1

So in Talbourn v. Boston, Mic. 7 Will. 3, it was held that if a man be taxed, and after taxation stay in the parish forty days without giving notice, it is no settlement within the sta tute unless he pay the tax; for it must be taxing and paying, and not taxing only, that makes a settlement, and is equivalent to a notice in writing. 2 Salk. 523.

But the assessment though illegal and void, will, if it be paid, be good for the purpose of gaining a settlement. Thus in St. Giles Cripplegate v. St. Mary Newington, Tr. 1 Will. 3, -BY THE COURT. Although the rate be in form, or in the manner of making it, not strictly legal, but void; yet if the party be rated, and pay to such a rate, he shall gain a settlement for it would be hard, that one of the parish should come and say, that it was a void rate, being of their own making and acquiesced under, and the money paid accordingly. 19 Viner's Abr. 386.

And it was held in the Q. v. Lancaster, Ea. 7 Ann. that paying taxes for the landlord will not gain a settlement to the tenant; for that in order to gain a settlement, the inhabitant must be charged to the taxes as well as pay them. The word "charge" in the statute has a proper signification, and means such taxes as are chargeable on the tenant. 19 Viner's Abr.

384.

But if the assessment be made on the house, and not expressly on the person occupying it, it is sufficient. Thus in St. Mary-le-moor v. Heavy-tree, Hil. 8 Will. 3, the sessions held, that a rate for a house without a rate on the person, was not sufficient to make a settlement.-But the Court of King's Bench quashed the order, and held it to be a settlement.* 2 Salk. 478.

V.

So in the K. Brickhill, Ea. 7 Geo. 1, the pauper lived at Herewood, at a place called Roscoe's tenement, and paid taxes there by the name of "the occupier of Roscoe's." It was insisted, that paying taxes by the name of the occupant "of Roscoe's tenement," and naming him "farmer" of the same at that time, is a sufficient designation of the person to gain a settlement there. And THE COURT were of that opi. nion. 8 Mod. 38.

* It seems that this case is misreported by Salkeld; for Mr. Dunning, in the case of the K. v. Walsall, in p. 268 infra, read a copy of the roll; from whence it appeared expressly that the pauper was rated, and that the Court of quarter sessions had decided that no settlement was gained there, because the tenement rated was under 101,; so that though the adjudication is rightly stated by Salkeld, yet the ground on which that adjudication went is mistated. The point has however been since determined in the said case of the K. v. Walsall ; and Aston J, in that case said, that though what was reported by Salkeld was not the ground of the judgment, yet sight have been thrown out by the Court. Cald. Cas. 35.

So in the K. v. Uffculme, Tr. 30 & 31 Geo. 2, the pauper John Hine purchased a tenement in St. Sidwell, for 121. He lived there with his family, and was rated to the land tax and to the poor rate, thus: occupier late widow Hooper's, now John Hine's tenement. He paid the rates. Afterwards, he sold the said tenement, and went with his family to the parish of Uffculme, from whence they were removed to the parish of St. Sidwell. THE SESSIONS being of opinion that the pauper did not gain a settlement in St. Sidwell by being rated and paying as aforesaid, the consideration of the said purchase being under 301. did therefore vacate the said order. It was moved to quash the order of sessions.—And lord Mansfield Ch. J. delivered the resolution of the Court. It will first be necessary to consider how the law stood before the making of the statute of 9 Geo. 1; for the sessions have confounded different statutes and different qualifications. Now before that act no man was removable from his own, be the value of the purchase ever so small and inconsiderable; but there were then other ways also of gaining settlements, as by serving a 'public annual office, and being charged with and paying a 'share towards the public taxes or levies and burthens of the 'parish. This act was levelled only against fraudulent purchases of small value, made in order to gain settlements: + and it declares, that purchases of less than 301. value, bona fide paid, shall not gain a settlement for any longer time than the inhabitancy thereupon shall continue; after which the purchaser shall be liable to be removed to his former legal settlement, prior to such purchase and inhabitancy upon it.

But

the present settlement is claimed by being rated, and having 'paid towards the public taxes of the parish;' which is quite a different method of gaining a settlement; the man himself is here personally rated; the tax is laid upon a tenement, late Hooper's, now John Hine's. But if he had been only rated as occupier, without adding his name:' yet surely that would imply notice of the man's being an inhabitant; and we are all clear that this act only means to put a negative upon a person's gaining a settlement by making a small purchase, with a fraudulent intention to gain a settlement thereby in the parish

See the head Settlement by having an estate, infra.

The like point was decided in the K. v. Worth, Mic. 10 Geo. 2. The pauper's husband being settled in Worth, purchased a tenement in Merstham under the value of 801. and resided thereupon constantly, and was charged to, and paid the land tax for the said tenement. The order of removal to Worth was confirmed by the sessions; a rule was obtained to show cause why both these orders should not be quashed, on the ground that the pauper's husband had gained a good 'settlement in Merstham by being charged to, and paying the land 'fax there whilst he lived upon his own, though it was under 301. in value,' and such rule was afterwards made absolute without defence. Burrow's Sell. Cas. 90.

where such purchase is made; and that it doth not affect any other method of gaining a settlement; and indeed it is but reasonable, that persons who have been rated and have paid towards the public taxes and levies of a parish, should receive assistance from that parish, when they become necessitous themselves. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 430.

So in Painswick v. Cirencester, Tr. 31 Geo. 2, the pauper, Isaac Moorman, took a house in the parish of Cirencester, of one Thomas Clifford for a year, at the yearly rent of 32s. 6d and agreed to pay the land-tax and poor's taxes, and all other taxes. The poor's taxes were rated thus; Thomas Clifford, o Tenant; the pauper, Moorman, paid all the taxes accordin to his agreement, and the overseers gave receipts to him in 'hi own name. The landlord, Thomas Clifford lived five mile off. It was contended, that this man did not gain a settle ment hereby, for that only the house, and not the man, wi rated; and he was neither expressly named, nor even perso ally hinted at. But THE COURT were of opinion, that th ought not to be over nice and critical in requiring a scrupulo strictness as to the form and terms of rating persons, a therefore held this to be sufficient to gain a settlement, t rates having been paid.---And Foster J. also said, 'That was a sufficient notice to the parish, though the tenant w not particularly and expressly named by his own proper nan Wilmot likewise held this to be equivalent to naming hit and that it is not necessary that he should be expressly nam Burrow's Sett. Cas. 465.

So in the K. v. Walsall, Mic. 18 Geo. 3, the pauper Jose Dean, being legally settled at Swinnerton, came to reside the borough of Walsall, in a tenement of 47. 10s. per annu and constantly paid, in his own right, the poor rates, wh were charged in these words only: late Lowbridge's hou 21. 6s...1s. 2d; various other tenements within the said t rough were charged in the same manner, after new inhabita had come into them, who severally paid the same in their o right; and this tenement had been so charged, ever since Lowbridge left it.-The question was, Whether, under t form of rating as well as paying, the pauper gained a sett ment? And by Aston J. (after the case had been argued) I agreed, that the person must be both rated and pay. Then as the manner how he is to be rated: It is clear, that his name n 'not be inserted in the rate.' If the parish have sufficient 1 tice of him, it is enough; and paying, under a rating, is equi lent to notice. Here the officers have received the rate of man for two or three years. And when they take his mo they must know him. Cald. Cas. 35.

So in the K. v. Heckmondwicke, Hil. 21 Geo. 3, ther ther occupied the house, and was rated and paid the taxes. the time of her death; upon her death, which was in Ma 1778, the son became tenant of the said house from that t

until the year 1780, and, during all that time, paid all the assesments charged upon the said house; it was known to the parish-officers, that the mother was dead; and that the son was tenant and occupier of the house;' but the assessments being produced, it appeared that the name of the mother was continued therein.-By lord Mansfield, Ch. J. The case is settled. There must be such a rating and paying under it, as shew manifestly that the parish had notice. Here they did not rate a dead woman; the charge therefore could only have been made upon the person whom they knew to be the occupier; it is precisely the same as if they had said, "late widow Preston's" the pauper's mother; and then it comes exactly within a late case, where the words were, "late Lowbridge's."-Willes, Ashhurst, and Buller Justices, concurred. Cald. Cas. 103.

But in Kingver v. Kingswinford, Ea. 4 Geo. 2, where a per son rented a tenement of 41. 10s. per annum, and paid all parochial taxes for the same in his own right, but was not rated ja the parish books; but the name of Richard Cotes, that rented a tenement before, was kept in the levy book....THE Carnt adjudged this to be no settlement. Foley, 120.

And the party's name must be in the rate at the time when it'is paid: and if it be only inserted therein after payment, the party paying does not thereby acquire a settlement. Thus in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Edgbaston, Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, two jastices removed the wife of a soldier in the augmentation of the Montgomeryshire militia, and their six children, from Edgbas ton in the county of Warwick, to Harborne, in the county of Stafford,THE SESSIONS, on appeal, quashed the order, and stated the following case for the opinion of the court :---The town of Birmingham contains but one parish, and has twelve eveneers of the poor annually appointed for the whole parish. The assessment for the relief of the poor is in a book entitled The grand levy book, and signed by the overseers and some of the inhabitants, and allowed by two justices. For the convenience of the overseers, the town is divided by them into twelve divisions, in one of which, each overscer collects the poor-rate, and for that purpose has the names of the inhabitants assessed for that division, copied from the grand levy book, into a book which the overseer carries with him to collect by. The rate in the grand levy book being very long, is made only once a year, about Easter and is not copied over at large, every time that a Dew rate is made, which is eleven times a year, or oftener; but the following entry is from time to time made in the grand levy book, and signed by the majority of the churchwardens and sterseers, and some of the inhabitants, and allowed by two jus tices: We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, being "inhabitants of the town of Birmingham, do order the levy “granted the day of last with the addi

"tions, to be collected the -time for the necessary "relief of the poor." If, in the course of collecting, the over. seer finds any person not rated in the grand levy book, whom he thinks able to pay, he enters his name in his collecting book, and levies upon him: but his name is not entered in the grand levy book, until the next year, when a new copy is made, and the additions from the collecting books are then entered. There are no additions to which the entry can refer, but those of the names inserted afterwards in the collecting books. At Lady Day 1790, the pauper and her husband Joseph Gray, being then settled in the parish of Harbone, came to reside in the parish of Birmingham, in an house of the yearly rent of 8 gui. neas. On the Easter Monday following, one of the overseers of the parish of Birmingham, and three other persons, called upon the pauper, and asked what rent she paid, who told them 8 guineas. The overscers then said they should call upon her for levies. About a month afterwards the overseer called again for 3s. for poor's levy, which she refused to pay him he called again two or three times afterwards, and at last she paid him. "He had his collecting book in his hand, and when she paid "him he entered the name of Joseph Gray therein, together "with the sum of 3s. paid: and his name continued to be en"tered in all the collecting books of that division till the end "of the year, but was not, at the time of paying the three "shillings, or any future time during that year, inserted in the "grand levy book." The overscer called afterwards upon every new levy for the payment of the 35. until four levies were due, for which the pauper's husband was summoned before two justices; but he was arrested for debt and sent to gaol, and the levies were never paid. The name of John Gray was inserted in the grand levy book of the succeeding year, which appeared to the court to be intended for Joseph Gray the pauper's hus band; but no sum was put against his name, nor was any other levy ever paid by him. The court of quarter sessions were of opinion that this was a rating and paying in Birmingham, by which the pauper's husband gained a settlement in Birmingham. But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. If this person's name had been inserted in this incorrect assessment before he paid, I should have thought that he thereby gained a settlement. But it is express ly stated in the case, that his name was inserted in the rate after payment, and that after it was so introduced he always refused to pay...Grose J. This was not merely an informal or irregular rate in the manner of rating; but as far as respects the pauper's

*For it has been decided, that though the rate be illegal, or informal, yet if a person be actually rated therein and pay, he thereby ac quires a settlement.-See the case of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and St. Mary, Newington.