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)

59 Geo. III. c. 50.

SECT. VI.

Of 59 Geo. III. c. 50.

THE statute, after reciting that many disputes and controversies have arisen 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 bona 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, 1 Const. Appen. 748. Pl. 1070.

tion from any act or acts, or any usage or custom to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."

It has been held, that unless a previous settlement was 59 Geo. III. completely gained and established by residence before this c. 50. act passed, it must be regulated by its provisions,

The pauper had resided in and occupied a tenement Residence inat the rent of 67. a-year, in the parish of St. M., for complete when act more than forty days in all, but only for thirty-eight days passed. before the act received the royal assent. The court held, that though it was clear that if the statute had not passed, he would have acquired a settlement in St. M. by his residence and occupation there, yet that he had not done so under the circumstances. For the statute had in view, as appears by the preamble, the preventing of the disputes and controversies which had arisen respecting the settlement of poor people by the renting of tenements: and that object is best attained by giving the words of the enacting part their full and absolute effect, and holding that the only enquiry to be made thereafter should be whether a settlement had been acquired under the old laws before the 2d of July, 1819. (1)

Short as this act is, it may, like some other legislative experiments, give rise to as many legal difficulties as those it was intended to have put an end to. (2)

The following important case has been already decided Tenements upon it :-W. B. hired dwelling-house and garden in 1812,

in the parish N. C., at 6l. 6s. rent, and occupied and paid his rent until his death in 1821. During the last four years, he let one room on the ground floor to a lodger at 17.10s.per annum. It communicated with the yard appurtenant to the house by an outer door, and with the adjoining room by an inner one, of both which the lodger kept the keys. As there

(1) Rex v. St. Mary-le-Bone, 4 B. & A. 681.

(2) As to right of removing tenant where rent 10l. per annum, but yearly value less, see Rex v. Ampthill, post.

taken in the same parish at different

times.

was another outer door, no alteration was made in the W. B. was house while the lodger occupied this room. rated, and paid the rates and taxes for the entire house. After 2d July, 1819, he bona fide hired a piece of garden ground in the same parish for a year, at the rent of 31. 15s., which he paid, and actually occupied it for a year, and until his death. The court held, that W. B., under these circumstances, gained a settlement. Per Abbott, C. J. The question arises on the construction of the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50., which was made for the purpose of restraining the acquisition of settlements by renting tenements. It is a general rule, that acts in pari materia shall receive a similar construction. Before the passing of the act, a party might gain a settlement by taking various tenements at different times. The question is, whether since the passing of the act the tenement must be taken at one rent, and at the same time. The words are, " that no person shall acquire a settlement in any parish or township maintaining its own poor in England, 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 separate and distinct dwellinghouse or building, or of land within such parish or township, or of both, bonâ fide hired by such person at and for the sum of 10l. a-year, at 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." Now by this act it is not sufficient that the hiring should be a tenement of the value of 107. per annum, but the house must be held, and the land occupied, and the rent paid, for one whole year. The first question is, whether the pauper held a tenement within the meaning of the statute. Under the former acts, a tenement might consist of various parcels taken at various times, and there is nothing in this act to alter the old law in that respect. As to the second question, it is to be observed Householder that a different expression is applied to land and to houses. taking lodgers The house is to be held, but the land is to be occupied it may gain a settlement. was probably intended that a party taking lodgers, properly

:

so called, should not be thereby prevented from gaining a settlement. The question is, did the pauper hold the whole dwelling-house? It is said, that the lodger held a part distinct from the rest, so that a burglary committed in that part might, in an indictment, be laid to have been in the dwelling-house of the lodger. I think, however, that that proposition is not established by the fact stated. It is said, that putting the key of the inner door into the hands of the lodger, was the same thing as if there was a brick wall between his and the adjoining room. If, indeed, it had been stated that the key was delivered to the lodger for the express purpose of preventing the communication between the different apartments, there would be more weight in the argument. But the key may have been delivered to him for the purpose of enabling him to enter either way, and if that was the object, then he had not any distinct dwelling-house. I rather infer from the facts stated, that that was the object for which the key was delivered; and if so, then the pauper held the whole house, and it is to be considered as one entire tenement; and in that case a burglary committed in the part occupied by the lodger, must have been laid to have been in the dwelling-house of the pauper. For these reasons I am of opinion, that the pauper gained a settlement in the parish of North Collingham, and that the order of sessions must be affirmed. (1)

SECT. VII.

Of the Proofs necessary to establish a Settlement by occupying a Tenement of the annual Value of 10l. a Year.

Ir will be necessary to prove, 1st. The nature of the Proofs. tenement; 2d, The lawful occupation (2); 3d, An annual value of 107. during occupation; 4th, Forty days' residence in the parish while he occupies.

This proof may depend partly upon written evidence (3), and partly upon parol testimony (4); the rules respecting which will be found in antecedent sections.

(1) Rex v. North Collingham, 1 B. & C. 578.

(2) See Rex v. Culmstock, ante, 41. (2).

Yearly con

ment presumed from the cattle's grazing two or

The nature of the taking seems in most cases immaterial, unless for the purpose of ascertaining the yearly value; or, possibly, in cases affected with the suspicion of fraud. Upon the circumstances from which a yearly taking is to be inferred, the following case has been decided.

A certificated person occupied a house and homestead, tract for agist- and while in the occupation agisted three cows for two or three months in the fields of his landlord. No positive contract for the agistment was proved. The sessions found three months. that the average value of the agistment, reckoned by the year, added to that of the other tenement, exceeded that of 10l. per annum; but that if the value of the agistment was to be taken only for the time the cows were on the land, it would make the whole less than 101. The court were of opinion, that the sessions properly inferred from the fact of the cattle running in the landlord's fields, a contract between him and the owner, and that he was to receive a compensation for it. The term agistment imports a contract between the parties; and as the cattle must have been there either by right or by sufferance, in the absence of contrary proof, the court ought to infer that the cattle were there by right, and that there was a contract between the parties, and the certificate discharged. (1)

Evidence of a

ed agreement inadmissible.

The pauper took a tenement by a written agreement, lost unstamp which was unstamped; being lost, parol evidence of its contents was inadmissible to prove the value of the tenement; for the contract is the very essence of the case, and could not be received without the proper stamp. (2)

(1) Rex v. Croft, 3 B. & A. 171.

(2) Rex v. Castle Morton, 3 B. & A. 588. See also Rippener v. Wright, 2 B. & A. 478.