« PreviousContinue »
Jises, Bury, Mic. 25 Geo. 3, the pauper, Samuel Cross ttrkis, being settled at Hopton, became (he occupier of a teoement is the parish of Si. James, at the yearly rent of 5/. aod bad, daring his residence there, paid thu laud tax there when demanded of iiim by the officer; the rate was made in lit sallowing manner:
ouVrassessmenfs were made in like manner ; and when jHijKr paid the same, the collectors gave him a receipt in usual priuted form, as follows: "the 25tii day of Decernjkr, 1783, Received of Mr. Samuel Purki*, the sum of 4s. mMuckteing assessed on the landlord for the third quarterly payment, pursuant to an act of parliament for granting IJa»tii to his majesty by a land tax to be raised in Great 'Arttom, for the service of the year 1782. By John Law~ cellector." The Sessions adjudged that the pauper, . rating anil payment, had arquired a settlement Vfs.—But by lord Mansfield, Ch. J. (after the case irgued) Regularly the fact ought to have been found, iteitsent down again would only create unnecessary , as the receipt is stated; and it does not appear that w is the smallest probability that any evidence beyond it can 1 stated, in the last case of the K. v. St- Lawrence, "vkder, that where it was uncertain who was rated, where : n« is silent, and there is no other collateral evidence to ■ply this defect, the law would presume that the tenant was) faWto be rated, becau.-e prima f uie it is a tenant's tax, "Jequently first liable. 'But where the landlord rated, or where there is any collateral matter to "is intended to be, there the legal presumption ited. Here is a strong piece of evidence coming tenant's hands to shew U.at the landlord was tne the nte.'—Jiuller J. This is not a presumption it jure; it admits of contradiction. 'The receipt hack to the time of the rate, and so it is not a rate of but of the landlord.' Besides the receipt is stroug the payment, that be paid it as agent to the
landlord, as well aa that the officer did not receive it of) his own right; so that the tenant does not appear to I titled either way.-— Willes and Ashhurst Justices were a CaldecoVs Cas. 385.
So if it expressly appear on the face of the rate that t sessment is upon the landlord, the tenant by paying it wi thereby gain a settlement.—Thus in (he K. v. Cttrshaltvt 15 Geo. 3, the pauper, Thomas Rummels, living in a at CanhaUon, belonging to William Bridges, esq. pa land tax there; but the assessment was as follows:
—The Court, with yery great and declared regret ga opinion, that the landlord is here the person rated, axtd tenant. It appeared to be a very hard case upon the p who was removed; but they thought the objection tt to be gotten over. Barron's Sell. Cas. 809.
So in the K. v. St. John, Southwark, Tr. 19 Geo. peared that the pauper's -husband Daniel Turner^ wat in the land tax rate, within the parish of Mitcham- ii lowing manner:
The tenant paid the tax, but The Court were
gained no settlement thereby, for this was precisely
case as that of the K. r." Car-halt on. CalJecoCs C<tSe
So also if the poor's rate ba assessed un3n the hou. np paid bribe landlord; the tenant, although he afterwards repay the same to the landlord, will gain no settlement thereby.— Tim tafia K. v. Llangammarch, Tr. 28 Geo. 3, the pauper rented a house and lands in Llangammarch, at 5/. per annum; w agreement was then made between the landlord and tenant about payment of taxes. The house was called Bryn Frast, or Wtjulhtyd, and the land was rated to the poor's tax in Llan. fmtimck by the name of Wayllzsyd. He lived one year itt the house, but paid no taxes for it. In the month of Sep'er 1778, the landlord informed the pauper, that taxes *anred for his land. The pauper desired his landlord them, and said that he would repay him the same, la wotaies were ever paid by, or demanded from the tenant; it appeared that the landlord paid the taxes, and that ipaper allowed them. 4 The overseer who received the taa from the landlord, knew nothing of the pauper; nor did 'he know whether or not the pauper resided at this farm at 'the time.'—the Sessions, apprehending that the tenant was properly rated, and had paid the taxes, adjudged that ho thereby giioed a settlement.— But by Ashhurst, J. (after the Udbeen argued) 'The circumstance'stated in this case, tkt the overseer did not know the pauper, nor whether he Blotted oi his farm,' distinguishes this from former cases; for •»e cannot presume against the facts of the case; and here it ■ssly stated as a fact, that the overseer knew nothing of thepwper, or whether he resided at this farm. The reason wbyjparty gain3 a settlement by paying tax<;s is, because it u a admission by the parish that he is an inhabitant of that y*fi*a. There is no distinction between the knowledge of the o'tnee, and that of the parish at largo ; for the overseers are •hi tisHees for, and transact the business of the parish, and TMP/«rkto know the state and condition of the inhabitants.
•■ti, if we could presume either way, it would rather 1 itiatthe parish even did not know that the pauper resided firm—BuHer J. The poor's rate is a tax on the If, therefore the house be rated, it is prima facie occupier, but it is not conclusive ; then it is necesat the facts in the case. 'If the overseer call on :r for the rate, and he pay, that shews that he in. that he should pay. But here it is expressly stated, leorersecr did net know that he was an inhabitant j is also stated that he went to tho landlord and received : from him'—Grose J. of the same opinion. 2 Term I
poor's rate be charged upon the landlord, payment ~* by the tenant will gain no settlement—Thus in gham v. Worpletdon, Mic. 13 Geo. 1, the land, i rated to the poor, for the tenement as being in his i mi a tenant of part of the premises paid his proportion of the rate.~-BY The Court. The tenant shall notga settlement, though he pays a proportionable rate for the rented of the owner; for he must be rated as well as Folev, 128. iSes*. Cat. 122.
So in the A', v. Sarrat, Mic. 9 Geo. 2, the landlord, never <>ccupied the house, was charged to the poor rate.
the tenant, on demand of the overseers, paid it --By
Hardaicke Ch. J. The aet requires both a rharge ami ment, and here is only a payment without a charge. 1 I the charging is the principal thing, for that is the act o parish; it may be that they would not charge him for of making bim a parishioner; however, th<;y have ch the landlord. If the hand that pays the rate were to any difference, that would put it in the power of the i ■who receives the rate to charge the parish, by rec it from a person never charged with it. Burrow's Sell, 73.
So in theiT. T. Bramshaw, Mic. 10 Geo. 2, the hi of the house, who was also overseer of the poor, was el to the poor rate; but the tenant, on demand of the sail lord paid the rate—By the Court. Here is an ( : charge upon the owner of the house, not upon the t
and it is a settled point, that a person must be rai well as pay, otherwise he gains no settlement. Burros' Cms. 98.
So in the K. v. Loner Walton, Hil. 10 Geo. 2, thi ■was rated, and the son who occupied the tenement, ps Tate. By the Court. This gained no settlement to t for he must both be rated and pay in order to gain a sett Eurrew's Sett. Cas. 1,00.
So in the K. v. St. Cuthbert't, Tr. 15 Geo. 3, the paid a poor's rate, but the landlord was rated, and not t per ; the counsel who were to have argued the case, a that they could not contend that the pauper had gained; ment. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 87.
But in Stapleton Y. Stoney Stanton, Mic 10 Geo
* son lived with his mother as part of her family «
* rated and paid the tax for the estate which she occn It was objected, that this was not his share, but his share of the public taxes, or levies of the parish; that th must be in proportion to what a man occupies: but 1 occupied nothing. To this it was answered, That t amounted to a public recognition by the parish of th Inhabitancy amongst them; and the words, "his share," more than such part or proportion of the whole taj charged personally upon him.-.-the Court were v that he gained a settlement by having been thus chaj having paid what he was so charged with. Burro Cos. 649.
Also if tht rate be made upon the occttper, payment thereof JTihc landlord will not gain the landlord a settlement.—Thus » the A', v. Chew Magna, Mic. 24 Geo. 3, the pauper was enti. tied to one third part of certain leasehold premises in Chew Mag. urentedbyonc June Harvey, ata rack-rent of 4/. lo-. per anna; the pauper received a third part of the rent from th« ttn;at; apoor rate was made, in which the premises were rated in the following words: "Occupier of late Mrs. HipptMy'i: Ss. 1\d.the overseer applying to the landlord (the pjper) he paid such rate twice: the pauper resided in the pa. rs& tAChea yiagna: Harvey, the tenant, continuing i i I lie ocaijMium of the premises.— By The Court. It is clear that u>settlement has been here acquired by the rate, which is on the tempter. CalilecoCs Cases, 365.
S»if the sum paid by the occupier be not inserted in the rate until it is received, it is not a sufficient rating and paying to pwiiettlenicnt.—Thus in St. Olave's v. iVarblington, Tr. UG». J, the pauper, William Freemantle, being settled in ■'larWuftsn, hired a house and lived in the parish of St. Olave. D»n»jti« time he lived there, a rate was made for repair of the ckwri,!! which the pauper's name appeared in the follow, foraosfr, viz. T" William Freemantle to bring security, £■0:1: 6"]. Which one shilling and six-pence was received of thspiaperby the said churchwarden. Tlte rate, when first ■ait, *as cast up, and no sum of money was set against the *un <J the pauper ; but when the church-zarden demanded and tatktdof him the one shilling and sixpence, he afterwards, in ill figured the said s*m of one shilling and six-pence i rate.. .the Court were unanimous. That this was no at. This pauper was not properly rated to this church It * as necessary for him both to be rated and to pay, in 'to gain a settlement This rate was left in blank during c*boie year. No sum was set against his name; but mark, i bring security.'' It was cast up, without any charge n. No demand was made upon him till the ensuing ■ This is not an informal rate, or irregular, in the makiug '-'><■ it is no rate at all. The alteration by inserting a sum, -i-not made till the following year, by the churchwarden of tut following year, without any authority from the parish, or on.'skration had by them concerning the ability of the person nt«L Barrow's Sett. Cas. 787.
Bat when the title of the rate is so much in the pound, and ue piaper's name and yc-arly rent are inserted in the rate, 'pMneot of the rate gains a settlement, though no sum ap. !*»i*»*essed...-Thus in the K. v. Gorhampton, Hit. 21 Geo. ■>• tie pauper Richard Goodiff, came to Croydon, and there rietal a house at 4/. 10s. per annum. On 10th of June, made a rale of 2s. in the pound, in this form,