the whole farm of 31. 15s. rent till Lady-day following, paying to Hill 4. for his share of the said farm: the principal objection ww, that this appeared to be a tenement under the yearly value of 10. The counsel for Tissington denied this, and alleged that it was bore the yearly value of 107. : which they thus endeavoured to prove. They argued, that the pauper was liable (as being point-tenant with Hill) to pay the whole 37. 15s.; and moreever, that he was sole tenant of that farm during the last halfyear. But taking it at the strictest, it was really, a payment } ølα. 11. 6d. per annum, by the pauper: for he was to pay 8. per annum, and half of 31. 159. (which is 17. 17s. 6d.) also more for the last half-year; which was in all 10%. 1s. 6d.— BO THE COURT unanimously held, that this tenement thus Teated by the pauper in Kniveton was under the yearly value of. The act of parliament fixes the yearly value at 10. : and the value must be estimated by the rent; and always is taken to be according to the rent: and here the rent is 81. per

, and the half of 31. 15s. ; which two rents taking together do not amount to 10%. Indeed he was to pay Hill 4s. for the advantage he was to have after the crop was off; but an agreement of this sort between the two joint-tenants cannot be considered as a rent.' Burrow's Sett. Cas. 499.

And if the tenement be occupied by several tenants jointych must have an interest in it to the value of 10l. a-year Thus in Croft v. Gainsford, Durham Assizes, 7 Geo. 2, the paper's husband, together with one Soleby, took a farm Gaasford, at 147. a-year, for one year; they continued yar upon the farm, each of them paying his part of the t for the first half-year, and the last half-year Soleby paid arest to the pauper's husband, who paid the whole to the

The hay was divided between the pauper's husband, and Bolely, and the pasture equally stinted by their several Rock. This case was argued before the judges of assize; and they were of opinion, that this renting did not gain a settlein Gainsford, because the statute expressly requires that shall rent ten pounds a year before he acquires a settlesach parish, and hath enjoined it as a qualification which be complied with; and here it appears that each of these ants paid his rent severally, and therefore each of them nant of only seven pounds a-year; and if the law should herwise, the inconveniences arising from it would be inle; for if forty persons, for the same purpose, were to trement of this value, each of them would be intitled lement; the manifest design of the statute would Bereby cluded; and parishes would be loaded with Bott, Const's ed. 184. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 311. Harden v. Barham, Mic. 25 Geo. 2, two persons y hired a house and land at Marden for a year at 167. (which had been rented at 201.), and jointly occllpied the house and filled the land for the said one year; and er joint expence tilled and sowed the land; and jointly

R

paid the rent, that is, each the like sum. It was urge that this gained no settlement to either of them; and for th was cited the above case of Croft v. Gainsford: on the co trary it was contended, that the pauper was legally the tena of the whole, both heing liable to the landlord for the ren and that it was only taking a further security for payment the rent; which will not prevent the gaining a settlement By Lee Ch. J. Upon this order, either the value of the nement hired by the pauper is to be taken as under 201. (: 161. per annum only), or else no value of it is stated at Now taking it as a tenement of 161. per annum value in whole (for so I must take it)—The meaning of the w persons, in the act of parliament of 13 & 14 Cur. 2. c. 12,

only to include those persons who make part of the fa of the inhabitant who is the renter or taker of the tenem but can never mean to extend to an indefinite number of gons joining together to rent it.-Dennison J. thought exceeding plain case. The act never intended that more, one persou should gain a settlement by renting a teneme 101. per annum value. And whatever may be the case regard to the remedy against the occupiers of such lat jointly taken by two persons, yet this act of parliament siders only the right; which clearly is only to half.J. held it to depend upon the real value of the right an terest in the laud, which in this case is but half; and half does not amount to the value of 10l. per annum. Bur Sett. Cas. 311.

But if a tenement be occupied by several tenan's jo and each of them have an interest in it to the value o a.year, although it was at first taken by only one of them will severally gain a settlement thereby-Thus in Littl v. Duns Tew, Tr. 29 & 30 Geo. 2, Richard Guffkyn pauper, together with John Goodwin his father-in-law. ed a tenement at Duns Tew at 817. a-year as partner lived there twelve years; being about to leave Duns Tew, in alone, went to Mr. Keck's agent at Little Tew, an a farm of 521. a-year for four years; after such taking, a fore the farm was entered upon, Gufkyns enquired of Go Whether he depended upon his going with him to Little to which Goodwin replied, that he did; for he could without him; that Goodwin and Guffkyns removed from Tea to Little Tew with their whole joint stock to the of more than 100%. and managed the farm together for years, both of them residing thereon; Mr. Keck gave ceipts for rent to Goodwin only; and once, when Mr was obliged to distraiu, the distress was made upon the which Mr. Keck supposed to be Goodwin's only; and win alone gave a bill of sale of the stock; and G

* For this, see the case of the 2. v, Butley, in p. 229 sup

the stood by without interposing. At the expiration of set years, just before the order of removal was made, Guff. y went off from the farm, and Goodwyn took the whole stock, allowing Guffkyns 621. for his moiety...It was adjudged by the justices, that this not being a joint hiring, but a taking. by Goodwin only, Guffkyns the pauper did not thereby gain a sellement.---On the removal of these orders into the Court of King's Bench, the case was argued, and the Court took time tu consider thereof.---Afterwards, Dennison J. (the seat of the Chief Justice being vacant) delivered the opinion of the Court, it was, That the order of two justices, and the order of sesconarming it, ought to be quashed; for we are all of us pinion, he said, that Guffkyns gained a settlement in Little

pon the state of this case; for we consider him (being te partner by Goodwin) as having an interest in the farm, at least as a tenant at will to Goodwin, of the moiety of Jan worth 521. per annum, for the whole of it, and consequently his moiety above 101. per annum. A tenancy at will sient to gain a settlement. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 398. And fa tenement be occupied by several persons as part

deach of them have an interest in it to the value of 10%. ar, although it be rented in the name of one of them only, will all gain a settlement by residing thereon 40 days. Thus, ..the Inhabitants of Seamer, Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, T. took a farm of Sir C. Sykes, Bart. at East Hesterton, at rent of 1751. a year, John Yates his brother resided with pon the farm, the two brothers having agreed to be joint in the stock and farm, previous to Thomas's taking John did not consider himself as tenant to Sir C. Sykes. anced 120%. towards the stock and farm: Thomas was dly person rated in the parish rates, though John said he ed himself answerable for the payment of his part, and interest accordingly. After about 7 months the two ders parted; there was no account of receipts and diseats; upon parting, it was agreed that John was to allow out of what he had advanced, and to be repaid the reder, which took place. The sessions on appeal, confirmed order of justices for the removal of John Yutes and his fafrom East Hesterton to Seamer, and stated the above case the opinion of the court. THE COURT were of opinion that was governed by that of Little Tew v. Duns Tew, , it was decided, that if a tenement be occupied by seants jointly, and each of them have an interest in it to e of 10. a year, although it was at first taken by only them, they will severally gain a settlement thereby, if de thereon for 40 days; and lord Kenyon, Ch. J. said in this case whether the pauper were considered as a joint with his brother, or as under tenant, he equally gained ement in East Hesterton. Both orders quashed. 6 Terin ise reuting of land at an annual value under 101, and build

ing upon part of it under an agreement with the landlord, post-wind-mill, removeable at pleasure, (which mill is aft wards let off by the tenant for 91. per annum) is not the taki of a tenement of 10l. a year. This was decided in the case the K. v. the Inhabitants of Londonthorpe, Tr. Term, 35 G 3. The pauper with his wife and family, were removed by order of two justices from Grantham to Londonthorpe *; a on appeal, the order was confirmed, subject to the opinion of Court of King's Bench on the following case:The paup who was a miller, took a tenement in the parish of Granth at 67. a year, in which he resided three years, and the grea part of that time rented, of the lord of the manor, a piec waste ground in the parish, at the rearly rent of 10s. Ed. u which he had the privilege of building a post wind-mill, and wi he was to be at liberty to remove at pleasure. He accordi built a post wind-mill upon that ground, at the expence of 1 and worked it for about three quarters of a year, but re the ground for two years and an half, the greatest part of w time the mill was standing thereon. The mill was const ed upon cross traces, laid upon brick-pillars, but not atta or affixed thereto, which is the usual mode of building mi • that nature, and the mill was considered as the proper the tenant.' He let it to a person for a quarter of a yea the rate of 91. per annum, during which time the pauper rẻ in the said tenement at the rent at 61. per annum. The per afterwards sold the said mill as a chattel interest, i was taken away by the purchaser without any interrupti the landlord ;' no rates were ever paid or demanded f mill, or the ground on which it stood. The question opinion of the court was, Whether the pauper, by living this tenement of 61. a year, and renting the piece of la 10s. 6d. and afterwards building and working the mill f time aforesaid, and letting the same for a part of the te above stated, was to be considered as holding 107. a year to have gained a settlement either in respect thereof, or ing purchased an interest in the parish of 302 and residing at the same time for above the space of 40 days...To she the pauper had gained a settlement, it was contended, that as the mill continued on the land, the whole together ex the annual value of 10. and notwithstanding the mill terwards removed by the tenant,it had remained there long to give him a settlement. That upon the whole it ap that the pauper did not go into the parish of Grantha state of vagrancy, but was of sufficient ability to take ment of the value required by the stat. Cha. 2.--By lo yon Ch, J. There is no doubt but that the taking of mill attached to the ground of the value of 10. a ye confer a settlement: but this wind-mill, as described in is nothing but a chattel; and if in questions of this were merely to consider the ability of the pauper, withou

• Where the pauper had formerly gained a settlement

time, considering whether he rented a tenement, we old abandon the statute altogether, and the determinations on it; it might as well be said that an iron malt-mill would prea settlement. This post-wind-mill was the sole property the tenant himself; and it was not fixed in the ground, but tached from it but in order to confer a settlement, it should onnected with the land, as in legal contemplation, to fall within the description of a tenement.-Grose J. This mill chattel, and was the property of the tenant, and t of the landlord and it is no more a tenement than a large afe-mill p put up by the tenant in his house. Order of sessions med. Term Rep. 377.

дь в щеге

But the party need not occupy the whole tenement himself, hayander-let the same, or any part thereof, to another We thinks proper; and this will not prevent his gaining a t-Thus in Llandverras v. Northop, Mic. 7 Geo. 3, theher of the paupers, being settled in Northop, rented

101. a-year in the parish of Llandverras, and aid the rest to the landlord; he lived in apart of it worth 40s.

let the rest to under tenants. The objection was, pa the state of the case, he only occupied 40s. a-year. as being liable only to the rent did not gain him a settle; for he must occupy as well as take a tenement of 107.

rale; and he ought to occupy the whole 10%. a-year; Pre many different poor families might be introduced into ta, upon one such taking. To this it was answered, at this man took a tenement of the value of 10l. a-year; and the tenant all the time. But that it was not necessary for him opy it himself.-Lord Mansfield was of this opinion. If it ide taking, he may underlet it as he pleases. If ould be any fraud or collusion, it might be found; not to be presumed.-Yates J. There must be a redorty days in the parish, in order for this man to attement; but he may let out part if he thinks proper. J.concurred most clearly. He need not reside upon part of the tenement he takes; it is enough if he reside in the The under-tenants do not take a tenement of the yearTale of 106. therefore they do not hereby gain a settlement.. eat. J concurred, and said, The ground the act goes , a person's having credit sufficient to hire a tenement -year; and this man appears to have had such credit. Selt. Cas. 571.

if the tenant, before he has resided on the tenement for for. re-lets a portion of it, thereby reducing it to less than ar, and the original landlord insists upon the underorning tenant to him for such part, which is done ac ; this will prevent the first tenant from gaining a est-Thus in Bostock v. Lestwick, Mic. 10 Geo. 2, Paper who was settled at Bostock, rented a tenement of

in Lestwick for a year, and in the same year he took dow at 24. 1s. to hold from May till Candlemas next; removed to the said tenement the 14th of May, and about