But it is said, he had property of his own elsewhere; of that, however, he was not the occupier. It is sufficient to say that the cases (1) cited are not like the present, and that there is no case which seems to have gone the length contended for. (2) And it has been further held, that the yearly value of a freehold purchase under 301., and of land occupied as tenant, can not be united so as to give the occupier a settlement, although the aggregate yearly value exceeds 10l., for 13 & 14 Car. II. must refer to a tenement from which the occupier would be removable if under the annual value of 10. But under that act no man is removable from his freehold, however small its value; from whence, and the language of 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11., it may be fairly inferred that 13 & 14 C. II. applied to leaseholders and not to freeholders. (3) By the 13 Geo. III. c. 84. s. 56. no gate-keeper of any 13 Geo. III. turnpike road, or person renting the tolls thereof, and c. 84. Gate-keeper residing in any toll-house belonging to the trustees of the or toll-renter. road, shall thereby gain a settlement in any parish or place whatsoever. (4) This means, that no person of this description shall gain a settlement by keeping the gate, or renting the tolls, and residing in the toll-house; it does not prevent him from acquiring a settlement by renting a tenement, in itself (1) Rex v. Culmstock, ante, 28. (6). Rex v. Donnington, ante 28. (5). (2) Rex v. South Bemfleet, 1 Maule & Selw. 154. (3) Rex v. St. John Glastonbury, 1 B. & A. 481. Sed Holroyd J. dissentient. (4) The 30 Geo. III. passed for paving, lighting, watching, and regulating the streets of Durham, as also for widening the streets and regulating the markets; and commissioners were thereby appointed and empowered to appoint persons to collect tolls for carrying the above purposes into effect, either in the streets of D., or if it should appear more expedient, to erect two turnpikes and toll-houses, for the purpose of collecting them, on the great northern road. A turnpike-gate and 54 G. III. Repealing local Sect. 4. No settlement by a prisoner. worth above 10%. 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) The 54 Geo. III. c. 170. s. 1. provides, that all enactments and provisions contained in any act or acts of parliament 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. That no person shall be deemed or taken to gain any settlement by reason of any residence within any district, 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, (2) Rex v. Bubwith, 1 M. & S. 514. Rex v. Duffield, 3 M. & S. 247. Sect. 5. Enacts, that no gate-keeperor toll-keeper of any Gate tollkeeper. 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. ritable institu Sect. 6. That no person or persons shall gain any settle- House of chament 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. value of tene ment. THE settlement depends upon the tenement's being of Settlement the annual value of 107. and not upon the amount of the depends on rent, where rent is paid. "If a man hire a house at a small rent, and pay a fine, yet, if the house be worth 107. 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 10l. 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. Value when taken material. But, on the other hand, if the tenement be actually worth 10. 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) 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 81. 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 10%. 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 107. for the premises. This was held, taking a tenement of the yearly value of 107., 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 10l. 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 10%. This was the case of settlement gained by a certificated person, by taking a lease of a tenement of the yearly value of 107. 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 10l., and the decision is not so directly against the words of the act, as to be necessarily wrong. Rex v. St. Paul's, Deptford, 15 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 81. 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 47., 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 67. 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 107., and how it became so is immaterial. (2) Also where there is a yearly letting, if the tenement be- Value sufficomes of the annual value of 10l. 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 10%.; a mere speculative Speculative or potential value does not satisfy the statute. A house value insufficient. was taken at 10l. 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 10%." 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 67. 10s. at both. (4) (1) Rex v. 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. 152. (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. |
