Page images
PDF
EPUB

exceeds the sum of 30%. and he remained upon the estate ir removeable, forty days. 'Tis clearly within the words of the act. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 169.

And if the consideration expressed in the deed be under 30%, parol evidence may be given to shew that the real consideration was to the amount required by the statute.--Thus in the K. v. Scammoden, Mic. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper being legally settled in Soyland entered into an agreement for the purchase of an estate in Rishworth for 281. and the consideration mentioned in the deeds, and in the receipt endorsed, was 284. but the ap pellants produced parol evidence to prove that, before the deeds were executed, the vendor declared, that as the agreement was not in writing he was not bound by it; and having since had 30%. offered for the estate, he would not take less, nor would he execute the deeds unless the purchase money were made up that sum. Upon which the pauper advanced 17. 15s. more, which, with five shillings owing from the vendor to the pauper, was insisted made up the sum of 301. but the deeds were not al tered, and the consideration therein mentioned was left accord. ing to the original agreement, viz. 281. The counsel for the ap pellants contended that this was a bona fide purchase for 30%. But the sessions were of opinion, that no parol evidence could be given to contradict the consideration mentioned in the deeds. But lord Kenyon Ch. J. said, it was clear that the party might prove other considerations than those expressed in the deed. It is permitted in all cases of covenants to stand seised to uses. And in Filmer v. Gott, where the considerations mentioned in the deed were 10,000l. and natural love and of. fiction, the lords commissioners of the great seal directed an issue to try, whether natural love and affection formed any part of the consideration, the estates being worth near 30,000l.? On an appeal to the house of lords this was confirmed; and the jury, on the trial of the issue, finding that natural love and affection constituted no part of the consideration, the deed was afterwards set aside by the lord chancellor.-Ashhurst concurred, Buller J. and Grose J. absent. 3 Term Rep. 474.

[ocr errors]

And to gain a settlement, the residence need not be on the estate, for a residence in any part of the parish in which it is si tuated is sufficient. For by Holt, Ch. J. in Rislip v. Harrow, Hil. 8 Will. 3, having land in a parish will not make a settle. ment, but living in a parish where one has land will gain a› set. tlement without notice: for the act of parliament never meant to banish men from the enjoyment of their own lands, 2 Salk 524.

So in Sowton v. Sydbury, Ea. 12 Geo. 2, a person who liv ed with his family at Sowton, having an estate at Sydbury, which the tenant gave up, went thither and lodged in an ale house as a guest, without having any certain room there, and staid from November till April, but sometimes went to Souton, where his childreu and family were, and to other places as his occasions required; and he possessed and managed his estate by

repairing fences, hoeing turnips, and the like; the question was, whether such inhabiting, and not upon the estate, would gain a settlement?.--And THE COURT were of opinion it would, and that it made no difference whether it were in his own house or in an alehouse; for being in the same parish he could not be removed. 2 Sess. Cas. 150. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 125. Viner, 374.

19

But accession to an estate without a residence of forty days, will not gain a settlement....Thus in Wokey v. Hinton Clewet, Mich. 8 Geo. 1, a person settled at Hinton Clewet had an estate descended to him in Wokey, whereupon the justices send him thither as to the place of his last settlement.---But by THE COURT, the order must be quashed, for it is no settlement nor inhabitation; though if he should go thither he could not be removed: it may be a great injury to send him away from a good trade in Hinton Clewet to perhaps half an acre of land wherein he has but a term. 1 Strange, 476.

However, the residence need not be for forty days successively.Thus in the case of Sowton v. Sydbury above-mentioned, the question was moved, whether, since he did not reside there for forty days together, but for more than forty days in the whole, such residence should gain a settlement?---And by THE WHOLE COURT, it is not necessary upon the statute, that the residence should be forty days successively. 2 Sess. Cas. 150. Andr. 345. 19 Viner, 374. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 125.

So in the K. v. St. Nyott's, Tr. 13 Geo. 2, the pauper was born in St. Cleere, and afterwards gained a settlement in St. Ngott's. He then removed to St. Cleere, and lived there with his mother some time, on a tenement there, in part of which he had an estate of freehold and inheritance, and of which he was After seized in common together with his mother and sisters. he came back to St. Cleere, he worked as a day-labourer, and 'Lodged sometimes on his own estate, and sometimes in other places when he worked in the parish of St. Cleere, and at other times in other parishes adjoining; but he did not live and reside on his said estate in St. Cleere or in the parish of St.Cleere by the space of forty days together at any one time, between his leaving St. Nyott's and selling his estate in St. Cleere, which was about three years after he returned to St. Cleere.'---BY THE COURT. This depends upon the statute of 134 14 Car. 2. c. 12, which directs the sending a pauper to the place where he was last legally settled for the space of forty days. But this man continued, off and on, for three years in the parish where he had an estate of freehold and inheritance: and we do not think it to be necessary that he should have resided there forty days together. He was irremovable from St. Cleere's for above forty days: and that is sufficient. Burrom's Sett. Cas. 132.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

And if an estate descend to a pauper, and he reside in the same parish for 40 days afterwards, although he may have immediately after the descent cast have agreed to sell and convey the

Concerning certificated persons.

same to another, he will thereby gain a settlement---this was decided in the K. v. Dorstone, Ill. Ter. 41 Geo. 3, which was as follows, the pauper resided in Blackmere, being set tled at Madley, while he resided in Blackmere a freehold estate descended to his wife and her sisters as coparceners i the same parish, and in a month after the pauper and his wif entered into a written agreement, to sell and convey his wife share to the husband of one of the other coparceners; but the deeds of conveyance were not actually executed for more tha 40 days after their title accrued. THE COURT said that contract was executory, and the conveyance not being in fa executed till long after the 40 days were expired, till when t title remained in the pauper, they held that he had gained settlement in Blackmere. 1 East's Rep. 296.

But a residence for less than forty days will not be sufficie Thus in the K. v. West Shefford, Mic. 25 Geo. 2, a # settled in Saydon, came by certificate from Saydon to Shefford; and during the time that he resided in West S ford under such certificate; he became beneficially intitled leasehold estate of fourteen pounds a-year, situate in Shefford, determinable on his own life; he entered upon said estate on the 17th of November, and was possessed th of; and also resided thereon, from the time he so entere the day of his death, which happened on the 15th of December ing twenty-eight days and no more. The Court held a forty residence to be necessary, in order to found an order of n val to a place. And they said that this had been settled since the case of Mursley v. Grandborough; in which it holden, that "any person who has an estate of freehold. "pyhold, orfor years, by act of law (as descent, marri "executor, administrator, or purchase), may dwell upo

as his own; and is not removable; and gains a settlem if he continues forty days; though under 107. per ann "but he must abide forty days, in order to gain a settled "And notice is not necessary; because he is not remo from it." Burrow's Sett. Cas. 307.

And a certificate person by residing on his own estat gain a settlement.-Thus in Burclear v. Eastwoodhey, Geo. 1, the pauper came with a certificate from Burcled Eastwoodhey and afterwards married: while he and his were there, a copyhold of 201. per anuum descended to wife, which they enjoyed for five years till her death, and according to the custom of the manor it descended eldest daughter. The man asked relief in Eastwoodkey. thereupon the sessions sent him back to Burclear.—E THE COURT. If a certificate man by taking 10l. per a gains a settlement, much more shall he that has an estate own, especially in this case, where he does not come to act of his ow (which might savour of fraud), but it is cast him by the act and operation of law. It has been a adjudged, that any other person, by the descent or purch

a freehold or copyhold, or by becoming intitled to a lease for years, gains & settlement; and it cannot be supposed the parliament intended to put a certificate-man in a worse condition. The value is not material, for it is its being his own makes him not removable. 1 Strange, 163.

So in the K. v. Shenston, Mic. 32 Geo. 2, the wife of a certificate-man had an estate devised to her for life by her father, upon which she and her husband entered and lived for above six months.-BY THE COURT. The man hereby Burrow's

gained a settlement, notwithstanding a certificate.

Sett. Cus. 468.

So in the K. v. Stansfield, Ea. 16 Geo. 2---By Lee, Ch. J: a descent, devise, or purchase, have been determined to gain a settlement (after forty days residence), upon the foot of the person's not being removeable from his own, and as not being So an intruder within the meaning of 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. that whenever a man has an interest of his own, though under 10. a-year, he shall not be removeable by that statute. The present question turns indeed upon the construction of the tertificate-act. But though this person was a certificate-man, yet if he had come to this by act of law, it would have gained him a settlement; for the same construction has been made upon the certificate act, as upon that of 13 & 14 Car. 2. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 205. 1 Sess. Cass. 316.

So in the K. v. Deddington, Tr. 16 Geo. 2, a certificateman purchased a house for 421. lived in it many years, then fold it, and becoming chargeable was sent back. It was insisted, that the 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11, saying, a certificate-man 'shall gain a settlement by no act whatsoever, unless the 'taking 10. a-year, or serving an annual office this man, notwithstanding the purchase, might be sent back, and it was said to differ from the case of Burclear and Eastwoodhey, where the surrender of a copyhold to the certificate-man's wife was held to gain him a settlement; because there it was not his own act as this purchase is, but it came to him by operation of law. But THE COURT did not think this a sufficient distinction, and said a purchase was in its nature an excepted case, and his selling it afterwards made no alteration. 2 Strange, 1193. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 205.

And a cottage devised to a certificate-man to live in during his life, will discharge the certificate. Thus in the K. v. Wo barn, Tr. 14 Geo. 3, the paupers, two sisters, resided at Eversholt, under a certificate from Woburn. A person intitled to a long term of years in a cottage in Eversholt, after having devised the same to Andrew Powell, added also, it is my will and pleasure, that William Powell (the father of Andrew) and his wife and children shall have free liberty and power 'during their natural life to dwell in the same house.' said William Powell and his wife, and their son Andrew Powell and their two daughters (the paupers) accordingly resided in it for several years, and until Willium Powell's death.-THE

The

COURT were clear that this devise, which gave the paupers "free liberty and power during their natural lives to dwell "in the house," was a discharge of the certificate, and that they had gained a certificate in Eversholt. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 85.

XI. Concerning persons whose settlement cannot be disco

covered.

If the settlement, either by parentage, birth, or otherwise, cannot be discovered, it seems that the party ought to be relieved by the parish in which he happens to fall chargeable. For where a travelling woman, having a small sucking child, was apprehended for felony, sent to gaol, and executed; and the place of the birth of this child not being known, it was sent to the town where the mother was apprehended. This was held right; for that town ought not to have sent the child to gaol, the child being no malefactor. Dalton, c. 73. s. 27.

So a child left and descited by its parents, shall be maintained and provided for by the parish or place where it is found; far in the case of Christ's Hospital, Tr. 11 Will. 3, where a poor child was left in Christ's Hospital; and upon the complaint of the wardens, two justices made an order on the overseers of the poor of the parish to receive and maintain the child. This order was quashed, because it was not said that the parents were unknown, or that it was likely to become chargeable to the parish; but as to the principal matter hinted, viz. that the Hospital was bound to provide for poor children there exposed, THE COURT thought there was nothing in that. 2 Salk. 485.

And upon this principle, if the father and mother of a legiti mate child be both foreigners, and neither of them have gained a settlement, it follows that both they and their children must be maintained by the parish where they are found; for in Covered's Case, Tr. 6 Will. & Mar. a Dutch woman of the name of Coured, with her two children, landed at Harwich from Holland, and, removing to another place, were sent back to Harwich by an order of two justices.It was objected, that landing makes no settlement.To which it was answered, that it is within the equity of the act.--But by Eyres, in the absence of Holt, You must keep them when you have them, for aught I know; for it seems to be casus omissus. The order was quashed. Comberbuch, 287.

[ocr errors]

But a foreigner may gain a settlement by occupying a tenement of 101. ayear for 40 days...thus in the K. v. Eastbourne, Tr. Ter. 43 Geo. 3. Ann Borchert and her children were removed from Seaford to Eastbourne ; and the sessions confirmed the order subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: Ann Borchert's maiden settlement was in Eastbourne, but she married one John Borchert a German by whom she had the children; the husband with his wife and children was at the time of removal resident in a house in Seaford, of aboye

« PreviousContinue »