« EdellinenJatka »
session; and His Lordship accepts rent from him, and takes security from him for the rent in a bond, in which he is joined by another person. This, with the other circumstances attending it, i. e. the pauper's being at that time in possession, and the acceptance of rent from him, shews that Lord Sefton retained him as tenant, and certainly does not afford, as was attempted, any ground of argument on the other side.
Buller J. There is a seeming contradiction between Lord Sefton's conduct, as collected from all the other facts in the case, and the fact stated, that the assignee was taken as by tenant His Lordship; but there is one way of reconciling it. Lord Sefton agreed to the occupation by the assignees, and received rent from him, but did not mean to give up the pauper as tenant. His meaning was, to have them both liable. (1)
Forty days' residence.
Of the Residence. In order to gain a settlement by occupying a tenement of 10l. per annum, there must be a residence of forty days, either on the premises, or at least in the parish where some part of them lie. (2)
Must reside in the parish where his te. nement is.
rented a farm in K. at 30l. per annum, and resided from Lady-day 1779 to Christmas 1781, when he went with his wife publicly to reside with his son-in-law in T. taking with him all his furniture, and the stock remaining on his farm at K. He resided with his son-in-law in T. upwards of forty days, before he delivered up possession of the farm in K., but he did not hire or occupy any land whatever in T. He gained no settlement by the residence in T. Buller J. It is taken for granted in all
(1) Rex v. Maghull, Cald. 429.
the cases, that the pauper must reside in some part of the parish in which his property lies; and I think it is expressly laid down in the case of Ryslip and Harrow (1), that the residence must be connected with the occupation. (2)
So where the pauper rented a windmill in one parish, and resided together with his wife and servant along with his father-in-law in another, but neither rented nor occupied a tenement there, he gained no settlement where he resided. (3)
But it is enough, if he dwell where part of the tene- Need not be
on the prement lies (4); he need not reside upon any part of what mises. he takes. (5)
(1) 2 Salk. 524.
(2) Rex v. Topcroft, Cald. 478. See also Rex v. St.Giles in the Fields, Cald. 481. n. (c). Rex v. Butley, Burr. S. C. 109. ; which was a question of residence, where the settlement was claimed by estate.
(5) Rex v. Knighton, 2 Term Rep. 48. (4) Rex v. Fritwell, ante 40. (1).
(5) Per Aston J. Rex v. Llandverras, Burr. S. C. 572. and there are many other authorities to the same point, of which several are cited n. (c). Rex v. Bardwell, 2 B. & C. 163. Some observations are reported to have fallen from two learned judges in Rex v. Bardwell, 2 B. & C. 163., which militate against this position; and the following case appears in some degree inconsistent with it.
C., when leaving his mansion house, agreed with the pauper to take care of his garden, and for so doing he was allowed to take the issues and profits of part of it, and to live in a contiguous cottage of the yearly value of 4l.; pauper to continue for a year, unless some other person should previously occupy the mansion, &c., when he was to deliver up the garden. It was held, that as he resided in a tenement not his own, but had the garden as a servant, he gained no settlement; for to do so he must have a residence which might be called his own as a tenant, and where he resides in the character of servant merely, that would not be sufficient so satisfy the words of the statute, “ coming to settle,” Rex v. Shepdham, 3 D. & R. 384. But the point came afterwards before the court, in Rex v. Benniworth, East. 5 Geo. IV., ante, 18., when the court, after taking time to consider, held that where the pauper resided in a cottage as a servant, but had, as part of his wages, the keep of two heifers on his master's farm, which was of the annual value of 10l., he thereby acquired a settlement.
Must reside It is absolutely necessary, however, that the party should forty days. A previous re
reside forty days. A pauper got possession privately moval by force, from the tenant, of a tenement of the yearly value of prevents a
101. 10s. settlement,
After residing in it twenty-nine days, he was forcibly removed, with his family, by the original landlord, aided by some of the parishioners and the overseers of the poor of the parish, and was thereby prevented from residing forty days: he gained no settlement, the residence being insufficient. (1)
The pauper took a tenement at 15l. per annum in St. prison in another parish,
Martin's : five days after he took possession he was arthough te- rested, and carried to a prison in another parish, but his nant's family reside on the
family continued to reside in the tenement for two months, premises, gains the husband remaining in prison. Neither he nor his no settlement. farnily were settled in St. Martin's, for “no settlement
is gained by a residence for a shorter period than forty days. (2)
He must be The pauper must also stand in the relation of tenant tenant to the property forty
to the property during the forty days' residence. A wife days. therefore cannot acquire a settlement by residence in her Residence by husband's life-time, on a tenement taken by him (3); wife.
or by her without his privity (4); neither can her residence, as such, be coupled with subsequent residence as a widow.
Residence as a The pauper hired a house 23d October 1792, entered
The wife and children continued to reside until 11th
(1) Rex v. Llambedergoch, 7 Term Rep. 105. No fraud being found, the court would not enter into that question, as it is a fact which must be expressly stated by the sessions, and cannot be inferred by the court.
(2) Rex v. St. George the Martyr, 7 Term Rep. 466. See also Rex o. Dilwyn, Burr. S.C. 54. But if a Fleet-prisoner rent a house of 25).per ann, within the rules, and live in it, he gains a settlement. St. Margaret's Westminster v. St. Martin's Ludgate, 2 Str. 914. But see post, chap. xxvii., and 54 Geo. III. c. 170. s. 4. ante, 30.
(5) Rex v. St. George the Martyr, 7 Term Rep. 466.
and quitted possession. She gained no settlement by the residence: for the residence of the husband cannot be coupled with that of the widow, because they were in distinct rights. (1) And if it is considered as a new taking by the widow, there must be a residence of forty days after she has obtained credit for the tenement (2), whereas she resided only thirty-three days after her husband's death. (3)
We have seen, that residence must be in the parish in Residence which the tenement lies. But if the party has a tenement, ments in differor tenements, of sufficient value, situated in different ent parishes, parishes, and has resided in both, he is settled where he slept the last night of his occupation, provided he has slept there forty nights in all. And it makes no difference that the tenement in that parish is of the lesser value (4), or only an occasional residence taken for a particular purpose, and that the party's regular home, and the residence of his family, is in the other parish. (5)
The pauper took a farm in the parish of C. for nine years at 261. 5s. payable on the 1st of July. It was agreed he should enter on the arable on the 14th of February, and on the dwelling-house and the rest of the premises on the 13th of May following. He accordingly entered into possession of the land, which was above the annual value of 101., between the 14th February and the 8th of May, repaired the fences, ploughed, and did other acts of spring husbandry. Soon after he agreed with the tenant in possession of the dwelling-house, to take him to board at 1s. a day while he was husbanding the land, and he slept there, at intervals, sixteen nights before the 6th of May,
(1) Per Ashhurst J.
(4) Gratwich v. Shenstone, Burr. S.C. 474. Rex v. St. Mary, Lambeth. 8 Term Rep. 240.
(5) Rex v. St. Mary, Lambeth, supra (4). As to the alternate residence of servants, and of apprentices, see vol. i.
when he received possession of the dwelling-house and brought his wife, family, furniture, and flock thither from another parish, where they had previously been and he had mostly dwelt. He remained afterwards in the farm at C. thirty-six days, when, his goods being taken in execution, he applied for relief to the overseers of C., and agreed to quit the farm. Held too clear to admit of argument, that the pauper came to settle upon his tenement in C. from the beginning of his lodging with the outgoing tenant, which, being joined with his residence after the 6th of May, made above forty days in the whole, and settled him there. (1)
Of 59 Geo. III. č. 50.
59 Geo. III. c. 50.
The statute, after reciting that many disputes and controversies havearisen respecting the settlement of poor people in parishes in England by the renting of tenements, enacts, that from and after the passing of the act, 2d July, 1819, “ No person shall acquire a settlement in any parish or township, maintaining its own poor, in England, by or by reason of his or her dwelling for forty days in any tenement rented by such person, unless such tenement shall consist of a house or building within such parish or township, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land within such parish or township, or of both boná fide, hired by such person at and for the sum of ten pounds a-year at the least, for the term of one whole year; nor unless such house or building shall be held, and such land occupied, and the rent for the same actually paid, for the term of one whole year at least, by the person hiring the same; nor unless the whole of such land shall be situate within the same parish or township, or the house wherein the person hiring such land shall dwell and inhabit; any thing in any act or acts, or any construction of or implica
(1) Rex a. Caton, i Const. Appen. 748. Pl. 1070.