Sivut kuvina

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 101. If there had been no case before that act passed, in which the occupier of a tenement of 101. 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 101., 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 10l. 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. 473. (3) Rex v. St. Pancras, 2 B. & C. 122.

Sect. II.

of the Rating

Rating necessary.

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)

Where rate void.

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 per

Persons deson in the rate, to amount to a rating, it is unnecessary the rate.

scription in 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 121., 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)

The question whether a man be rated or not depends Whether rated upon the fact, whether it appears sufficiently from cir

a question of

fact. 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. See Rex v. Llangammarch, post.

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

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)

Person not The name of a pauper that was residing under a cerrated.

tificate 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) Sum need not But the occupier is to be considered as assessed to the be specified.

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)

Where names It frequently happens that both the names of the land-
oflandlord and
tenant in the lord and occupier appear on the rate. In this case, if it

(1) Rex v. Walsall, Cald. 35.
(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 “ Quære certificate.”

be stated in the rate itself that the landlord is the person rated, as by inserting it at the head of the column in which his name stands, “ landlord rated,” the tenant cannot be considered as the person assessed, although he pay the rate. (1) But if neither be assessed in terms by the rate, Land tax, &c. the question, who is rated ? is one of fact, and must be collected from other evidence. (2)

The poor rate is clearly an occupier's tax, and so is also the land tax, as between the tenant and the public, for all the remedies are against him.

If therefore the names of both landlord and tenant are inserted in the land tax rate, the law will presume that it was intended that the tenant should be rated, where the rate itself is silent as to this particular, and there is no collateral evidence to supply the defect. For it is the tenant who ought to be charged, as being the person against whom the officer of government takes his remedy in the first instance, although the landlord is directed by the act to allow the sum levied out of the rent. (3) Where, therefore, the names of landlord and tenant were inserted in the rate, without declaring on which the assessment was imposed, the tenant was held to be rated, although it appeared in evidence that the landlord had been formerly rated, and that the tenant, after paying the rate four years, had his name taken off at his own request, by reason of his poverty. (4)

But this presumption may be rebutted by collateral circumstances. The name of both landlord and tenant ap

(1) Rex v. Carshalton, Burr. S. C. 809. Rex v. St. John's, Southwark, Cald. 62.

(2) Per Buller J., Rex v. St. Lawrence, Winchester, Cald. 385. Rex r. Endon, ib. 374.

(3) Rex v. Mitcham, Cald. 276. where the court were of opinion that the occupier was rated on the further ground, that the rate professed in the title to be made on the inhabitants. Rex v. St. Lawrence, Winchester, Cald. 379. • (4) Rex v. Endon, Cald. 173.

[blocks in formation]
« EdellinenJatka »