1845.

v.

and slept on the premises during that time; that the land, THE QUEEN independently of the dwelling-house, was worth 60%. a year; and that the said George Liddle, in each of the years during which he occupied the land jointly with Spence, paid his proportion of the rent for it, independently of the dwelling-house, to the amount of 30%.

Inhabitants of
ST LAW.
RENCE,
APPLEBY.

An appeal was entered, and at the trial, on the facts above stated being proved, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the question whether or not the said George Liddle gained a settlement in the parish of St. Lawrence, Appleby, under the renting and occupation in the examination mentioned. If this Court shall be of opinion in the affirmative, then the order of sessions is to be confirmed; if in the negative, to be quashed.

W. H. Watson, in support of the order of sessions.The language of the second section of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57 (a), clearly means that a dwelling-house or building is not to be subdivided, so as to create various settlements; but that land may be subdivided for that purpose, if each portion is of the requisite value. [Here he was stopped by the Court.]

Archbold, contrà.-The settlement relied on by the respondents is by renting a tenement under the 6 Geo.

(a) Section 2 provides, "That no person shall acquire a settle ment in any parish or township maintaining its own poor, by or by reason of settling upon, renting, or paying parochial rates 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,

bonâ fide rented by such person in such parish or township, at and for the sum of 10%. 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 10l. actually paid, for the term of one whole year at the least" &c.

4, c. 57, s. 2; and the question is, whether a joint occupation of land will satisfy that statute. It is submitted, that it will not. That section requires, that, to confer a settlement by renting a tenement, such tenement must consist of a separate and distinct dwellinghouse or building, or of land, or of both, bonâ 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 &c. The respondents have, therefore, to contend, that the words "of land" in the section mentioned are independent of the words "separate and distinct;" and that these latter refer to a "dwelling-house or building" only. [Lord Denman, C. J.-It certainly looks as if the act left it in that way.] The section seems to intend that the occupation shall be similar in all cases; as, in the following sentence, it provides, that "the house, or building, or land is to be occupied under the yearly hiring" &c. Besides, the statute is remedial, and is, therefore, to be construed liberally, and with a view to furthering the remedy intended by it: 3 Rep. 7 b. Its general object was to carry out more effectually the provisions of the 59 Geo. 3, c. 50, which was passed, according to the preamble, in consequence of "the many disputes and controversies which had arisen respecting the settling of poor people, in parishes in England, by the renting of tenements." One of the most frequent of these was in questions of settlements arising out of a joint occupation of one tenement. The object of the statute applies as well when land, as when a dwelling-house is the subject of the tenement. A similar liberal construction of an act (56 Geo. 3, c. 139, s. 2) was adopted in Rex v. Threlkeld (a).

Lord DENMAN, C. J.-The legislature, in the pro

(a) 4 B. & Ad. 229.

1845.

THE QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
ST. LAW-

RENCE,
APPLEBY.

1845.

THE QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of

ST. LAW

RENCE, APPLEBY.

visions of this statute, seems studiously to have avoided the construction for which the appellants contend.

PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and WIGHTMAN, Js., con

curred.

Order of sessions confirmed.

January 25th.

Upon motion for a criminal information

against overseers of the

THIS

THE QUEEN v. JENNINGS and PEXTON.

was an application by the parish officers of Sutton-on-Derwent, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, for a rule calling on the defendants, overseers of the poor of a parish township of Storwood, in the same riding, to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed ducing a pauper against them for alleged misconduct in the discharge of their duty.

for alleged mis

conduct in in

to remove to

another parish,

the Court refused the application, as no circumstances

were shewn re quiring its prompt inter

ference, and left

the parties to

indictment.

It appeared from the affidavit of Wilson Allison, a pauper, that he, with his wife and children, had resided in Storwood, and rented a cottage there of one Webster; that in August, 1842, being unwell and unable to maintain his family, he applied to the parish officers, and was their remedy by relieved by them for one month, and that he again applied for and obtained relief from them in March, 1843. At Midsummer, 1843, he received notice to quit his cottage at the Michaelmas following, Webster stating that the parish had urged him to get Allison out of his house, because he had caused considerable expense to the parish; and on the 22nd of February, 1844, he was turned out of his cottage. The parish officers afterwards took them a cottage in Storwood for a short time, recommending them, however, to go elsewhere, to Sutton. In June, an order was obtained by Jennings and Pexton, the then overseers of the poor of Storwood, for the removal of Allison and his family from Storwood to Sutton; which order was quashed on appeal at the Midsummer Ses

sions. In September, Allison was again examined as to his place of settlement; and another order was obtained for the removal of him and his family to Sutton, which order, he believed, was never served. In October, Allison applied to Pexton for relief, which he received; when Pexton told him he had better go in the night with his family to his wife's relations at Sutton. That Padget, a person in the employ of Jennings, gave them accommodation in his house for a short time; but stated, that he was unable to continue it for fear of incurring the displeasure of his master. That, therefore, they were obliged to leave his house, and went to Sutton.

Pashley, in support of the application.-The facts stated are sufficient to induce the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to grant a criminal information. According to Nolan, "overseers may be punished for most breaches of their duty by information or indictment, notwithstanding that a particular punishment is created by statute, and a specific method of recovering the penalty is pointed out; for their disobedience of the statute is a contempt of the law" (a). The Court has granted criminal informations against overseers in several instances: in Rex v. Herbert (b), for procuring a marriage to change a settlement; in Rex v. Tarrant (c), for procuring a pauper to marry another pauper with child of a bastard; in Rex v. Watson (d), for procuring a soldier to marry a poor woman who was an idiot, and chargeable to the parish. In Rex v. Barrat (e) the reason the Court refused a criminal information was, that, although the parish officers had acted improperly in the discharge of their duty, it was not shewn that they acted from corrupt motives.

1845.

THE QUEEN

v.

JENNINGS.

1845.

THE QUEEN

v.

JENNINGS.

WILLIAMS, J.-The only question here is, whether sufficient reason has been shewn to justify proceeding by criminal information. The Court, generally speaking, as one material ingredient in granting such applications, requires to be satisfied that its prompt interference is requisite to prevent a breach of the peace. That has not been shewn on the present occasion. Or if it had been made out to my satisfaction, that the expenses attending a criminal information would be lighter, so that the parties might more easily obtain redress by information than by indictment, that argument might have had great weight with me. But that is not so; for here, if an indictment were found at the assizes, and removed into this Court by certiorari, and then sent down to be tried as a Nisi Prius record, the expenses even then would be nearly identical. I do not, therefore, see any urgent cause to take this case out of the ordinary course of proceeding, namely, by indictment.

Rule refused.

Jan. 29th.

Where a peer had been arrested by a

warrant of two justices, and

Ex parte Lord GIFFORD and Others.

THIS was an application for a certiorari to remove

into this court a certain recognisance for keeping the peace, entered into by Robert Francis, Baron Gifford, and by Henry Richmond Jones and Frederick Cripps, with two sure- Esquires, his sureties, for the purpose of having it

bound by recognisances

ties to keep the

peace, the

Court refused an application

quashed.

It appeared on affidavit that Lord Gifford, in consefor a certiorari quence of a dispute as to the right to hunt a particular

to bring up the

recognisances, cover, having used threatening language against Tho(on the ground of the justices mas Morland, Esq., of Sheepstead House, in the county having no jurisdiction in

such a case), as the applicant was not in custody; and, in the event of its being necessary to enforce the recognisances, their validity would be tried in another way.