husband, it was no rate at all. By the court order of sessions quashed. 6 Term Rep. 540.

And evidence of the rating may be given without the produc tion of the original rate...Thus in the K. v. St. Issey, Ea. 16 Ges. S, the pauper occupied a tenement of about 21. 10s, per annum, and until the year 1762 or 1763, never paid any land tax, or other rates, or taxes for the same; but in one of those years there was an alteration made in the land tax rate of the parish; and about three months after, the collectors came to the pauper's house, and demanded of him 3s, 4d. or 33. 10d. for the laud tax of the said tenement: and upon his refus ing to pay, the officers shewed him a paper writing, in order to enforce the payment, and read over the sum he was to pay; but he still refusing, the officers soon after came and took a distress for the same; the pauper then went and paid the sum demanded of him for the land tax as aforesaid; and he continued in the possession of the said tenement for about four or five years after; and during such time, paid the like sum for land tax. The church and poor rates of the parish were produced to the sessions on notice; and the pauper was never rated in either of them: but no land tax rate or assessment was produced, nor any duplicate thereof; nor did it appear that any notice or application was made or given by the appellants to the commissioners or assessors of the land tax, or at the office of the clerk of the peace, or to any other person except to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish which were respondents. It was objected that the assessment itself ought to have been produced to the sessions; or, at least, proof of application to the proper persons who could have produced it. But lord Mansfield treated it as a quite clear case; and that there could not be the least doubt of this man's having been rated to the land tax. The officers shewed him a writing, in order to enforce the payment: they afterwards distrained upon him for it. The justices were not to presume that this was done without his being rated; they could not doubt of his being rated. What rule of law obliges the original rate to be produced to them?-The other judges concurred. Burrow's Set, Cases, 826.

But it has been since determined in the K. v. Coppal, Mic. Ter. 42 Geo. 3, that a settlement by being rated and paying rates cannot be proved by parol evidence of paying only, without the production of the rate, or accounting reasonably for the nonproduction of it. FOR BY Ld Kenyon Ch. J. It is impossible to argue that parol evidence may be given of rates which are not produced, nor any notice proved to produce them, nor any

* See also the case of St. Olave's v. Warblington, where it was also decided that the party must be rated before payment, to gain a settle

ment.

reasonable account given for their non-production. Grose, J. It is in every day's experience to reject parol evidence of a writing which may and ought to be produced. 2 East's Rep.

25.

And where the land tax rate is paid by the tenant, and no other person is put on the rate, he shall be considered as rated. - Thus in the K. v. Endon, &c. Mic. 24 Geo. 3, the panper Thomas Lowell, being settled in Endon, rented a cottage in Tittesworth, at the rent of 20s. a-year; and at the time of taking, it was agreed between the pauper and the landlord's agent that the pauper should pay the land tax and all other taxes but it did not appear that this agreement was known by th officers of Tittesworth; the pauper entered at Lady-day 1776 and continued in possession of the premises till he was removed and during all the time was called upon by the parish officers ( Tillesworth to pay, and did pay the land tax for the premise but at Michaelmas 1780, being ill, and reduced in circun stances, he desired the parish officer that he might be excused which the parish officer promised to use his endeavour to do and he never paid the land tax after Lady day 1781. “And "appeared from the rates of 1781 and 1782, that neither t 66 pauper's name, or that of any other person living in the sa premises were inserted therein; or that the landlord was rat "for the same, though the pauper continued on the premis "till the removal;" but it appeared, that in the year 17 the form of the assessment of the said premises was as f lows:

-It was urged, that the time at which the tenant's name ~ inserted in the rate, deserved consideration; that it was in year 1780, the time when an act passed *, for regulating right of voting at county elections; which act directs the v form of assessment here used for the land tax rate: * that "must therefore be presumed, that the tenant's name was n "introduced for the first time merely in compliance with "requisitions of the act, and not with any view of making = "alteration in the person charged."...But by lord Mansfie The question is, Who is rated? It is a question of fact, is no title to the rate; and upon the face of the rate it sta

* See stat. 20 Geo. 3. c. 17. s. 9, under title PARLIAMENT bead sec. 1.

indifferent. What then are the circumstances? In the first place, the parish officers have applied to the tenant, and he has paid. He afterwards, in consequence of his poverty, applies to then to be exempted from payment in future; this is complied with. And what follows? "They never charge any body else; they therefore thought the tenant ought to pay, or nobody; " and this is decisive, that the landlord was never intended to "be rated." No inconveniences need be incurred from the provisions of the late act of parliament: it does not prevent the parish from rating any body by name; they may declare their intention to rate the landlord...The other julges concurred. Caldecot's Cases, 374.

And where both the landlord's and the tenant's name appon the rate, it is prima facie a rating of the tenant, for the land tax is a tenant's tax, as between him and the publThus in the K. v. Mitchum, Eu. 23 Geo. 3, John Heard the pauper inhabited for several years a house at More don, at the clear yearly rent of five pounds, clear of all taxes, parliamentary and parochial; whilst he so occupied the same, an assessment was made on the said parish for the land tax; antided "An assessment on the inhabitants of the parish of Meredon, for raising a sum by a land tax,” in manner fol. bywing:

Hard paid the said 9s. 94d. to the collector who demanded -By lord Mansfield Ch. J. The question is, Whether the landlord or tenant is the person charged? The asent does not say who is, but the names of both land. and tenant are used. The rate alone then is in this case darge upon either.' The answer to this question must dre be gathered from other circumstances. In the ie, Who ought to be charged? Undoubtedly the ocaght. The land, it is true, is the debtor; but the pointed at the occupier.' The parish cannot tell who dlord, or who has a rent-charge. It is upon the er that the officer of government takes his remedy;' gh the landlord is directed to allow the sum levied out Gent, the parish have nothing to do with transactions landlord and tenant. This is a matter between them; for the sake of the public, the occupier, the ostensible , is to be considered as the person first liable. The consideration is, what does the assessment profess to be ? Yo. IV.

6

T

It professes to be an assessment on the inhabitants; that is the occupiers: the landlord may or may not be an inhabitan the tenant must be. Then, Of whom is it demanded? Of th occupier. Who pays it? the occupier. We may therefo supply from the circumstances that which is omitted in the ra itself; namely, that the tenant was the person meant to charged.--The other judges delivered their opinion, to the sa effect. Cald. Cas. 276.

So in the K. v. St. Lawrence, Winchester, Mic. 25 Geo. the pauper Charles Scullard, resided in the parish of Pete field, under a certificate from St. Lawrence Winchester. afterwards removed into the parish of Eastmeon, and occup a house there, belonging to one William Clarke, until making the order of removal; on 7th June 1783, a! tax assessment of the parish of Eastmeon was made in the lowing form:

The pauper Scullard, paid Joseph Terrell (who called house) 2s. Od. for one half year of the said assessment Terrell gave him the following receipt: "October 20th "Received of Mr. Charles Scullard 2s. and Old. for year's land tax for Mr. Clark's house, due at Mich * last past,

OVE

L. O 2s. 01d. per Joseph Terrell, Assess -By lord Mansfield, Ch. J. It has been decided over again, that the occupier must be presumed to be " against whom the first remedy lies, as between him ar 'public.' Ilere his name is in the rate, and the officer r of him. There is not a tittle to shew that the parish to rate the landlord. The receipt only describes the pr upon which the assessment was made.-Buller J... It v pressly determined in the K. v. Mitcham, that the land prima facie a tenant's tax. Why? Because all the

dies are against him;' and without some new ingred the case the point ought not to have been stirred again decot's Cases, 379.

But if the receipt given to the tenant states, that t paid was assessed upon the landlord, the payment the the tenant does not give a settlement.---Thus in the

Jamer, Bury, Mic. 25 Geo. 3, the pauper, Samuel Cross Parkis, being settled at Hopton, became the occupier of a tenement in the parish of St. James, at the yearly rent of 51. and had, daring his residence there, paid the land tax there when demanded of him by the officer; the rate was made in the following manner:

All the other assessments were made in like manner; and when paper paid the same, the collectors gave him a receipt in sual printed form, as follows: " the 25th day of Decemer, 1783, Received of Mr. Samuel Purkis, the sum of 4s. much being assessed on the landlord for the third quarterpayment, pursuant to an act of parliament for granting aid to his majesty by a land tax to be raised in Great , for the service of the year 1782. By John Law , collector." THE SESSIONS adjudged that the pauper, are rating and payment, had acquired a settlement J's-But by lord Mansfield, Ch. J. (after the case argued) Regularly the fact ought to have been found, here it sent down again would only create unnecessary the receipt is stated; and it does not appear that the smallest probability that any evidence beyond it can ded. I stated, in the last case of the K, v. St. Lawrence, ester, that where it was uncertain who was rated, where

silent, and there is no other collateral evidence to this defect, the law would presume that the tenant was to be rated, because prima facie it is a tenant's tax, consequently first liable. But where the landlord ressly rated, or where there is any collateral matter to that he is intended to be, there the legal presumption tebutted. Here is a strong piece of evidence coming the tenant's hands to shew that the landlord was the the rate...Buller J. This is not a presumption jure; it admits of contradiction. The receipt ack to the time of the rate, and so it is not a rate of ant but of the landlord.' Besides the receipt is strong to the payment, that he paid it as agent to the