Page images
PDF
EPUB

by reason of settling upon, renting, or paying parochial taxes for any tenement not being his or her own property, unless such tenement shall consist of a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, bond fide rented by such person in such parish or township, at and for the sum of 107. a year at the least, for the term of one whole year; nor unless such house, or building, or land, shall be occupied under such yearly hiring, and the rent for the same to the amount of 107. actually paid, for the term of one whole year at the least; provided always that it shall not be necessary to prove the actual value of such tenement. The tenement must be of the like nature, viz. separate house or building, or land, or both, hired in the same way for a year, and at the same rent, 107. in order to satisfy 6 G. IV. c. 57, as was required under 59 G. III. c. 50. If a separate house and land are let conjointly for a year, but the times of entering on and quitting them be different, viz. Lady-day and May-day, the occupation of each for a whole year, with payment of rent for a year, makes an occupation of a tenement for one whole year sufficient to confer a settlement under 6 G. IV. c. 57 (t). A like residence for forty days is necessary under both acts (u).

User or Enjoyment of Tenement rented during the operation of 6 G. IV. c. 57.]—No distinction is made by this act, between house or building, and land; but the tenement, whether consisting of one description only, or of both, must be occupied under the yearly hiring (v) for a year ending within the hirer's lifetime (w); though it need not all be occupied by the hirer, and any part may be underlet by him, if he dwell in the rest (x). So the occupation is sufficient, if before the end of the year the tenant locks up the house, leaving some few things in it, and removes with his family to his house in another parish (y).

Payment of Rent.]-Under 6 G. IV. c. 57, the whole year's rent must have been paid, whatever its amount (z); but the consequence being, that payment of 9997. out of 1,0007. the year's rent, would not

[blocks in formation]

(x) R. v. Ditcheat, 9 B. & Cr. 176; 4 Man. & Ry. 151; R. v. Great Bentley, 10 B. & Cr. 520; 5 Man. & Ry. 559,

(y) Reg. v. St. Mary Kalendar (Inh.), 9 Ad. & E. 626; 1 P. & D. 497, S. C. The tenant offered the key to the landlady, but she would not receive it till the end of the year, when the full rent was paid.

(z) R. v. Kibworth Harcourt, 7 B. & Cr. 790; 2 Man. & Ry. 28; R. v. Ramsgate, 6 B. & Cr. 713; R. v. Ashley Hay, 8 B. & C. 27; 2 Man. & Ry. 21.

confer that settlement, while the payment of 107. only, if a whole year's rent, would, it was enacted, on 30 March, 1831, by 1 W. IV. c. 18, s. 2, that where the yearly rent exceeds 107., payment to that amount shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of gaining a settlement under 6 G. IV. c. 57, which section operates retrospectively on hirings of tenements since 22 June, 1825 (a). It seems that payment of the year's rent, after an order of removal executed, is sufficient to confer a settlement since this act (b).

From that day, viz. the passing of 6 G. IV. c. 57, to 30 March, 1831, the year's rent might be paid by any person, and the “person hiring the same" was no longer obliged to pay it himself, as under 59 G. III. c. 50 (c). But this has been altered since 30 March, 1831.

Law of renting Tenement since 30 March, 1831:-viz. under Stats. 1 W. IV. c. 18, s. 1, and 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 66.]—By 1 W. IV. c. 18, s. 1 (which passed 30 March, 1831, and is prospective only) (d), after reciting 6 G. IV. c. 57, and whereas doubts had arisen with respect to the intention of the legislature concerning the occupation of such house, building, or land, (viz. those mentioned in 6 G. IV. c. 57,) by the person hiring the same, and concerning the amount of the rent to be paid and the person paying the same; and whereas it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; it is enacted, that from and after the passing of this act, (viz. 30 March, 1831,) no person shall acquire a settlement in any parish or township maintaining its own poor, by or by reason of such yearly hiring of a dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, as in the said act (6 G. IV. c. 57) expressed, unless such house, or building, or land shall be actually occupied under such yearly hiring in the same parish or township, by the person hiring the same, for the term of one whole year at the least, and unless the rent for the same, to the amount of 107. at the least, shall be paid by the person hiring the same.

Payment of Poor-Rates for a Year requisite.]-And by 4 & 5 W.IV. c. 76, s. 66, from and after 14 August, 1834, " no settlement shall be acquired or completed by occupying a tenement, unless the person occupying the same shall have been assessed to the poor-rate, and

R. v. Dursley, 3 B. & Adol. 465. R. v. Willoughby, 4 Ad. & E. 152. Stated post, p. 796; S. C. 5 N. & M. 457, on 1 W. IV. c. 18.

(c) R. v. Kibworth Harcourt, 7 B. & C. 790. Thus, letting in payments by overseers of another parish in boná fide

relief of pauper, R. v. Tillingham, 1 B. & Adol. 679; R. v. St. Sepulchre, id. 924, and semble payments by distress. See as to this the cases collected 2 Ad. & E. 600; ante, p. 792, note (k), and R. v. Pakefield, post, p. 796.

(d) R. v. Ruthin, 5 B. & Adol. 215.

shall have paid the same in respect of such tenement for one year"(e).

A settlement may still be gained by payment of poor's rates under 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, though the occupier has been assessed and paid them for part of the year only, and though he has let part of the tenement to lodgers since 1 W. IV. c. 18; provided his renting and occupation satisfy the act in force at the time (viz. 6 G. IV. e. 57) (f).

The three modern acts, 59 G. III., 6 G. IV., & 1 W. IV., require the same residence of forty days, and the same hiring and renting for a year of a tenement of the same nature and description; but it having been held, under 59 G. III., that a house might be underlet in part, and under 6 G. IV. that a house or land might be so underlet, the act 1 W. IV. c. 18 seems to have been intended to prevent any such underletting (g).

What Occupation of the Tenement is requisite since 1 W. IV. c. 18 (passed 30 March, 1831).]-To obtain this settlement in respect of a dwelling-house or building, it must be "separate and distinct" within the decisions on these words in 6 G. IV. c. 57, and 59 G. III. e. 50; and the hirer must actually occupy for the year the whole of the house or building which he rents (h). For, if he underlets any portion of it, however small, at however low a rent, for any time, however short, so as by such underletting to confer on another the right to exclusive occupation of that part which is occupied accordingly by the lodger, the hirer of the house has not the actual occupation of it required by 1 W. IV. c. 18, and cannot therefore obtain this settlement (i).

But an innkeeper, by merely taking an inmate, does not exclude himself from a settlement, for the guest's occupation is his (j); and the like is held in the case of a householder letting beds or half beds by the night or week (k), where he has access to and control over the whole house, keeping the keys of all the rooms, and conferring on his

(e) See s. 68 of this act, post, p. 810. which does not seem intended to apply to this species of settlement, though its words are ample enough to embrace it.

(f) Reg. v. St. Mary Kalendar, 9 Ad. & E. 626; 1 P. & D. 497, S. C. Decided on a renting which began after the passing of 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 66. See post, p. 798.

(g) R. v. Ditcheat, 9 B. & C. 183. (h) See per Patteson, J., in R. v. Great Usworth, 5 Ad. & E. 263.

(i) R. v. St. Nicholas, Rochester, 5 B. & Adol. 219; R. v. St. Nicholas, Colchester, 2 Ad. & E. 599.

(j) Per Denman, C. J., 2 Ad. & E. 604,

(k) R. v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 4 Ad. & E. 495.

lodgers no other right than to the use of their beds by night. So it seems that the renter must pay the rent out of his own funds, and have the exclusive occupation, by right, for the year. A party, after hiring a house and lands, at Michaelmas, 1832, for a year, at 307., occupied for the year, but assigned during his occupation all his personal estate soever, in trust to cultivate the lands as long as the crops then grow*ing should remain, and to sell the stock, crops, &c. and receive the amount of the valuation to be made, as between outgoing and incoming tenant, at quitting the land; and the trustee was to be possessed of the monies on trust, first, to pay the expenses, next to pay the rent, taxes, &c. accruing during the continuance of the trusts, and next to pay the pauper's creditors, parties to the deed. During the year the trustee sold the stock, effects, and crops, which were cut and carried off by the purchasers; after which he paid the rent for the year out of the money thus produced. The pauper by himself or his family occupied the house for the rest of the year. Held, that he obtained no settlement, as he had neither paid the rent, nor had an undivided occupation for the year (2).

And it has been held under this act that no settlement is gained by occupying the same tenement for a continuous year, the occupation during part of that year being under one hiring for a year, and during the remainder under another similar hiring (m). If a tenant from year to year lets from year to year, and then gives up his own interest to the landlord paramount by verbal agreement, and the tenant in possession afterwards verbally agrees with the landlord to become his tenant from year to year, such last agreement is a new hiring, and puts an end to the former hiring as under tenant (n).

Payment of Rent, &c. under 1 W. IV. c. 18.]-Pauper hired a house in W. from Michaelmas, 1832, to Michaelmas, 1833, at a yearly rent of 171.; occupied it for the whole year, and on July, 1833, paid half a year's rent, 81. 10s. He continued to occupy till 6th December, 1833, when, becoming chargeable to the parish, he was removed, with his family, to B. The order was appealed against. Pending the appeal, viz. the next day, 7th December, his family returned to their old house at W., as, on the 8th, did the pauper. All staid there till 27th January, 1834. On 11th December, 1833, pauper paid the half

(1) R. v. Pakefield, 4 Ad. & E. 612; adhered to in Q. B. 11 Nov. 1840, Reg. v. Melsonby (Inh.). Ante, p. 792.

(m) R. v. Banbury (Inh.), 1 Ad. & E. 136.

(n) Id.

year's rent due on the preceding Michaelmas, with 87. 10s. which he had borrowed. On 1st January, the appeal was confirmed by the sessions on the merits. On 27th January, pauper and his family again went to B. and were removed back to W. The question was, whether he gained a settlement in W. subsequent to the order of 6th December, 1833? Held, that the pauper had gained a settlement in W. at the time of the payment of the arrear, though after the year had elapsed; for payment being the last requisite to be fulfilled, completed the settlement; and the confirmation of the order of removal showed only, that, as he had not completed a settlement at the time of the order made, he was again removable to W. (0).

Effect of the above Acts on Incomplete Settlements.]-Settlements in progress of acquisition at the time of the passing any of the above acts may be established, if the requisites of the last act be complied with as far as possible, after it comes into operation (p).

SECTION IX.

OF SETTLEMENT BY PAYMENT OF PAROCHIAL TAXES.

THE history of this settlement is curiously diversified. Long and often on the verge of extinction, it has been always revived by the unforeseen result of the various acts intended to destroy it. It originated in 1691, with the enactment (q), that if any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall be charged and pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the parish, he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement. Under this act a settlement was acquired by forty days' residence on a tenement of whatever yearly value, after being rated to any parochial tax, as the land-tax, or the poor or church rate (r), but not a watch rate (s), or assessed taxes (t). But when this kind of settlement was at length limited to

(0) R. v. Willoughby, 4 Ad. & E. 143; N. & M. 457, S. C.

(p) See per Bayley, J., R. v. Ditcheat, 9 B. & C. 182, 183; R. v. St. Nicholas, Colchester, 2 Ad. & E. 599.

(q) 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6.

(r) R. v. Bramley, Burr. S. C. 75; so held on account of the notice of inhabitancy arising by the party having been assessed and paid the rate. Per Bayley,

J., 8 B. & Cr. 663. In R. v. East Teignmouth, 1 B. & Adol. 244; land tax was held one of the parochial rates mentioned in 6 G. IV. c. 57, which includes all levies collected within the parish. See R. v. Ringstead, 7 B. & C. 607.

(8) R. v. Christchurch, London, 8 B. & Cr. 660.

(t) 43 G. III. c. 161, s. 59.

« PreviousContinue »