November in that year. The question was, whether these transactions gave J. W. a settlement at B.?

It was contended in favour of the settlement, that the purchase of the oats passed an interest in the land, and therefore it constituted a tenement. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., observed, that "the word renting was not, indeed, in the stat, of C. II.; but what is found in 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11, shows how the former statute was understood, and that coming to settle in the former was equivalent to renting a tenement in the latter. This case was that of a purchase, and not that of a renting, and therefore could in that way confer no settlement; and Le Blanc, J., added, “that a party, to acquire a settlement by renting, must reside forty days while he holds a tenement of the annual value of 102. Now, even supposing this to be the case of a renting of a tenement, yet his interest in the crop of oats was continually diminishing in value de die in diem; and how does it appear, therefore, that he resided forty days, while he continued to hold a tenement of the value of 101,?" Order quashed (v).

A Renting satisfying the Words, but not the Spirit, of the Statute.] -A contract, on the other hand, may sometimes be legally considered as a bona fide transaction, which satisfies the words of a statute, though not in strict compliance with the spirit which dictated it. As, where the pauper hired a house and land at D. at the yearly rent of 91., which he occupied and paid rent for during several years, from Lady-day to Lady-day. In the beginning of September, he married a widow of the parish of W. who resided in a cottage purchased by her former husband, and which might be of the value of 11. 10s. per ann., and about a fortnight after his marriage, he went and resided with his wife in the said cottage in W. aforesaid; and kept the key of the house in D. till Lady-day following. His wife had never administered to her first husband, nor been admitted tenant to the said premises, nor ever paid any rent for the same. The sessions, being of opinion that the pauper could gain no benefit by the wrongful possession of the cottage, he appearing to be only a casual occupant therein, quashed the order.

But the court above considered the words of the statute as fully complied with, and the settlement to be gained, and quashed the order of sessions (w).

It is not necessary that the tenement should be holden under an

(v) R. v. Bowness, 4 M. & S. 210.

(w) Burr. S. C. 744.

be

agreement in writing; and even if no agreement appears, it may presumed; for, as observed by Ashurst, J., " In order to acquire a settlement by taking a tenement of 101. a-year, it is not absolutely necessary that there should be an express contract for the tenement; it is sufficient if the tenant reside forty days on a tenement of such value with the permission and consent of the landlord for in such case the law implies a taking or contract" (x).

So also the occupation of a cottage for forty days, by the leave of an outgoing tenant, under an agreement with him to pay the landlord the same rent which he, the outgoing tenant, had before done, but without any authority from the landlord, the cottage together with other premises occupied at the same time being worth 107. a-year and upwards, has been holden sufficient to give the occupier a settlement; nothing appearing to show that the former tenant's term had expired, and the law giving him authority to assign his interest (y).

Occupation as tenant at a rent is not essential; it is enough if he occupy as having an interest of his own, and not as servant to another. Thus residence by a curate licensed by the bishop at a yearly salary according to 57 G. III. c. 99, in the rectory house above the value of 101. per annum assigned to him pursuant to that act, for more than forty days before the passing of 59 G. III. c. 50, was held to be such a "coming to settle," within 13 & 14 C. II. c. 12, as conferred a settlement (z). So, though the pauper never resided on any part of the land rented; but in the house of another person (a).

3. Of the Mode of estimating the Value of the Tenement.-It was repeatedly determined, before 6 G. IV. c. 57, that the value and not the rent was the true criterion, according to the words of the statute; and therefore if the rent be only 57., yet as the value may be 107. or 201. or other greater sum, a residence for forty days will consequently confer a settlement. Yet, in ordinary cases, it has been almost as frequently observed by the court, that the rent is a good medium through which to ascertain the value.

Therefore, where the pauper hired a house at Brighton by the week, paying 4s. a-week for the same, which he continued to sleep in, with his wife and family, for three months, and which house was at all times

(x) In R. v. Netherseal, 4 T. R. 258. (y) R. v. Aldborough, 1 East, R. 597. (z) R. v. St. Mary, Newington, 5 B. & Adol. 540. As to operation of a residence for no permanent purpose, or

coming to settle, R. v. Woolpit, 4 Ad. & E. 205; 5 Nev. & Man. 526; R. v. Helsham, 2 B. & Adol. 620.

(a) R. v. Kenardington, 6 B. & Cr. 78; 9 Dowl. & Ry. 72.

of the year of the value of 4s. a-week, if taken by the week, but was found not to be of the value of 107. per annum if taken by the year, the court held that the pauper, by reason of renting such house under these circumstances, did not gain a settlement by virtue of stat. 13 & 14 C. II. c. 12; for though, under this statute, it is not necessary that the tenement should be let by the year, but it may be let by the week, or day; yet those lettings are media for ascertaining the yearly value, and in this case it was expressly found that the tenement was not of the value of 10l. to be taken by the year (e). Many cases to the same effect have been similarly decided.

But if there be no circumstances in the case which import the value to be less than the rent, the rent is good evidence of the value (ƒ). The value of the tenement may be calculated without deducting taxes, rates, and charges, usually denominated tenant's taxes (g), or tithes (h). The value, however, must be with reference to the tenement at the time of taking, not to any thing to be done to it after entry, in order to increase the value. Thus, a piece of land not in itself worth 107. per ann. was made so for planting potatoes by the labour bestowed upon it at the landlord's expense, previous to the contract, and was held, on that account, a tenement of the value of 101. to be let by the year (i).

The same effect followed when the agreement was to take a piece of land by the year, not then of the value of 101., but on condition that it should be made so before the time of entry, which was done, and at the time of entering it was worth the 107. per ann. Held, that the value bore reference to the period when the person began to be in the capacity of occupant (j).

If a tenement be occupied by several persons as partners, and each of them have an interest in it to the value of 10l. per ann. although it be rented in the name of one of them only, they will all gain a settlement by residing thereon forty days (k).

The tenant need not occupy the whole tenement himself, but he may underlet the same, or any part thereof, to another, if he think proper, and this will not prevent his gaining a settlement (7).

If a person residing on a tenement of 101. per annum, be forcibly

(e) R. v. Hellingly, 10 East, R. 41. (f) Kirton and Western, (parishes of), 2 Stra. 1156; post, p. 789.

(g) R. v. St. Paul, Deptford, 13 East, R. 320. See R. v. Thurmaston, 1 B. & Adol. 731, on 59 G. III. c. 50. (h) Reg. v. St. John's in Bedwardine, 8 Ad. & E. 192; 3 Nev. & P. 302.

(i) R. v. Ringwood, 1 M. & S. 381.

(j) R. v. Cramore, 2 M. & S. 132; and see R. v. Aston, 6 M. & S. 54; R. v. Poulton with Fearnhead, 6 M. & S. 252; R. v. Huntsham, 2 B. & Adol. 503; cases of nearly similar facts.

(k) R. v. Seamer, 6 T. R. 554.
(1) Burr. S. C. 571.

prevented from residing thereon for forty days, the court will not decide that he gained a settlement in the parish, unless the order of sessions state, in express terms, that it was done with the fraudulent intent of preventing his gaining such settlement; for the court cannot infer fraud; it must be expressly stated (m).

Thus, where a pauper took a tenement of 107. per ann. in a parish, and after living in it with his family for five days, was arrested and sent to prison in another parish, his wife and children continuing to live in the first-mentioned parish for seven weeks longer, it was held that no settlement was gained in the first parish, either by the husband or wife (n). Since which it has been provided (0), that no person shall be deemed to have gained a settlement by reason of any residence, while he, or she, shall be detained as a prisoner by any civil process, or for any contempt whatever; and that no person shall gain a settlement by reason of any residence provided by a charitable institution, while such person is supported from its funds.

But in order to gain a settlement by forty days' residence on a tenement of the yearly value of 107. the party must have stood in the relation of a tenant to the premises for the whole time under one title; for, as was observed by Lord Kenyon, C. J., in one case, "If a mere residence for forty days irremovable were sufficient to give a settlement, every lodger and every servant residing for that length of time would then acquire a settlement; but in order to gain a settlement by residing on a tenement of the yearly value of 107. the party must stand in the relation of tenant to the property for forty days" (p).

Of the Law as altered by 59 G. III. c. 50:- With a Sketch of the Leading Cases on gaining a Settlement by renting a Tenement between 2d July, 1819, and 22d June, 1825; viz. under 59 G. III. c. 50.]In consequence of the extent of litigation opened by the law affecting settlements by renting a tenement, the statute 59 G. III. c. 50, which passed on 2nd June, 1819, enacted, "That 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 (q) dwelling-house or building, or of land within such parish

(m) R. v. Llanbedergoch, 7 T. R. 105. (n) R. v. St. George the Martyr, Southwark, 7 T. R. 466.

(0) 54 G. III. c. 170.

(p) R. v. Lynn, 5 T. R. 664. This

seems to apply only to a case of renting. See R. v. St. Mary, Newington, 5 B. & Adol. 540; 2 Nev. & M. 357; ante, P. 784. Also, p. 782, and 9 B. & C. 577. (q) Viz. meaning, that the "tenant must

or township, or of both, bond fide hired by such person at and for the sum of 101. 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 the least by the person hiring the same; nor unless the whole of such land shall be situate within the same parish or township wherein the person hiring such land shall dwell and inhabit."

Residence.]-Forty days' residence is requisite in the parish where the whole, or such part of the tenement as is of the value of 107. lies (r); but if the tenement consists of land, such residence may be in a house in the same parish (s).

66

Nature of the Tenement.]—The “ tenement" may consist of a house or building, or land, or both; but may be taken at different times and from different owners (t). If it be a house or building, it must be separate and distinct, so as to exclude questions about the various occupation of rooms: but two dwelling-houses not communicating internally are "separate" buildings, though under the same roof, and with one garret over both (u). So, it may consist of a house and a building, as a shed or stable, if entirely separate from each other (v); or of two dwelling-houses, even under a continuous roof, if having distinct outer doors, without internal communication, and rented at distinct rents (w); though one be underlet and never personally occupied by the party hiring (x).

be unconnected with any other person, and a separate occupier," per Lord Denman, Reg. v. Caverswall, 1 P. & D. 427. Separate and distinct as to any other person," per Patteson, J., in R. v. Wootton Bassett, 1 Ad. & E. 232; 3 Nev. & M. 314; R. v. Usworth, 6 Nev. & M. 811; 5 Ad. & E. 261. So that a joint entry and occupation of any part of the house or building will not suffice, though the pauper pays in all a share of rent amounting to 101., Reg. v. Caverswall, 1 P. & D. 436. There the pauper's husband rented a house at 71., occupied and paid rent and poor's rates for more than a year, and during all the time of that occupation (viz. four years) rented bond fide a building, called a potwork, jointly with E. A., at 157. for part of the time, and 171. for the residue: occupied it jointly with E. A. and paid

a moiety of rent and poor's rates during all the time.

(r) R. v. Pickering, 2 B. & Adol. 267, on similar words in 6 G. IV. c. 57.

(s) R. v. Barham, 8 B. & C. 99; R. v. Wainfleet, id. 229. See R. v. Kenardington (on 13 & 14 C. II. c. 12), 6 B. & Cr. 20; 9 Dowl. & Ry. 72.

(t) R. v. North Collingham, 1 B. & Cr. 578; and see R. v. Ormesby, 4 B. & Adol. 214.

(u) R. v. Macclesfield, 2 B. & Adol. 870, on 6 G. IV. c. 57.

(v) R. v. Tadcaster, 4 B. & Adol. 703; 1 Nev. & M. 466, on 6 G. IV. c. 57; R. v. Gosforth, 1 Ad. & E. 226; 3 Nev. & M. 303, on 59 G. III. c. 50.

(w) R. v. Iver, 1 Ad. & E. 228; 3 Nev. & M. 28; R. v. Wootton, 4 B. & Adol. 232; both on 6 G. IV. c. 57. (x) Ibid.