1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of she and her husband's family went to live in the said cottage, and resided there for thirteen years; that her husband was working in another township, and came over to the cottage every Saturday, and remained there CUDDINGTON. till the Monday morning; and so continued to reside, from the Saturday to the Monday, for several years, down to the time of his death. During the whole of this time the yearly rent of 3s. was always paid to the lord of the manor, that she had latterly paid it herself to the agent, and that during the last year the agent had spoken of raising the rent. Upon this evidence the respondents contended that the pauper had a derivative settlement in the appellant township, neither he nor his father having gained any settlement in their own right. The question, therefore, for the opinion of the Court is, whether, under the circumstances stated, the court of quarter sessions was right in deciding that the pauper was settled in the appellant township. If this Court shall be of opinion that he was so settled, then the order of sessions to be confirmed. If the Court shall be of opinion he was not, then the order of sessions to be quashed. Townsend, in support of the order of sessions.-An uninterrupted enjoyment of this property by the father and grandfather of the pauper for more than 70 years, paying a mere acknowledgment in the nature of a chief or quit-rent to the lord of the manor, is evidence from which the Court may draw the inference, that the pauper was entitled to a derivative settlement. In Doe d. Whittick v. Johnson (a), it was held, that, after payment of an unvaried rent for a long series of years, the presumption is, that the rent is a quit-rent, and in an (a) Gow. N. P. C. 173. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of action of ejectment brought by the lord of the manor, a verdict was found for the defendant. The case is cited in support of the same proposition in Woodfall's Landlord CUDDINGTON. and Tenant (a). Rex v. Bitton (b) shews that adverse possession for 20 years will gain such a settlement; and in Rex v. Garway (c) a pauper was held to be entitled to a derivative settlement when his grandfather had built a house on waste lands, and paid no rent for 30 years; although a subsequent acknowledgment of 2s. 6d. to the lord of the manor had been paid by the father of the pauper. Whateley, contrà.-The pauper is not entitled to a settlement by estate. The cottage was built on the waste lands, and the rent paid by the father and grandfather was not in the nature of a prescriptive or immemorial rent, but merely a small annual payment in acknowledgment of the lord's title. The origin of these payments is shewn, and there is no adverse possession; which distinguishes this case from those cited on the other side. In Rex v. Hornchurch (d), it was held, that a grant by the lord of copyhold land, paying a yearly rent of 2s. 6d., which rent was afterwards called a quit-rent, was a purchase within 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, and being within the required value did not confer a settlement. [He was stopped by the Court.] Lord DENMAN, C. J.-It is quite clear that the sessions had not any materials for the decision to which they have come. The origin of these payments is shewn. They amount to an acknowledgment of a tenancy during the whole period; they are not unvaried, and there (a) P. 277, 5th ed. (c) Id. 632. is no ground for saying that the possession was ever adverse, as it was in Rex v. Garway (a). 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and COLERIDGE, Js., concurred. CUDDINGTON. (a) Burr. S. C. 632. Orders quashed. The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of WORTHENBURY. of removal that ON N appeal against an order of two justices, dated 26th It is no objecJuly, 1844, for the removal of Samuel Griffiths from tion to an order the township of Wolverhampton, in the county of Stafford, to the township of Worthenbury, in the county of Flint, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case, the material part of which was as follows: The order of removal commenced thus: "Whereas complaint has been made to us, whose names are hereunto set and seals affixed, being two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the county of Stafford, &c. We, the said justices, upon due proof &c., do adjudge, &c. Given under our hands, &c. "W. Mannix (L. S.) The examinations were signed in the same manner. "To the Overseers &c. "Take notice, that we, &c. do intend at the next general quarter sessions of the peace, to be holden in and for the county of Stafford, to appeal against an order of W. Mannix and George Briscoe," &c. the justices making it, and stated in it to be justices of the county, sign it with the initials of their Christian names. The only material ground of appeal was, "that the order and examination (copies whereof were sent to us) are bad and insufficient on the face thereof." At the trial of the appeal the appellants objected, that the names of the parties who made the order, and before whom the examination was taken, did not sufficiently appear on the face of the order and examination. This objection was overruled by the sessions, who confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court thereupon. If the Court shall be of opinion that the objection should have prevailed, then the order of removal and the order of sessions are to be quashed, otherwise to be confirmed. Whitmore, in support of the order of sessions.-The objection as to one of the justices is removed by the notice of appeal. [Lord Denman, C. J., (stopping him).— One would think that a court which was bold enough to decide such a point might have also had the courage to refuse a case.] Corbett and E. Yardley, contrà.-The names of the justices should be inserted at length; otherwise, in the case of a common name, there would be a difficulty as to service of notice. [Coleridge, J.-Judges' orders are signed with their initials only]. This is not merely an order, but a judgment as to the settlement in question, which may decide future derivative settlements. [They cited Rex v. Evett (a), Rex v. Bowen (b), Rex v. Bennett (c), Rex v. Steventon (d), and the Statute of Coroners, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 83, s. 2.] PER CURIAM (a).-This is clearly sufficient. They state themselves to be justices of the county, which is the material point. Order of sessions confirmed. (a) Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge, Js. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of MANCHESTER. May 28th. ON appeal against an order of two justices of the The examina borough of Preston in the county of Lancaster, dated 22nd February, 1844, for the removal of Ann Molineux from the township of Preston in the said borough to the township of Manchester in the said county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of Court upon a case. this tion of a pauper contained the following state ment of charge ability:-"I the township of time past, and have lived in P. for some am now residing in the work The only question raised was, as to the sufficiency of house in that the statement of chargeability in the examinations. town; I have been and am chargeable to the said township:"-Held, sufficient. Ann Molineux, the pauper, said, "I have lived in now actually. the township of Preston for some time past, and am now residing in the workhouse in that town. I have been and am now chargeable to the said township of Preston." The material ground of appeal was, "that the said examination contains no legal evidence that the said Ann Molineux has been or is now actually chargeable to the respondent township." If this Court should be of opinion that the examination is insufficient on this ground, then the order of removal, and of sessions confirming the same, to be quashed; otherwise to stand confirmed. Cowling appeared in support of the order of sessions, but the Court called on Crompton, contrà.-This case is not distinguishable |