« EdellinenJatka »
peared on the land tax rate (1), but the receipt given to the tenant was for “ so much assessed on the landlord," it was held that this receipt related back to the time of the rate, and that the landlord was the person rated. (2) The name of the farm Waynllwyd was inserted in the poor rate, without reference to the landlord or tenant. The landlord paid the taxes by the tenant's desire, who allowed them to him again. But it appeared that the overseers of the poor, who received the tax from the landlord, knew nothing of the pauper, nor whether he resided at the farm at the time. It was held that he was not rated so as to acquire a settlement. For rating the house is not sufficient, when the presumption that the parish could not but know who was the occupier is negatived by express proof of the fact.(3)
Of the Payment.
It is necessary that the person rated should pay the tax, or he cannot acquire a settlement. (4) But he will gain one by being rated and paying, although he is wrongfully assessed for premises which another occupied; for these facts amount to a public recognition by the parish of the man's inhabitancy among them. The pauper went to live with his mother, as part of her family, at S., where she had a house and small parcel of land which she occupied herself. Whilst he lived with his mother he was included
(1) This rate contained a column entitled, “ what assessed and where situated,” under which and opposite to the pauper's name was inserted “ tenant.” Buller J. held the receipt to be strong evidence, that the tenant paid the rates as agent to the landlord.
(2) Rex v. St. James, Bury St. Edmund's, Cald. 385.
(3) Rex v. Llangammarch, 2 Term Rep. 625. See Rex v. Painswick, ante, 127.
(4) See Rex v. St. Nicholas, Abingdon, Skin. 620. Telburn v. Bos. ton, 2 Salk. 523.
in a house and church rate for the parish of S., being charged as occupier of the land belonging to his mother. He paid such assessments, although he did not, during any part of the year, occupy the whole or any part of that land, or any other house or land in that parish. The Court were very clear that he gained a settlement. (1)
Where payment of the rate is made by the tenant Although rerated, it may confer a settlement notwithstanding he is paid. afterwards repaid by another person. Thus it has been held sufficient if the tenant actually pay the land tax of his premises, although it was afterwards allowed by the landlord; for the parish has nothing to do with their private agreements. (2) A tenant was duly rated to the poor tax, but his landlord was under agreement to pay all taxes for him but the poor tax. The landlord directed the overseer to call upon the tenant for a quarter's tax, and to tell him that his landlord ordered him to pay it, and would allow it out of his rent. The tenant accordingly paid, and notwithstanding he was afterwards repaid by the landlord, he gained a settlement. (3) So also a custom-house officer, who is rated to the land-tax, and pays it, will acquire a settlement, although the amount is either actually given him before hand, or allowed him afterwards by the collector of the customs. (4)
And it is enough if the money be in fact paid by him, Payment on through the intervention of an agent. The tenant of tenants' accertain premises, for which he was duly rated to the land-tax, absconded; whereupon the landlord desired the collector to distrain on the tenant's goods, “ otherwise he should lose the money.” The collector went to the house for that purpose, but a friend of the tenant's paid
(1) Rex v. Stapleton, Burr. S. C. 649.
(2) Rex v. Bramley, Burr. S. C. 75. Rex v. Chidingfold, ib. 415. Rex o. Fulham, ib. 488.
(3) Rex v. Openshaw, Burr. S. C. 522.
(4) Rex v. Oakhampton, Burr. S. C. 15. Rex v. Axmouth, 8 East. 383. S.P.
the tax, in consequence of an application from his daughter. The Court were clearly of opinion that this was money raised for the tenant's use, for which an action might be maintained against him. The money was advanced by a friend, in order to protect him from a distress, under which his goods would otherwise immediately have been taken.(1)
But it is necessary that the rate should be either paid in fact by the tenant himself, or at least constructively by the hands of his agent. An exciseman was rated to the landtax for his salary, but never paid the rate, it being paid by the collector of excise, and not deducted out of the pauper's salary. He gained no settlement, for he neither paid mediately nor immediately. (2) It is sufficient likewise if the money be paid bonâ fide by the pauper, although it may have been received by the overseer through a mistake, and is afterwards returned by him. (3)
Of the Inhabitancy.
Party must inhabit.
It is equally necessary that the person claiming a settlement shall be an inhabitant of the parish, as that he should be rated and pay. If he reside in one parish, and is rated in another, he gains no settlement in either, under the provision of 3 W. & M. c. 11. s.6.; for that statute says, that any person who shall inhabit in any town or parish, and be charged with and pay his share towards the public taxes of the said town or parish, shall thereby obtain a settlement. (4) It seems also that he must be an inhabitant for the space of forty days. For the rating is substituted
(1) Rex v. Bridgewater, 8 Term Rep. 550.
for public notice (1), in which last case, as well as in all other kinds of settling, a residence of forty days is required, by 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. (2)
Of the Proofs.
It is necessary, in order to establish a settlement by these means, to prove, 1. The rating. 2. The payment. 3. The inhabitancy.
No difficulty can arise in establishing any of these particulars, except the rating, as they may be proved by the pauper, or other parol testimony.
The best evidence to prove the rating, is the rate itself. Notice must be served therefore upon the parish officers to produce it at the hearing of the appeal. Parol testimony is inadmissible to prove the pauper's assessment (3), without proving such a notice, or giving some evidence that the rate is lost or destroyed.
(1) Per Lawrence J., ib.
(3) Rex v. Coppul, 2 East, 25. and see Vol.I. Yet see Rex v. Issey, Burr. S. C. 826., which seems contra.
Of Settlement by Acknowledgment of the Parish.
Settlement by The several kinds of settlements, explained in the preacknowledg
ceding chapters, are acquired by act of the party. But a ment.
parish or town, having the management of its own poor, may confer one, by acknowledging that a particular person has acquired a settlement there, which, in most cases, estops them from afterwards controverting the fact, either as to the party himself, or those who claim settlements through him. (1)
But this acknowledgment must, to affect the parish, be made by certain prescribed modes; for the parish officers have no power to settle a person in their parish by other acts or declarations. (2) No person gains a settlement in a parish by having acted as a parishioner, and been treated as such in every other respect, beside being rated or receiving parish reliet. J. C. kept a public-house in the parish of A. for thirty-six years. (3) He served as a juror upon court leets within it, and was appointed to work towards the repair of the highways, and kept watch and ward there. Some time after he came, he was seated in the church by the churchwardens as a parishioner; and during his residence, the churchwardens and overseers distributed to him, among other parishioners, certain yearly gifts and charities which were to be given annually to the parishioners and inhabitants of A. only. He was held not to be settled in A. (4)
(1) As to how far it is conclusive, see post.
(2) See the opinion of Lord Mansfield C. J., Rex v. Weston St. Lawrence, Burr. S. C. 584.
(3) The value did not appear.
(4) Rex v. Abbots Langley, 2 Bott. 3 Edit. 125. Pl. 163. Fitzg. 49. Bar. K. B. 285. But Foley, 110. reports the decision contra. The