THE SESSIONS were of opinion, that the landlords were the persons intended to be rated in the rate; and that the names of occupiers, inserted in the second column were only meant to distinguish the premises, and to direct the collectors to whom they were to apply for payment of the rate.--By lord Kenyon Ch. J. This is the landlord's tax. And in this case no question can arise: on the rate there is one column of the proprietors, and another of the tenants; but the names of the tenants were only inserted, in order to shew for what property the landlords were rated. And the justices in this case have stated (what I think they were bound to do), that the landlord was rated.--Buller J. It has been held that, as between the public and the tenant, the land tax is the tenant's tax, though as between the landlord and the tenant it is otherwise; that if it be doubtful on the rate itself, whether the landlord or the tenant be rated, it must be collected from other circumstances; that the land tax is prima facie a tenant's tax ; and that if nothing appear to the contrary, the occupier must be presumed to be the person rated. Bat, Whether the landlord or tenant be rated? is a question of fatt, which should always be found by the justices; here it is stated, and we are precluded by their opinion from entering into the question. 3 Term Rep. 505.

So in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Rainham, Ea. 33 Geo. 3, the pauper, John Kemsley, rented an house in Rainham, at 31. 19. a-year; an assessment for the land tax was made for the parish of Rainham, in the following form:

The pauper paid the rate, and took a receipt in the following form:"Mr. tenant. Rainham, 18 October "1792. Received of John Kemsley, the sum of- &c. so much # being assessed and charged on him as landlord, &c." The receipt was a printed form with blanks; the words on him as landlord, were printed; the pauper's name written. The receipt was signed by one of the two assessors. The tenant wished the landlord to repay the tax : but he would not. By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. This case ought to be sent down to the sessions again, in order that they may find the fact, Whether the Landlord or tenant was rated?—The objection to the present state. ment of the case by the justices is, That they have only stated

See the cases of the K. v. Mitcham; the K. v. St. Laurence; and K. v. Endon, in p. 272, 273, 274, supra.

the evidence of that fact, and not the fact itself; they should always find the fact, whether the landlord or the tenant were the person intended to be rated, and not leave it to us to collect from a statement of evidence; when it is found by them, it will bind our opinion.'---Buller J, concurred, and said, In deciding upon questions like the present, courts of quarter-sessions will do well to adopt this rule, that in all cases where the oc 'cupier's name is upon the rate, he shall be considered as rated, unless it expressly appears that the landlord was intended to be so; for though, as between the occupier and the landlord the land tax is the landlord's tax, yet as between the public and the occupier, it is the occupier's tax *. 1 Term Rep. 240 Nolan's Rep. 222.

And it is not necessary that the party should pay a whol year's assessment.-Thus in Bramley v. Armley, Hil. 9 Geo. 4 the pauper being settled at Bramley, removed with his family an inhabited and farmed lauds at Armley, for which he wa charged and paid two quarterly payments to the land tax only --It was objected, That though the tenant did pay the lar tax, yet as the land tax is always allowed or repaid by the lan lord, that payment could gain no settlement to the tenant: at here he paid only two quarters, not the whole year's tax whereas the land tax is an entire tax for the whole year."'. But by lord Hardwicke Ch. J. and THE COURT. The act do not require a payment for a whole year: the payment of share is sufficient, though it be not for the whole year: it is: that the statute requires; which is, "paying his share towar "the public taxes or levies of the parish." He might not pe haps reside in the parish during any one whole year, but in pa only of two distinct years. The great doubt has been, Wheth the legislature did not mean parochial taxes? But this has be long gotten over, and the land tax has been holden to be with the act, from the notice of inhabitancy that arises by t party's being assessed and paying it +. Burrow's Sett. C

75.

IX. Settlement by serving an office.

By 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11, if any person, who shall come inhabit in any town or parish, shall for himself and on his o account, execute any public annual office or charge in said town or parish during one whole year, then he shall deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, though no

82

*The case was sent back to the sessions, and in consequence the ef, they expressly found, that the landlord was rated. Nolan's E

926.

† See Oakhampton v. Kenton, in p. 262 supra.

'tice in writing be delivered and published, as is by this act required *. s. 6.

And by 9 & 10 Wili. 3. c. 11. No person whatsoever, who shall come into any parish by certificate, shall be adjudged by any act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in ‹ such parish, unless he shall really and bonú file take a lease ' of a tenement of the value of ten pounds; OR SHALL EXECUTE SOME ANNUAL OFFICE in such parish, being legally placed in ' such office."

A person serving the office of constable of a city, which Constable. comprehends several parishes gains a settlement in that parish where the office is served. Thus in St. Maurice v. St. Mary Calendar in Winchester, Ea. 8 Geo. 2 a certificate-man from St. Thomas's came into the parish of St. Mary Calendar in Winchester. He was afterwards chosen one of the constables for the city of Winchester, which city consists of several other pa rishes besides that of St.Mary Calendar; and was legally placed in that office, an executed it, in and through all parts of the city for one whole year, during which time he resided in the pa rish of St. Mary Calendar.-BY THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY. He avoided his certificate, and consequently gained a settlement in St. Mary Calendar, by executing this office in that parish; though chosen by the whole city, and not by the parish of St. Mary singly; and though not a mere parish office: for in the words of the act, he executed an annual office in the parish, be ing legally placed in such office. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 27.

But the party must be legally placed in the office, or he can. not gain a settlement by serving it. Thus in the K. v. Winterbourn, Hil. 4 Geo. 3, the custom was for the constable to be presented by the leet jury; the jury presented Richard Bayley Eq. who procured the pauper to serve for him, in order to gain the pauper a settlement; the pauper was accordingly sworn into the office, before a justice of peace, and served the same for the whole year; but he was not presented thereto at any courtleet, as constable in his own right,' according to the custom. -BY THE COURT. The case expressly states, that he never was presented to the office at any court-leet, as constable in his own right; and that the custom requires all constables to serve for the said tything to be so presented. Therefore he gained no settlement. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 520.

And a person who serves the office for another, does not thereby gain a settlement.-Thus in Lothsom v. Sherifhales, it was held, that a person sworn into and serving the office of constable as deputy to another, does not thereby gain a setflement; for the statute expressly says, that the office must

See head SETTLEMENT BY NOTICE AND FORTY DAYS RESIDENCE, supra.

be executed for himself and on his own account. 19 Viner's Abr. 379.

But though the party who executes the office of constable for another, doth not thereby gain a settlement; yet he for whom it is executed, does.-Thus in the K. . Hope Mansell, Ea. 23 Geo. 3, a man was chosen petty constable, and sworn to execute that office; after being so sworn, he declared he would not serve the office himself; and he accordingly employed one Addis to serve it for him, to whom he gave half-a guinea for his trouble.-THE SESSIONS were of opinion, That this man not having himself executed the office, did not gain a settlement. But by Willes J. The question is, Whether this man, having been appointed and sworn in, and having paid ano. ther person for discharging the duties of the office, shall be considered as having executed the office within the meaning of the statute? Now it is clear, that if the principal does not gain a settlement, the deputy cannot; but though the deputy does not, you must resort to a very different kind of reasoning to shew that the principal cannot. I find nothing which compels me to say, that it is necessary that this man should have served the office in person.' On the contrary, the general maxim of the law is, qui facit per alium, facil per se; and the burthen of the execution has certainly lain upon this man. I therefore think this an execution of the office within the act.-Buller J. The office having in fact been supplied, and that by the means of the principal, with the knowledge and to the advantage of the parish, the service of the deputy is the service of the principal; and if the contrary were holden now, neither the one por the other would gain ́ a settlement; for it is clear that the deputy does not. The whole reasoning, therefore, of the cases that establish this, goes strongly with the argument that the prin cipal may. Cald. Cas. 52. ¡

Tything-man Serving the office of tything-man will gain a settlement.Thus in Burliscomb v. Stamford-Peverell, Hil. 9 Geo. 1, the sessions on a special order adjudged, that executing the office of tything-man would not gain a settlement.-But BY THE COURT. The order must be quashed; for this is an annual office in the parish, within the words and meaning of the act of parliament. 1 Strange, 544.

So in Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Hil. 2 Geo. 2, a certificate. man was appointed tything-man by the steward of a leet, He served a year; but was not sworn in until half the year was expired. THE COURT inclined to think that this was a good set. tlement; but being a new case, and somewhat doubtful, they ordered a second argument to this point, viz. Whether he was legally placed in the office or not, as not having been sworn in till half the year was expired. The order however was quashed for want of complaint that the pauper was actually chargeable; but the court were of opinion, as to the merits, that the man gained a settlement in Garsington; for upon subjects of settle

ment the statutes are to be expounded favourably, and for the benefit of poor people. Cas. of Sett. & Rem. 72. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 30. Foley, 123.

But serving the office of deputy tything-man does not gain a settlement. Thus in the K. v. Allcannings, Hil. 9 Geo. 3, the house which Mr. Amor occupied, being in turn to furnish a tything-man for the parish of Patney, the leet jury presented him to that office, and he, by leave of the court, put in his place Thomas Palmer, a common labourer, and housekeeper in the same parish, who was sworn in tything-man, and served the office for the year then next ensuing; but Mr. Amor paid him all his expences attending the execution thereof.—BY THE COURT. The pauper Pulmer gained no settlement in Putney for it is clear, that he executed the office for Amor, and not for himself and on his own account, according to the intent and meaning of this act of parliament. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 634,

So also serving the office of borsholder, will gain the party a settlement, if he be legally placed in the office.--Thus in Wingham v. Sellindge, Mic. 17 Geo. 2, a certificate-man residing in Wingham, having been from home, his wife upon his return told him, "that the borsholder had left a wooden tally "for him at his house, as a token that he had been chosen "borsholder at the court-leet held for the manor;" and his wife told him further, "that she had burnt the tally before "his return home :" he did not know of his own knowledge, that he was chosen borsholder at the leet; neither was the record of presentment of the jury, or any other evidence of the appointment besides what the wife told him, given in evidence: neither did he ever take the oath of office; but within the year he executed one warrant of a justice of the peace, directed to the borsholder; and served for that whole year-BY THE COURT Upon an order wherein the facts are specially stated, the Court must take it that all the evidence which appeared to the sessions was stated by them. Now the act requires a legal placing in the annual office. And here it is stated negatively, that there was no presentment, no admission or swearing; so that here is no foundation for supporting a legal placing. Bur Tow's Sett. Cas. 223.

Borsholder.

Masters of So the appointment of a master of a workhouse by the parish workhouses. officers and vestry, pursuant to the stat. 9 Geo. 1. c. 7, which ' enables the parish officers and parishioners to contract with any person for the management of the poor in the workhouse (see title PooR) is not a public annual office or charge within the statute 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11. s. 6, the execution of 'which for a year will confer a settlement+ lord Ellenborough

• But although the deputy cannot gain a settlement yet the prin sipal for whom he serves does. See the K. v. Hopemansel, supra,

Ia this case the pauper hearing that a master of the workhouse in