Page images

cf the whole of the said lands till Lady-Day 1791 : but it did not appear what interest he had therein. On Lady Day 1791, the pauper sold all the lands except two closes, one of tfcv annual value of 6/. the other of the annual value of 8/. 10s. At Lady Day 1791, the pauper in consequence of a parol agree* men t, which he had entered into with the owners of a cottage and garden of the annual value of 1L 10*. in the adjoining parish ofThorn St. Margaret's, for the purchase of the same for 10 guineas, took possession of the said cottage and garden, and continucd to reside thereon more than 40 days, viz. near 12 months, and for more thai 40 days during the pauper's occupation of the cottage and garden, he also occupied the two closes above menti. oued. Tne pauper never paid the purchase money for the cotW and garden, nor had any conveyance of the same made to him, the sellers appearing to have no title thereto; nor did lie pauper pay any rates or taxes in respect thereof. Before tper quitted the cottage and garden, he sold the closes in Cuimstock j and on relinquishing possession of the cottage and garden, he let another person into possession thereof, who occapied it in the same manner and on the same terms as the panpjr had done: but no consideration was paid to the pauper ia respect thereof. Ld. Kenyon, Ch. J. observed that the case was imperfectly stated, inasmuch as it did not appear that tie pauper's occupation of the closes in Vulinstock was a lawful one*; and if that were in doubt, the case ought to be sent back to the session! tu be re.statcd, for they had only stated ciidence instead of the fact: but he had no difficulty in declaring iiil opinion, that if the pauper were lawfully possessed of those dose, he had gained a settlement in Thorn St. Margaret's, by occupying them in conjunction with the cottage and garden litre under the agreement stated, the whole being of the al v.Uue of 10/. and upwards, and that under such circumtlie purchase act was out of the question. Ashhurst .1. that upon the facts staled, the court below would have warranted in finding the pauper's occupation to be lawful, acquiesced in by all who were interested in disputing ion with him. And the two other judges signifying :, the counsel in support of the orders said, that hapg the opinion of the court, they would not put the • , to theexpence of having the case sent down to be re. when the same judgment must ultimately be given, the orders were consequently quashed. 6 Term Rep. 730.

In order to gain a settlement by forty days residence on a ■caemeut of the yearly value of 10/. the party must stand in the relation of a tenant to che premises for the whole time under CrBeutle; and a residence for that period under two different will not be sufficient; as for instance, if a woman reside days during the lite-time of her husband, and thirty. days after his death, by the permission of the landlord, tenant; these tw o different residences cannot be cou

t hare wrongfully defrauded his cider brother.


pled together to make np the forty days residence.—Thus I the K. ». the Inhabitants of South Lynn, Tr. 34 Geo.! the father of the paupers' was legally settled in East liihm prior to 24 Oct. 1792: on 23 Oct. VT&Z, he being then, at for some time before, in possession of a cottage and land i WigzmhaU St. Peter's, at the yearly rent of 11. Is. td. hin a heuse in South Lynn, at the yearly rent df 91. and pa 10s. Gi/. in part of the rent; and on the following day he ai his wife and four children entered into possession, and resic) thereon till his death, on the 8th Nov. 1792 (being sixtc days), still keeping possession of (he cottage and land in {Viggi hull. He died intestate,aud no letters of .administration had be granted to his widow or 'any other person. Upon his dece: his widow kept possession of, and occupied the house and o tage in South Lynn and Wiggenhall, but she and het childi resided in South Lynn, until 11th Dec. lt§2 (being thir three days); and on her quitting possession of the house South Lynn, she paid the landlord 12s. which with the moi paid him before by her husband was for half a quarter's rel after this she remained in possession of the cottage in fVig* ball. It was contended that the wife had gained a settlcm in South Lynn by her residence there; for it was urged, i if the husband had continued to reside for forty days in Sa Lyim, he, and consequently his wife, would have gain< settlement there; and then if the succeeding residence of ■widow for thirty-three days after the death of the husband been extended to forty, it is clear that that would bate cot Ted a settlement: that during the sixteen days the hust lived there the settlement was going on progressively, husband and wife had come to settle upon a tenement of yearly value of 10/. And they were consequently irremovea that this was a new case, and there was no reason why the lidence of the husband should not be coupled with the subseq residence of the wife, so as to make out the forty days i whole.—By Tord Kenyon Ch.J.If a mere residence for forty irremovcablc were sufficient to give a settlement, every 1< and every servant residing for that length of time would acquire a settlement; but 'in order to gain a settlemen * residing on a tenement of the yearly value of 10/. the 'must stand in the relation of tenant to the property for 'days.' Here there was an inchoate right in the husband afterwards in the widow, which if completed by a full resii of forty days, in either case would have been sufficient * that one act of residence for forty days by the same tena the property was wanting; the husband after residing ai days on this estate died, and then the wife resided on thirty-three days, but there was no privity of contract interest whatever between the pauper and her late has and wc cannot connect the residence of the husband as t< ■with the residence of the widow as tenant, so as to cu>mpl< forty days residence by both; though tku case is new i pies, it is not new in principle: ami upon the principles established in former cases, I am of opinion that the widow di J not jrquiro any settlement in South Lynn.--The other judges cancurrcd in opinion. 5 Tern Hep. CG4.

And a residence of* 33 days by a widow on a tenement of 10.'. (•jvir cannot he coupled with a residence ou the same tcnecent with her husband for sixteen days preceding.

lint if a person rent several ten emeu is of the. yearly value of lu/. in ooe parish, and reside for 40 days in another parish on a tenement for which he pays no rent, he will gain a settle. Dwilia the latter parish.—The K. v. the Inhabitants of Frit, tell, Eu. 37 Geo. 3, the pauper and his family were romoved by u ctdtr of two justices from Stoke Ltjne to Friticell. The sesIijii, on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the courtontbe following case:—The pauper's father,about 2S years wee, rented two farms in the parish of Stoke hyne, the one of 33/. wd the other of the )early value of 10A; during the last (uot months that he occupied the above farms, he, together *ilhVu>finilv, dwelt in the adjoining parish of Friticell, in belonging to a rear relation, who permitted kin to lire in it rent free. The house consisted of two separate tenements, one of which the pauper and his family oecuMi together with a barn, stable, and yard appurtenant. He hftiteam there, and drew his corn from his farm ut Stoke l&eto Friticell. In this separate teuement he. continued "friy two years from his entering iuto it, but he never occ.ur lauds in the parish of FritveU, The separate tcne: of the barn, stable, and yard, were of the yearly . or thereabouts. He never paid any rent to bis I respect of them, but the relation had all the eti and snade by the pauper's cattle, and spread it upon hi* o«u knaiimadjoining parish. The Court, after hearing the art'-meitagainst the order of sessions, delivered their opinion as '•*•■»J Lord Kenyon, Ch. .1. ltisnow too late to inquire 'M propriety of all the decisions that have been made on * settlement laws since the passing of the statute of me l.'jir. tad 14th (Jar. o? for Ctcu though it should appear on such <uiuiry (which 1 do not suggest in thi- case) that ti e. words of itatutehave been, in some instances, strained; yet, as there ■ifcritsof cases decided on the subject, we ought not now to ■ iurtfroB them. If, when the question first arose, it had been nihit the party must have one single teuement in the pa'the annual value of 10!. perhaps such a construction •'■ '"'•tt would have fallen iu with the gen nat opinion of ai ;n *■* However,' it was long ago derided, that it need :rjt bi ""•diiided tenement, held under one landlord, ear .ill lyiai«0ae parish ; for that distinct tenements, held under tie'''tent landlords, and lying iu several parishes, to ay b joii.ed. '•'Jtlkcr, and provided they all together amount to thv a:i:i.,.ii 1 J? of \{\(. ihey will confer a suttlement on the party and '« bane ooce decided, 1 think it puts an end to this que^.'.oi' ,


Here the pauper's father rented two tenements in Stoke hjti ■went to the parish of Fritacll, where he entered on part of house, forming a distinct tenementby itself, and belonging to h relation, where he was permitted to lire, but uot out of chant; This is not like the case * where a pauper was taken into t) house of bis son .in-law as a lodger; for here were two separa tenements, the whole of one of which he occupied ; and I a not prepared to say, that his relation could have turned*him o of possession on a day's notiee; and though it is stated m t! case, that the pauper paid no rent in money, it appears th there was an equivalent ; there was a quid pro quo ; the pa per brought all his dung and manure from his other tencmcn and this relation had the benefit of it; as therefore, he was the occupation of,morc than 10'. a year in the whole, and soi part of it lay in the parish of Frilwell, I am of opinion that i case was properly decided, as well by the justices who remoi the pauper, as by those who confirmed the order, on hear: the appeal. Ashhurtl J. The only question here is, Wl kind of occupation this was by the pauper's father?* It see that it may be fairly collected from the facts stated, that parties were in the situation of landlord and tenant; the f mer having one tenement more than he wanted for himself, , the other hate it, who, instead of paying His rent in mon

gave his relation the manure that he brought from a farm in ailjoiuing parish. Grow J. of the same opinion. Loan J. It is stated in the case, that no rent was paid for the te ment in Frilwell, from which I understand, merely, that money was paid for rent: for the manure seems to have b given as a compensation for the use of the tenement; am should have no doubt but that a landlord might recover oi quantum meruit, on such an occupation as the present.—On confirmed. 7 Ter. Rep. 197.

In respect to the taking necessary to avoid a certificate. The taking following cases have occurred, viz. In Crahley v. St. }h ii.cesH.rjto (iuujorti na. sGeo. I, upon a special order of session; •void acertifi- '.\ ... . .., ' r v , ... ,

C8te< was stated, that a certificate man agreed with the lessee i

'mill, that he should occupy the mill and pay 12/. per tinm that there was no underlease or assignment, but in pursus of that agreement, the certificate-man occupied the mill years, and paid the rent. The Sessions adjudged it no sel ment. But By The Court. The order must be quashed; if this be r.ot an absolute lease for a year (as Eyre J. sa was, the rent being reserved as the rent for a year), jet undoubtedly a lease at will, which is sufficient to gain a sc ment. 1 Strange, 502.

And in thc K. v. Lktledean, Tr. 9 Geo. 1, it was sts that a man took a lease for seven years, and objected th. might be only by parol, and then it is void fqr thc whole,

* K, v. Topcrofl, supra.

tSerc can be no settlement.—But by The Court. The" it sfioutd hare been stated to be by parol: we must take it to k by deed, otherwise it is no lease at all. 1 Strange,


In Hertford v. AmtteU, Mic. 9 Geo. 1, a certificate-man took* farm of 10/. per annum, part of which was in St. John's, anil part in but the greatest part together with the tMse, being stated to lie in the parish that received his certifi«Je, the Court held it a settlement there. 1 Strange, 519.

Also in St. Mary Calendar v. St. Thomas, Hil. 8 Geo. 2, it To said, that the statute had been favourably expounded; aad that renting 10/. per annum in two parishes, had been teraincd in the A', v. Broxford to be sufficient to avoid a ertfeate. ) Sett. Cas. p. 389.

So in Me K v. Stapleford, Ea. 4 Geo. 2, a person took 3/. afear in the parish where he was certificated to, and 40/. a-year inthentitparish, but lived where the 37. was; and it was held a«Ul*mtatthere. 2 Strange, 849.

So'ra florGnf T. Bradford, Ea. 15 Geo. 2, a certificate, nan mtd and resided upon a tenement of 97. a-year in Bos&tf; and, at the same time, also rented lands of the va""tfl. 15», a-year in fPybtey. The Sessions adjudged it a '■'ttiaaent: and it w as objected, that to avoid a certificate, tho !-fty onght to rent 10/. a year in the parish to which he came ^.v certificate; for the words of 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 11, are, 'Tlat no certificate-person shall gain a settlement iu the parish ^eshall take a lease of a tenement of the yearly value '°' 10/. or shall execule some annual office in such parish."l,1J*ITi!iECouaT. The words" in such parish" do not res15;o tie tenement to the same parish: for 'they relate only to 'hotter cUuse of executing some annual office and not at '1 K» tie former, of taking a lease ofa tenement of the yearly "'*«flO/. Burrow's Sett. Cas: 177. '«lie K. T. Findern, Ea. 21 Geo. 3, 'the pauper lived one in the parish of Melbourne, on a tenement of 10/. a:' '•') after the expiration of which time the parish of Fin- x ire him a certificate.' The pauper continued to reside inetneut till the end of the year; and there was no iing of the tenement after the certificate was granted; oicl reason, the sessions were of opinion, that he gained "lenient in Melbourne.—But by fVilles J. who delivered dgmeot of the Court, The pauper came into the parish wnu without a certificate; and before he obtains it he '* tenement in the parish, of 10/. a-year. This made «inhabitant, and therefore he had no occasion for a cer":Jfe It is not stated that the parish of Findern, at the -aey granted the certificate, knew that he rented a tene^" °f 10/. a-year ; and if they had known it, they would 1 Probability have refused to grant one. It is true, cetiad not lived long enough on this tenement to gain a

« PreviousContinue »