« EdellinenJatka »
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 in. at the rent of 6l. 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, taken in the in the parish N.C., at 61. 6s. rent, and occupied and paid his at different rent until his death in 1821. During the last four years, he let times. one room on the ground floor to a lodger at 1l. 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 101. per annum, but yearly value less, see Rex v. Ampthill, post.
It is a
was another outer door, no alteration was made in the house while the lodger occupied this room.
W. B. was 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. 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, bona 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 101. 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)
Of the Proofs necessary to establish a Settlement by occupy
ing a Tenement of the annual Value of 101. a Year. It will be necessary to prove, 1st. The nature of the Proofs. tenement; 2d, The lawful occupation (2); 3d, An annual value of 101. 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.
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.
Yearly con- A certificated person occupied a house and homestead, tract for agist- and while in the occupation agisted three cows for two or sumed from three months in the fields of his landlord. No positive the cattle's
contract for the agistment was proved. The sessions found grazing two or three months. that the average value of the agistment, reckoned by the
year, added to that of the other tenement, exceeded that of 101. 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 The
took a tenement by a written agreement, lost unstamp. which was unstamped; being lost, parol evidence of its coned agreement inadmissible. tents 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.
Of Settlement by Estate.
Of the Estate necessary to confer a Settlement. An estate is defined by Sir William Blackstone to signify Estate what such interest as the tenant has in lands, tenements, or hereditaments. (1)
The nature of the thing, or property, out of which the In what things. interest which is to confer a settlement must arise, does not seem to have been expressly defined. The reported cases generally respect settlements by estate in land, and it is no where directly considered, whether a settlement can be acquired by an estate in a tenement, as that word has been explained under 13 & 14 Car. II. (2), or in the more extensive denomination of property, called an heredita
The principle upon which these settlements are founded, Estates in inviz. that the party shall not be removed from his own (4), corporeal he
reditaments. but is entitled to the superintendence and care of his property, goes beyond estates in land, and seems to extend this right to all interest in things immoveable, situate within a town or parish, which, as the party cannot take with him to the place of his settlement, he must be allowed to remain where they are, for the purpose of superintending them.
(1) 2 Black. Com. 103.
(4) See Ryslip v. Harrow, Salk. 524. post, 73. (1). Rex. v. Uttoxeter, Burr. S.C. 538. post, 71, (9). Rex v. Aythorpe Rooding, ib. 412. Rex. v. Hasfield, Burr. S.C. 147. 2 Str. 1132. Rex v. St. Nyott's, Burr. S. C. 132. Rex v. Houghton Le Spring, 1 East, 247. Rex v. Staplegrove 2 B. & A. 527.