Sivut kuvina

worth above 101. a-year, and situated in the same parish where the gate is. (1)

It has been likewise decided that the act neither extends to the tolls (2) nor toll-house of a bridge which does not appear to be part of a turnpike-road. (2)

54 G. III.
c. 170. s. 1.


The 54 Geo. III. c. 170. s. 1. provides, that all enactRepealing local ments and provisions contained in any act or acts of parliaacts, altering ment since the commencement of the reign of His late

Majesty George the First, whereby any alteration is made in respect of gaining, or not gaining, a settlement within any particular district, parish, township, or hamlet, shall be and the same are hereby repealed; and that all and every person shall be deemed and taken to have acquired and to acquire a settlement in every such district, parish, township, or hamlet, by any ways or means he, she, or they would or might have done, or would or might do, in case such act or acts, or any of them, had not been made and passed; and notwithstanding the same or any of them are or was in force and operation.

Sect. 4. No set tlement by a prisoner.

Sect. 4. That no person shall be deemed or taken to gain
any settlement by reason of any residence within any dis-
trict, parish, township, or hamlet, while he, she, or they
shall be detained or confined as a prisoner within any such
district, parish, township, or hamlet, on any civil process, or
for any contempt whatsoever.
toll-house being erected on the road, under this clause, it was contended,
that the lessee acquired a settlement by residence, notwithstanding
13 Geo. III. c. 84. sect. 56., the tolls being collected under a local act,
for various local purposes, and not for the repair of turnpike-roads, to
which that clause was confined. But per Curiam, there is no difference
in effect, though the appellation of turnpike-road does not occur in the
local act; the one is a stone, and the other a gravel road; and every
character belonging to a turnpike-road belongs to this. The commis-
sioners are trustees for the repair of the roads, and the case is within
the prohibition of the general turnpike-act. Rex v. Elvet, 11 East, 93.

(1) Rex v. Denbigh, Trin. 44 Geo. III. 5 East, 333.
(2) Rex v. Bubwith, 1 M. & S. 514. Rex v. Duffield, 3 M. & S. 247.
(3) Per Lord Ellenborough C.J., Rex v. Duffield, 3 M. & S. 247.

Sect. 5. Enacts, that no gate-keeperor toll-keeper of any Gate toll

keeper. turnpike-road or navigation, or persons renting the tolls and residing in any toll-house of any turnpike-road or navigation, shall thereby gain any settlement in any district, parish, township, or hamlet.

Sect. 6. That no person or persons shall gain any settle- House of cha

ritable institument in any parish, township, or hamlet, by reason of any tion. residence in any house or other dwelling-place, provided for the residence of such person or persons by any charitable institution, while such person or persons shall be supported and maintained at the expense of such charitable institution, as an object or objects of such charity.

Sect. III.

Of the Value of the Tenement. The settlement depends upon the tenement's being of Settlement the annual value of 101. and not upon the amount of the depends on

value of tenerent, where rent is paid. If a man hire a house at a ment. small rent, and pay a fine, yet, if the house be worth 101. per annum, it makes a settlement.” (1) But if it be under that value he will not, although he takes a lease of it at the rent of 15l. per annum, without fraud. (2)

But rent is the fair criterion of value, unless the tene- Value how

estimated, ment is shown to be worth more or less; and the annual value is alone material. (3) Although premises let by successive weekly lettings might yield a rent within the year exceeding 101., yet, unless they are of the value of 101. to let by the year, the tenant is not entitled to a settlement, for the 13 & 14 C. II. expressly refers to the “ yearly value.” (4)

(1) Per Parker C. J., South Sydenham v. Lamerton, 2 Bott, 128. Pl. 171. Ib. 112. Pl. 156. S.C. Per Page J., Rex v. Yokeford, Burr. S.C. 140. Per Aston J. Rex v. Llandverras, Burr. S.C. 571.

(2) Rex v. Llanegwad, Mich. 59 Geo. III.

(3) Rex v. Tissington, Burr. S.C. 499. Rex v. Yokeford, ante(1). Et vide Rex v. Bilsdale, Kirkham, 2 Bott, 136. Pl. 183.

(4) Rex v. Hellingley, 10 East, 41.

But, on the other hand, if the tenement be actually worth 101. a-year, and a tenant occupy for a shorter period, paying an aliquot part of the value, as for five months, paying 41., he gains a settlement. (1) And the value may be calculated without deducting taxes, rates, and charges usually deemed tenants' taxes. (2)

Value when taken material.

The court will look to the yearly value of the tenement at the time the pauper comes to settle upon it, without considering by what means it became of that value. If the value is increased by labour bestowed on it after the letting and occupation, that cannot be taken into account. But when the labour has been bestowed previously to entering upon the premises, so as to make the land fairly worth the rent at the time it was taken, the court cannot separate the value of that labour from that of the land. Thus, where the occupier of a cottage took land at the rent of sl. from

(1) Rex. v. St. Botolph's, Burr. S. C. 574.

(2) Rex v. Framlingham, Burr. S. C. 748.; where the pauper, being certificated, took a public house, &c. at the yearly rent of 10l. payable half-yearly; and it was agreed, that the landlord should pay all parish rates and charges; and it was further stated, that in case the tenant had paid the parish rates, the landlord would not have expected to be paid, nor would the tenant have consented to pay the said yearly rent of 101. for the premises. This was held, taking a tenement of the yearly value of 101., within the intention and meaning of the act of parliament: for it turns upon the credit given, and here the credit is given to the man for 101. a-year. The annual value of the tenement, independent of the parish rates, was not found otherwise than as is before set forth, But the counsel on both sides (Wallace and Dunning] argued upon the supposition, that the annual value of the tenement, deducting the taxes, was less than 10l. This was the case of settlement gained by a certificated person, by taking a lease of a tenement of the yearly value of 101. within 9 & 10 W.III. c. 11. The point has since been expressly decided upon the authority of this foregoing case. The Court observing that it having been settled nearly forty years ago, in Rex v. Framlingham, that the rent reserved (all fraud apart) is to be taken as the criterion of the value of the tenement, without reference to the payment of the rates and taxes by the landlord; they were not at liberty to disturb that opinion by any speculative opinion. The tenant may be said to obtain credit for a tenement, in one sense, of the yearly value of 101., and the decision is not so directly against the words of the act, as to be necessarily wrong. Rex v. St. Paul's, Deptford, 13 East, 320.

Easter to October, for planting potatoes, and the ground had been dug by the landlord, without which it would not have been let at more than half price, it was held to be of the value of 8l. in estimating the necessary value to confer a settlement. (1)

A pauper while he rented a cottage and garden in S., of Ground let the annual value of 41., held land in T., for one year, at the cropped. rent of 61. 10s. It had been cropped by the landlord with clover and grass seeds previous to the letting, and was in consequence thereof worth 6l. 10s. for that year, but if it had not been so cropped, it would have been worth only 21. 5s. He gained a settlement. For he occupied a tenement which during that year was in fact of the value of 101., and how it became so is immaterial. (2)

Also where there is a yearly letting, if the tenement be- Value suficomes of the annual value of 101. in any succeeding year cient if during

occupation. during the tenancy, it seems to have been considered as sufficient.(3)

But it must be actually worth 101.; a mere speculative Speculative or potential value does not satisfy the statute.

A house value insuffi

cient, was taken at 101. a-year, and the landlord covenanted by the lease to make certain improvements. The sessions found, that the improvements were not made during the tenant's occupation, and that the house in its present state was worth only 6l. 10s.: but if the improvements had been made, “ it might have been worth 101.” The tenant gains no settlement. The value must be estimated, as at the time of the letting, or at the time of the removal; and it is only of the value of 61. 10s. at both. (4)

(1) Rex o. Ringwood, 1 M. & S. 381. Rex v. West Cramore, S.P., where the ploughing and manuring were begun, but not finished, when the tenant took the land, but were completed before he entered upon it. 2 M. & S. 132.

(2) Rex v. Purley, 16 East, 126.

(3) Rex v. Bilsdale Kirkham, ante, 31.(3), which seems to have been a tenancy from year to year; and is in law a new demise for each year. (4) Southwold v. Yoxford, Burr. S.C. 140.2 Str. 1127. VOL. II.


Land must be of different actual value according to the period when it is occupied. The occupation of arable land during the season of tillage is burthensome, and during that of harvest is alone productive. No distinction seems to have been taken as to the actual value during the particular season of occupation, as, for instance, whether it be for forty days in spring, or in autumn, provided the tenement was of the actual value of 101., and let by the year.

The following case has, however, been decided :

Value decreas- A. bought at a public auction, on the 12th August, four ing during occupation

lots of oats growing in one field, at 121. 10s. They ripened at different periods. A. began to reap them on the 14th September, and continued to reap and cart them as they ripened, between then and the 3d of November. He gained no settlement, for it does not appear that there has been a holding for forty days of a tenement of the value of 101. a-year. His interest diminished in value, de die in diem, as he cleared the land, and it is consistent with the statement that before forty days from the 12th of August, he had cleared so much as would reduce the tenement below the yearly value of 101. (1)

Must be ex- Nothing is to be considered but the worth of the teneclusive of per- ment itself, without reference to that of any personal sonal chattels.

chattels upon it. The value of stock on a tenement is not material. (2)

A post wind mill.

The pauper took a tenement at 61. a-year, and the greater part of the time rented a piece of waste ground, of the lord of the manor, at the yearly value of ten shillings and sixpence, upon which he had the privilege of building a post windmill, and which he was to be at liberty to

(1) Rex v. Bowness, 4 M. & S. 210. Lord Ellenborough C. J. put the case on the ground that this was a purchase, and not a renting, or in any way a holding as tenant, and that therefore no settlement was gained.

(2) Per Lee C. J., Weston v. Kirton, post, 49. (31)

« EdellinenJatka »