1844. May 1st. THE QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of LEEDS. The examina- ON appeal against an order of two justices, dated 13th tion relating to a settlement by March, 1843, for the removal of Matthew Redmayne, renting a tene- and Ann his wife, from the township of Preston, in the ment, under stat. 59 Geo. 3, county of Lancaster, to the township of Leeds, in the c. 50, s. 1, was as follows: "In West Riding of the county of York, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court May, 1820, I became tenant of a house in L. upon a special case. I took the house for a year, at £19. I entered The examination on which the order was founded, as into and resided far as is material, was as follows: in the house in the month of May, and con tinued to reside upon it, with my family, till October, 1821, when I left it. I paid rent for the whole time of my tenancy:"-Held, that the statement did not Matthew Redmayne, the pauper, said, “In May, 1820, I became the tenant of a house, No. 19, Kirkgate, in the town of Leeds. I know not the name of the landlord, but the steward from whom I took it was Mr. Wild, who lived in Leeds. I took the house for a year, at, I believe, £19; but I am not certain whether it was £1 more or less. I entered on and resided in the house in upon the said month of May, and continued to reside it shew sufficient with my family, until October, 1821, when I left it. I ly a compliance with the statute, paid rent for the whole time of my tenancy.” which requires that the rent shall be actu term of one Notice of appeal was given, and the following (amongst ally paid for the other) grounds of appeal served on the respondents: "That the examination is bad and insufficient to supwhole year, at the least, by the port the order, inasmuch as it does not state the house party hiring. therein mentioned to have been a separate and distinct dwelling-house, bonâ fide hired at and for the sum of £10 a year, at the least, and inasmuch as it does not state that such house was held, and the rent for the same actually paid, for the term of one whole year, at the least, by the said M. Redmayne, who is alleged to have been the person hiring the same." On the trial of the appeal, it was contended on the part of the appellants, that the order and examination were insufficient for the above objection. The sessions overruled the objection, and, after hearing evidence in support of it, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. If this Court should be of opinion, that the aforesaid objection ought to have prevailed, the order of removal is to be quashed for deficiency in the examination; if otherwise, the order of removal, and of sessions, are to be confirmed. Cowling, in support of the order of sessions.-It is objected that the examination does not state that the rent was actually paid. The sessions have overruled this objection, and have thereby found the fact, that the rent was paid by the pauper. It cannot be said that he paid a different rent from that which he agreed to pay, and it is not necessary that he should follow the language of the act, if he states sufficient to shew a compliance with it. Regina v. Pilkington (a). Hall, Whigham, and Pashley, contrà.-This case is under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 50, which, providing for the case of settlement by renting a tenement of £10 a year, requires, "that the rent for the same shall be actually paid for the term of one whole year, at the least, by the person hiring the same." Regina v. The Recorder of Pontefract (b) shews the necessity of stating all the statutory requisites. This statement is perfectly consistent with the Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We cannot find a settlement 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of 1844. THE QUEEN V. Inhabitants of stated here, the examination does not shew what rent PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and COLERIDGE, Js., con- curred. May 1st. By stat. 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, to gain a set THE QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of ST. OLAVE, South WARK. ON appeal against an order of two justices, removing s. 6, a person, James Walker from the parish of St. Olave, Southwark, to the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, both in the county of Surrey, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following tlement by pay ment of rates, must be "charged with, and pay his share towards, the public taxes or levies." Where case: The removal was made on the examination of the pauper, shewing a settlement in the appellant parish in grounds of ap- 1818, by renting a tenement. peal alleged that a pauper and paid one or rochial rates or taxes in respect of such house:" -Held, insufficient, because it was not also stated that he was "charged with" such rates or taxes. Of the grounds of appeal, the fourth only was material to this case, and was as follows:: "That the said J. Walker, in or about the month of May, 1821, became tenant of a house, situate &c., and hired the same of a Mr. Garrard, at the yearly rent of £15, and occupied and resided therein for upwards of seven months, and paid one or more of the parochial rates or taxes in respect of the said house so situate &c., and thereby gained a settlement &c." On the hearing of the appeal, the respondents proved the settlement in the appellant parish, upon which the appellants proposed to prove the settlement in the third parish; the respondents objected to the appellants going into their case, because the ground of appeal was insufficient, as not stating that the pauper was ever rated to, or charged with, any parochial rates or taxes. The sessions, however, were of opinion that the statement in the ground of appeal was sufficient, and quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the sufficiency of the fourth ground of appeal. Wallinger (a), in support of the order of sessions.-— The sessions were right in admitting evidence under this fourth ground of appeal. The 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, enacts," that if any person, who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall be charged with, and pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the parish, he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement." It is objected, that the word "charged" is omitted in the ground of appeal, but that omission is not material, if a virtual charging is alleged. That an occupier has been charged to parochial rates, will follow as an inference from his payment of them; and this is such an inference as the Court will draw, Rex v. Pilkington (b); where the Court said, that examinations might state facts, and the justices draw legal inferences from them. [Patteson, J. -There must be a rating of some person in respect of a (a) In this case, Wallinger took a preliminary objection, that the return to the certiorari bringing up the order of sessions varied from the form of the writ. The certiorari called upon the justices to return all documents relating to an appeal between the Inhabitants of St. Olave, Southwark, and St. Mary, Bermondsey, where as the return was made of documents relating to an appeal between the Churchwardens and Overseers of St. Olave, Southwark, and St. Mary, Bermondsey. This, he contended, was a misdescription in the writ of the docu ments to be brought up, and cited (b) Antè, p. 90. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of 1844. THE QUEEN house.] The contrary was held in St. Mary-le-More v. Heavytree (a), where this Court thought the rating of a house, without a rate on the person of the occupier, was ST. OLAVE, Sufficient to make a settlement. He cited, also, Rex v. SOUTHWARK. Rainham (b) and Rex v. Edgbaston (c). [Coleridge, J. v. Inhabitants of How does it appear that any rate was made during his occupation, he was only there seven months? He might have paid the day after he came in.] If premises are obviously rated and occupied, it is a fair inference that the occupier is the person rated, as it is essentially an occupier's tax. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We cannot draw any such inference. PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and COLERIDGE, Js., concurred. Order of sessions quashed. (a) 2 Salk. 478. (b) 5 T. R. 240. (c) 6 T. R. 540. May 2nd. Where an in dictment for forcible entry THE QUEEN v. WILSON and Others. IN Hilary Term(a), Newton applied for a rule nisi calling upon the justices of Gloucestershire, and George Wilfound at the son, William Holtham, and nine others (naming them), quarter sessions had been to shew cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue, quashed by a subsequent ses directed to the said justices, to remove into this Court an indictment for certain forcible entries, assaults, riots, and misdemeanors, whereof the said George Wilson, &c., were, on the prosecution of Augustus Newton, be sions, this Court granted a certiorari to bring up the indictment, in order that the Court might see what had been done upon it at the sessions; it not appearing whether it had been quashed by a regular judgment, so as to enable the prosecutor to bring a writ of error on the judgment. (a) Before Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, and Williams, Js. |