he afterwards repay the same to the landlord, will gain no settlement thereby.... Thus in the K. v. Llangammarch, Tr. 28 Geo. 3, the pauper rented a house and lands in Llangammurch, at 51. per annum ; no agreement was then made between the landlord and tenant about payment of taxes. The house was called Bryn Frwst, or Wallwyd, and the land was rated to the poor's tax in LlanFenmarch by the name of Wayllwyd. He lived one year in the house, but paid no taxes for it. In the month of Sepraber 1778, the landlord informed the pauper, that taxes We wanted for his land. The pauper desired his landlord pay them, and said that he would repay him the same. In no taxes were ever paid by, or demanded from the tenant; at appeared that the landlord paid the taxes, and that the paper allowed them. The overseer who received the tax from the landlord, knew nothing of the pauper; nor did The Law whether or not the pauper resided at this farm at the time.THE SESSIONS, apprehending that the tenant was properly rated, and had paid the taxes, adjudged that he thereby gained a settlement.... But by Ashhurst, J. (after the

bad been argued) The circumstance stated in this case, that the overseer did not know the pauper, nor whether he resided on his farm,' distinguishes this from former cases; for 200of presume against the facts of the case; and here it expressly stated as a fact, that the overseer knew nothing of paper, or whether he resided at this farm. The reason party gains a settlement by paying taxes is, because it

mission by the parish that he is an inhabitant of that gre. There is no distinction between the knowledge of the ster, and that of the parish at large; for the overseers are

frustees for, and transact the business of the parish, and theght to know the state and condition of the inhabitants. Added, if we could presume either way, it would rather at the parish even did not know that the pauper resided this farm....Buller J. The poor's rate is a tax on the per. If, therefore the house be rated, it is prima facie ne on the occupier, but it is not conclusive; then it is necesto look at the facts in the case. If the overseer call on ccupier for the rate, and he pay, that shews that he ind that he should pay. But here it is expressly stated, at the overseer did not know that he was an inhabitant; ditis also stated that he went to the landlord and received rate from him-Grase J. of the same opinion. 2 Term 128.

poor's rate be charged upon the landlord, payment by the tenant will gain no settlement.---Thus in ngham v. Worplesdon, Mic. 13 Geo. 1, the landrated to the poor, for the tenement as being in his and a tenant of part of the premises paid his proportion

of the rate.---BY THE COURT. The tenant shall not gain settlement, though he pays a proportionable rate for the pa rented of the owner; for he must be rated as well as pa Foleu, 128. 2 Sess. Cas. 122.

So in the K. v. Sarrat, Mic. 9 Geo. 2, the landlord, never occupied the house, was charged to the poor rate, b the tenant, on demand of the overseers, paid it...-By lo Hardwicke Ch. J. The act requires both a charge and p ment, and here is only a payment without a charge. I thi the charging is the principal thing, for that is the act of parish; it may be that they would not charge him for f of making him a parishioner; however, they have char the landlord. If the hand that pays the rate were to m any difference, that would put it in the power of the of who receives the rate to charge the parish, by recei it from a person never charged with it. Burrow's Sett.

73.

So in the K. v. Bramshaw, Mic. 10 Geo. 2, the lan of the house, who was also overseer of the poor, was chi to the poor rate; but the tenant, on demand of the said lord paid the rate.---By the COURT. Here is an ex charge upon the owner of the house, not upon the te and it is a settled point, that a person must be rate well as pay, otherwise he gains no settlement. Burrow's Cas. 98.

So in the K. v. Lower Walton, Hil. 10 Geo. 2, the was rated, and the son who occupied the tenement, pai rate. By the COURT. This gained no settlement to th for he must both be rated and pay in order to gain a settle Burrow's Sett. Cas. 100.

So in the K. v. St. Cuthbert's, Tr. 15 Geo. 3, the I paid a poor's rate, but the landlord was rated, and not th per; the counsel who were to have argued the case, ad that they could not contend that the pauper had gained a ment. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 87.

But in Stapleton v. Stoney Stanton, Mic. 10 Geo. son lived with his mother as part of her family, an ❝ rated and paid the tax for the estate which she occupi It was objected, that this was not his share, but his m share of the public taxes, or levies of the parish; that the must be in proportion to what a man occupies: but th occupied nothing. To this it was answered, That th amounted to a public recognition by the parish of the inhabitancy amongst them; and the words, "his share," m more than such part or proportion of the whole tax charged personally upon him.---THE COURT were ve that he gained a settlement by having been thus charg having paid what he was so charged with. Burrow Cas. 649,

Also if the rate be made upon the occupier, payment thereof by the landlord will not gain the landlord a settlement.--Thus in the K. v. Chew Magna, Mic. 24 Geo. 3, the pauper was enti tled to one third part of certain leasehold premises in Chew Magrented by one Jane Harvey, at a rack-rent of 41. 10s. per an◄ ; the pauper received a third part of the rent from the tenant; a poor rate was made, in which the premises were aled in the following words: “ Occupier of late Mrs. Hippelly's: 35. 21d.;" the overseer applying to the landlord (the paper) he paid such rate twice : the pauper resided in the pa rah of Che Magna: Harvey, the tenant, continuing in the Occupation of the premises.-BY THE COURT. It is clear that settlement has been here acquired by the rate, which is on the water. Caldecot's Cases, 365.

So if the sum paid by the occupier be not inserted in the rate at it is received, it is not a sufficient rating and paying to gain a settlement. Thus in St. Olave's v. Warbbington, Tr. 14 Gm. 3, the pauper, William Freemantle, being settled in Earthington, hired a house and lived in the parish of St. Olave. During the time he lived there, a rate was made for repair of the church, in which the pauper's name appeared in the followmanner, viz. ["William Freemantle to bring security, 10:1:6]. Which one shilling and six- pence was received the pauper by the said churchwarden. The rate, when first made, was cast up, and no sum of money was set against the ane of the pauper; but when the churchwarden demanded and

ied of him the one shilling and sixpence, he afterwards, in the day, figured the said sam of one shilling and six-pence in the rate...THE COURT, were unanimous. That this was no Attlement. This pauper was not properly rated to this church

It was necessary for him both to be rated and to pay, in der to gain a settlement. This rate was left in blank during the risie year. No sum was set against his name; but mark"To bring security." It was cast up, without any charge pon him. No demand was made upon him till the ensuing mr. This is not an informal rate, or irregular, in the making fit: it is no rate at all. The alteration by inserting a sum, was not made till the following year, by the churchwarden of that following year, without any authority from the parish, or Gideration had by them concerning the ability of the person rael Burroza's Sett. Cas. 787.

But when the title of the rate is so much in the pound, and pamper's name and yearly rent are inserted in the rate, yent of the rate gains a settlement, though no sum apPassessed....Thus in the K. v. Gorhampton, Hil. 21 Geo. e pauper Richard Goodiff, came to Croydon, and there da house at 47. 10s. per annum. On 10th of June, overseers made a rate of 2s. in the pound, in this form,

On the 22d of June, one of the overseers demanded of Goodif 8s. for the rate, declaring he was assessed in that sum for. the re lief of the poor. Goodiff objected, alleging he was not a pa rishioner. The overseer opened the rate book, and showe him his name therein, and threatened to distrain for the Ss. i he did not pay it. Goodiff on this paid the money directly. I the afternoon of the same day, the overseer returned, with th vestry-clerk, and offered to return the money, saying, he hi taken it by mistake. Goodiff refused to receive it. The ove seer, however, left it and went away; on which Goodiff, thre the money after him.---It was contended, that here there was rating. There was no sum put against Goodiff's name; the f rish knew he occupied the house, but they never intended rate him; the mistake of the overseer (and corrected so soon) supposing him rated when he was not, could not be binding the parish.---But by lord Mansfield, Ch. J. There is no qu tion here. The title of the rate is, two shillings in the pour and in the column of rent, Goodiff's rent is 4l.; this fixes proportion of the rate. For what purpose was his name serted, if not to rate him? Then, has he paid? Yes? against his will; and the overseer shall not have it in power to say, upon re-considering the matter, "I have thou better of it, and you shall not gain a settlement." 2 Do Svo. ed. 621. Caldecot's Cas. 108.

But whether the landlord or tenant be rated is a question fact, to be found by the justices at sessions.---Thus in the K. Folkstone, Mic. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper hired a house in the parish of Folkstone in Kent, of the yearly value of 51. in which he resided for three years; during which time he the land tax for the house; but after he had paid three qu terly rates, he complained to his landlord, that the other nants did not pay the land tax, and therefore desired hia deduct it. The landlord 'refused to allow what he had alre paid, but agreed to deduct it in future; which he did. T was not any agreement made between the pauper and his la lord, which of them should pay the land tax. The rate was the following form;