passed, the words seeming to relate only to those "who, after the passing of the act," shall come into any parish, &c. But the court were clearly of opinion, that the legislature meant that its operation should be general; and that no person, after the passing of the act, should gain a settlement by being rated and paying, &c. whether he became an inhabitant after the act passed, or resided there at the time. (1)

The 35 Geo. III. c. 101. s. 4. having expressly referred to tenements not being of the yearly value of 10l., seemed thereby to limit its application to holdings of that description. But learned judges, referring to the probable object of the legislature, were inclined to think that this enactment was general in its operation, and meant to abrogate this kind of settlement altogether. (2)

Upon this principle, where a person occupied at the rent of 41. part of a dwelling house of the annual value of 187., and was rated and paid to the church and poor rates for the whole house, he was held not to gain a settlement thereby; although it was argued, that being charged with and paying his share towards the public taxes of the parish, for a tenement above the yearly value of 10., his case was not within the meaning of the act. (3)

But in a subsequent case the court came to a different determination. Subsequent to 59 Geo. III. c. 50. the pauper rented a house at the yearly rent and value of 50%.; he occupied it for a period not exceeding nine months; and during that time was rated and paid poor rates as the occupier. He gained no settlement by renting the tenement, because he had not been in the occupation for one whole year, as

(1) The words, "who shall come into any parish," mean, who shall inhabit there. Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Islington, 1 East, 483. Rex v. Alverthorpe, ib. n. b.

(2) See the opinion of Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Islington, 1 East,

483.

(3) Rex v. Penrhyn, 5 M. & S. 443. and the remarks upon the case Rex v. St. Pancras, 2 B. & C. 122. post, 125. (3).

required by that statute. But it was adjudged, that he acquired a settlement by being rated and paying his share of the parish taxes. The words of 35 Geo. III. are qualified, and apply expressly to tenements not being of the value of 10. If there had been no case before that act passed, in which the occupier of a tenement of 10l. annual value would gain a settlement by the payment of rates, perhaps the words of the statute might be construed to have a general operation, and to annihilate this head of settlement altogether. But in one case (1), a person living in a house belonging to the king, as a servant of the public, could not, before 35 Geo. III., as occupier of such a tenement, acquire a settlement, unless by the payment of public taxes. (2) It would be therefore going too far to say, that these qualified words were to have an unqualified operation, so as to abrogate entirely that head of settlement, when, as applied to a tenement above the annual value of 10l., it was one medium by which a settlement in all cases might be obtained, and in some instances the only medium. (3)

Prior to 59 Geo. III. c. 50., the acquisition of settlements This settleof this description was confined by 35 Geo. III. c. 101. ment revived by 59 Geo.3. within very narrow bounds. For, as a settlement was gained c. 50. by the occupation of a tenement of the annual value of 10. for forty days, there was no occasion to claim it in respect of paying the taxes, when it was so much more easily and simply established by proving the occupation. But the 59 Geo. III. c. 50. having imposed certain restrictive qualifications upon the acquisition of a settlement by renting a tenement, to which that other is not thereby subjected; as the law now stands, therefore, recourse may be had to settling paupers by this latter mode, more frequently than formerly.

(1) The learned judge added, " and possibly in others." That the operation of the act would not be taken away, except where parish taxes were payable in respect of tenements; see Rex v. Axmouth, ante, 123. (3).

(2) See Rex v. Cheshunt, 1 B. & A. 475.

(3) Rex v. St. Pancras, 2 B. & C. 122.

Rating necessary.

Where rate void.

SECT. II.

Of the Rating.

It is necessary that the person claiming a settlement should be actually rated. An inhabitant who contributes to support the poor of a parish or vill where no rate is made, cannot acquire a settlement (1) by these means. So if a person who ought to have been rated, pay a rate without being assessed in fact, he gains no settlement. A father who had a small estate, agreed that his son should hold it for a year, and maintain the father instead of paying rent. Both lived on the premises for a year, and the son, who paid the tax, was not rated in his own name, but in his father's name. He gained no settlement: for in order to do so he must be both rated and pay. (2) Upon the same principle, where the landlord is rated, and the tenant pays, the latter does not gain a settlement (3); and it makes no difference that payment is demanded by the overseers of the parish, from the occupier, whose name is omitted. (4)

But though 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 rate, he shall gain a settlement. For it would be hard, when there is in effect a rating by the consent of the whole parish, that one of the parish should come and say that it was a void rate, being their own making, and acquiesced under, and the money paid accordingly. (5) So where a church rate was made upon

(1) Rex v. Friendsbury, Burr. S. C. 644.

(2) Rex v. Lower Walton, Burr. S. C. 100. See also Rex v. Bramshaw, ib. 98.

(3) Seaton Tongale v. Worplisdon, Fol. 128, 2 Sess. Cas. 122.
(4) Rex v. Sarratt, ib. 73.

(5) St. Giles, Cripplegate, and St. Mary, Newington, 19 Vin. Abr. 386. Rex v. Lancaster, ib. 384.

householders only, instead of the parishioners at large, a party who was rated, and paid under it, obtained a settlement. For it was a public tax, charged and paid within the parish, and not less so from being laid too narrowly. (1) But the party's name must be included in the rate before he pays it; for if it be inserted afterwards he does not acquire a settlement. (2)

As to what shall be a sufficient description of the person in the rate, to amount to a rating, it is unnecessary that the occupier be expressly named in the rate, if he be otherwise sufficiently described therein, so as to show that the parish knows that he is an inhabitant. (3)

A person lived at a place called Roscoe's Tenement, and paid taxes in that parish by the name of "the occupier of Roscoe's." (4) One Hind purchased a tenement for 12., and was rated to the land tax for it, as "occupier of the late widow Hooper's, now John Hind's tenement (5);" and to the poor's rate, "occupier of late James Hooper's, now Hind's:" these were sufficient descriptions of the tenant in the rate. Also a rating, "Thomas Clifford, or tenant," was held a sufficient rating of a succeeding tenant. (6)

Persons dethe rate. scription in

fact.

The question whether a man be rated or not depends Whether rated upon the fact, whether it appears sufficiently from cir- a question of cumstances, that the parish officers have taken notice of him as an inhabitant. (7) The insertion of the name of the premises, therefore, is a sufficient description of the

(1) Rex v. St. Bees, 9 East, 203.

(2) Rex v. Edgbaston, 6 Term Rep. 540. See also Rex v. St. Olave's, post, 128. (5).

(3) See Rex v. Painsworth, Burr, S. C. 465.

(4) Rex v. Brightman, 8 Mod. 38. 2 Burr. 1062.

(5) Rex v. Uffculme, Burr. S. C. 430.
(6) Rex v. Painswick, Burr. S. C. 465.

post.

See Rex v. Llangammarch,

(7) Per Aston J., Rex. v. Walsall, Cald. 37.

Person not rated.

Sum need not be specified.

Where names

tenant, if he be called upon and pay the rate. Thus, “late Lowbridge's house (1)," or "Bowden's(2)," is well enough: also a rate on "the widow Preston," she being known to be dead, was held a good rate upon her son, who occupied the premises and paid the rates. (3)

The name of a pauper that was residing under a certificate was inserted in a church rate, and no sum set against his name, but marked, "to bring security," and the total of the rate was cast up without any charge upon him. The next year the churchwarden being told by the pauper that he had got a certificate, demanded the rate, being 1s. 6d. from him, when the pauper, having paid, the overseer figured the sum of 1s. 6d. in the rate. (4) This was held not to be an informal or irregular rate, but no rate. The alteration by inserting the sum was not made until the following year, by the churchwarden of the following year, without any authority from the parish, or consideration had by them concerning the ability of the person rated. (5)

But the occupier is to be considered as assessed to the poor's rate when his name is inserted, if the amount of his assessment can be collected from other parts of the rate. Thus, where the rate professed to be at 2s. in the pound, and the tenant's rent was inserted in the rate, it was held a good assessment, for his proportion was thereby ascertained. If therefore the rate be received from him under such circumstances, he acquires a settlement. (6)

It frequently happens that both the names of the landtenant in the lord and occupier appear on the rate. In this case, if it

oflandlord and

rate.

(1) Rex v. Walsall, Cald. 55.

(2) Rex v. Openshaw, Burr. S. C. 522.

(3) Rex v. Heckmondwicke, Cald. 103. But King's Fair v. King's Swinford, Salk. 523. 2 Bott, 3 edit. 228. contra.

(4) See Rex v. Edgbaston, ante, 127. (2).

(5) Rex v. St. Olaves, Burr. S. C. 787.

(6) Rex v. Corhampton, Doug. 621. Cald. 108. in which case the parish officers appeared to have entertained doubts as to rating him, having prefixed to his name Quare certificate."