been a pasture-ground for three months, it would have made a good settlement. Burrow's Set. Cas. 316.

So in the case of the parish of Linwood, 12 Geo. 2, A rented 71. per annum in the parish of Linwood, and agisted three cows to pasture from May-day till Martinmas, by agreemen for three years successively, for which he was to pay 37. 10s This case was referred to lord chief baron Parker at the assize who gave his opinion at his chambers, that this did not gain settlement; and said, that to answer the description of a tene ment within the act of parliament, it should be a renting house or ground of the yearly value of 101. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 14 So also in the K, v. Lockerly, lil. 25 Geo. 2, the Cou held, that renting a dairy, and the use of 16 cows, at 31. 5 for every cow did not gain a settlement, for that this was mere a personal thing, the use of the cows; and had nothing to with the land. Consequently it conld never come within t intention of the word tenement, upon which a man is to be se tled, and which must relate to land. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 31

But the authority of the three last cases has been overtur ed by subsequent decisions.-Thus in the K. v. Whixley, E 26 Geo. 3, the pauper served an apprenticeship in the tow ship of Whixley, to a person then residing there under a cer ficate from Bickerton: in the two last years of the pauper's a prenticeship, his master rented a dwelling-house, with a g den, orchard, yard, stable, mistal and shop, of the value of 11s. 6d. per annum, and also a meadow, containing near sev acres, at the yearly rent of 77. 10s.; and also at the same tin namely, for two of the last years of the pauper's apprenticesh occupied two cattle gates, of the value of 11. 4s. a-year, in stinted pasture, on consideration that he, being a carpent should keep in repair three common highway-gates which i persons having a right to the cattle-gates were bound to susta

The question for the opinion of the Court was, Whether i said cattle.gates were a tenement within the statute?—It v contended that they were not, and the above cases were rel on as in point-But by lord Mansfield Ch. J. and the cou These cattle gates pass by lease and release, and cannot be vised but according to the statute of frauds. They are the fore to be considered as a tenement within the statute. 1 Te Rep. 137.

So in the K. v. Stoke, Ea. 28 Geo. 3, the pauper rented house and land of the yearly value of 8l. 12s. 6d. in the par of Barlaston, in which he then resided; and for 10 months the same time he took the hay-gras, and after-math of a m‹ doro in the same parish, for 2l. 58. 6d. He paid no tax but he fenced the meadow and spread the hillocks himself. was removed from Stoke to Barlaston by an order of two j tices, which the sessions quashed on appeal. And a rule ha ing been obtained to shew cause why the order of sessions sho not be quashed-It was insisted, on shewing cause, that agreement for the hay-grass and aftermath did not convey

the pauper any interest in the soil; and that the interest which did pass was not a tenement within the statute; and to this purpose the cases of the K. v. Mitchinhampton, the K. v. Linwood, and the K. v. Lockerly were cited.-But by Ashhurst J. It is clear from the stating of the case, that the land was intended to pass ; it states, that for ten months the pauper took the hay-grass and after-math of the meadow. Now why should he have taken it for ten months, if the soil was not intended to be conveyed? There could be no other profits of this ground but the hay-grass and after-math; and if a man grant all the profits of the ground, he grants the land itself—Buller J. The pan. per was to have the hay and after-math, which was all the produce of the soil. This is not like taking hay-grass after severance; for that is only a chattel. But here the contract was, that the pauper should take all the grass which should grow; he was to cut it, and make it into hay himself; and after that he was to have every thing which grew on the land for 10 months.-Grose J. of the same opinion. Order of sessions quashed. 2 Term Rep. 451.

So in the K. v. Brampton, Tr. 31 Geo. 3, the pauper rented certain premises in Brampton in Cumberland of the yearly value of 91. and during part of the time took the fogs, or after grass, of two fields, the one for 30s. and the other for a guil nea a-year; the whole of which together, he occupied for more than 40 days.-THE SESSIONS Confirmed the order by which he was removed from Penrith to Brampton. On a rule to shew cause why the order of sessions should not be quashed, the Court were clearly of opinion that the pauper gained a settlement in Brampton; and that this could not be distinguished from that of the K. v. Stoke...Order of sessions confirmed. ATerm Rep. 348.

So in the K. v. Piddletrenthide, Tr. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper, with his wife and nine children, were removed by an order of two justices from Chaldon Herring to Piddletrenthide: the sessions on appeal confirmed the order,stating that for two or three years while the pauper lived in the parish of Chaldon Herring, he rented in that parish a dairy of thirty cows, some at 51. 10s. and others at 5l. per cow, with liberty to cut furze on Grange Warren, and on other parts of the farm, for the use of the dairy only; and a warren to kill rabbits for his profit, called Grange Warren, with a small house on it to keep nets in, in the same parish, of the same man, at 301. per annum ; and also another rabbit warren in the neighbourhood called Helworth Warren, for the same purpose at 151. per annum. The cows were to feed in particular grounds at particular seasons of the year, as is usual in the letting of dairies. The pauper and his man sometimes slept in the house in Grange Warren. The pauper had no right in the soil of either of the said warrens, except that of entering upon and kil fing rabbits there; the persons of whom he rented the warren constantly depasturing the same, and ploughing some part thereof.-It was contended, that the pauper did not gain a se' tlement in Chaldon Herring either by renting the dairy, or by

the right of the entering on the warren and killing the rabbits As to the first, the case of the K. v. Lockerly was cited a decisive; where the court considered it as a mere personal con tract for the use of the cows. With regard to the second, was admitted that a warren is a tenement; but then it was in sisted, that this was not a taking of a warren, but merely a per -sonal contract for the rabbits on a particular spot, with libert of entering on the soil for the purpose of killing them.-B by lord Kenyon Ch. J. (after hearing counsel on the oth side.) I cannot quite agree with the determination of the 1 v. Lockerly; because, after it had been decided in so man ( cases that an incorporcal hereditament would give a sett ment I should have thought that that case would have frece ed a different determination.' But, without considering t case, I think that the pauper took a tenement in Chale Herring, both by renting the dairy and the warren. L Coke,says,that prima tonsura is a tenement; then the dairy a tenement: the other taking was also sufficient; for it was. I may use the expression, a pernancy of the profits of land by the mouths of the rabbits. The renting of a free war is sufficient to give a settlement. If this case had been prec ly similar to that of the K. v. Lockerly, perhaps I she have hesitated before I agreed to overturn that decision; as this is distinguishable from that case' (though the distinc is nice), I think that the pauper gained a settlement in Chal Herring, Ashhurst J. It seems difficult to reconcile all cases on this subject. If the case of the K. v. Lockerley Jaw, I do not see how this pauper can have gained a settlem in Chaldon Herring; but as there are authorites both w I am inclined to think that a settlement was gained in Chai Ilerring; the criterion by which the question is to be dec being the ability of the person taking the tenement... Bulle In all doubtful cases, one leading ground is, the ability of pamper to pay the 10l. per annum. But, on the facts stated, I think this person rented a tenement within the struction of the statute of Charles. I cannot agree with determination of the K.v. Lockerly: that was considered personal contract; but all contracts are in some respects sonal. The question in such cases really ought to be, V ther or not it be a contract to receive profits out of land? present I consider as such; and so was that in the K. v. L erly: i am therefore of opinion, that the conclusion dr in that case was wrong. As to the other point, I do not sider this merely as a privilege to kill rabbits when the pa could find them, and that the landlord might take them he chose it; but the warren was to be kept in the same as it was when it was let, otherwise the contract between landlord and the tenant would be destroyed. In that re then, the pauper had an interest in the land: besides, he a house with the warren.-Grose J. It is impossible to re cike all the cases on the subject; and I do not understan

ground on which that of the K. v. Lockerly was decided. In these cases I think, that if the pauper has credit to rent 10. per annum, he gains a settlement, The case of Kinver v. Stone decides the present... Both orders quashed. 3 Term Rep. 772.

Finally, in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Tolpuddle, Ea. 32 Gee. 3, the sessions confirmed an order, by which the pauper, with his wife and seven children, were removed from Puddle. town to Tolpuddle, subject to the opinion of this Court, on a case stating, that the pauper rented under a verbal agreement 20 cows, belonging to one Chapman, the tenant and occupier of a farm in the parish of Tolpuddle, at the rate of 31. 10s. per cow per annum ; it was also agreed between the parties (as is usual in such contracts in the county of Dorset) that the owner of the cows should feed and support them; and for the pur. pose of feeding and supporting them in the best manner, that such cows should depasture in certain lands called the Cow Leaze Grounds, from May-day to the 18th of September; and after that time in certain meadow grounds which are kept for that purpose, from the time the same are mowed; both which grounds were part of the said farm, and then in the occupation of Chapman; and when the pasture of the meadow grounds was consumed, that the cows should be kept by Chapman in some other of the farm grounds, with his other cattle, or be foddered in the farm-yard with hay by him. The land, called the Cows Leaze, was to be laid up by Chapman at Lady-day, and not fed upon by any catde whatsoever until May-day. Chapman was not to feed any other cattle either in the Cow Leaze or meadow grounds whilst the same were fed by the cows so rented by the pauper; but the hay of the meadow grounds was cut and taken by Chapman, and the Core Leaze ground was fed by him after the cows had quitted such grounds. In case any cow did not calve on or be fore May-day, or if any of them afterwards died, or became barren, an allowance was to be made to the pauper; and in case of sickness amongst the cattle, Chapman was (as is usual in such cases) to defray all expences. The pauper was not bound to repair any fence in any grounds in which the cows were fed. It was further also agreed, that the pauper should have a dwelling house on the farm, a right of feeding a mare on the farm, and keeping his pigs in the yard, and of cutting fael for the use of the dairy; but he had no other right whatsoever. The said contract continued in force for the space of five years; during the whole of which time the pauper resided in the said house in the parish of Tolpuddle. It is the com'mou practice in Dorsetshire for tenants of farms to let cows upon these farms: and such letting is called a letting of a dairy.' In support of the order of sessions, the case of Piddletrenthide was relied on as decisive of the present, On the other hand it was insisted, that this was a mere personal contract for the se of cows during a certain part of the year; and the case of the R. v. Lockerly was relied on as expressly in point; for it

was contended that

notwithstanding the authority of that case was in some degree shaken by the case of Piddletren. 'thide, yet it might still be supported ;' as in the latter the pau per took a rabbit-warren, which aloue (the Court said) was sufficient to give a settlement, and therefore it was unnecessary for the court to have gone into the other point.-But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. It is certainly very much to be wished, that the decisions of the magistrates below, should, on examination here, be found to be consonant to the laws of the land; and am happy to find that we are relieved from the supposed incon venience of sending down a new code of laws to the count where this question arose, because our opinion upon this case concurs with that formed by the justices acting in their ses sions, as well as that by the two justices who made the origina order. From the passing of the statute of Car. 2, to the pr sent time, the construction put on it has been (what is calle a liberal construction, in order to confer a settlement on tho persons who have the ability to take a tenement, which t statute has established as the criterion. I confess, it seems me impossible to reconcile the decision in the K. v. Locker with our determination in this case, that the pauper gained 'settlement in Tolpuddle; but if we are of opinion that th case cannot be supported, it will be more manly to say so express terms, than by endeavouring to make nice distinctio to induce the magistrates below to consider it as an authori 'hereafter.' When the case of Piddletrenthide came beft us, we all doubted of the decision of the K. v. Lockerly; t there being another distinct ground upon which we were wi ranted in supporting the settlement, we were not directly call upon to over-rule that case. But now it being impossible distinguish between this case and that, I think we are bou to deny the authority of that case, and to substitute in room a better exposition of the statute of Car. 2.' It been argued, that if we decide this to be a tenement, we sł depart from the words of the statute: but in this case the p per took a tenement, emphatically a tenement. Any th is a tenement which is a profit out of land. In order to t a tenement, it is not necessary that the party should have fee-simple or fee-tail; any minute interest in land is parcel‹ tencment; such minute interest, indeed cannot be entailed all the parcels, when consolidated together may. A beast-g has been held to be a tenement; and yet that is not whole land, but the profits of the land to a certain amount. here the profits of these lands are to be taken exclusively by cows which the pauper rented. If the cattle had been his o and he bad rented the feeding of them, that would have b unquestionably a tenement; like the taking of the pasture, hay and after-math: and i think that these cows were the p per's for a certain period; they were not so far his own he could have sold them, but they were his that he might ten under the contract for a limited time. And this was