1844. THE QUEEN 2'. Inhabitants of Under the above agreement, the pauper, Ellis, occupied from Christmas, 1838, to April, 1841, and during the whole of that time underlet a part of the premises to West, who occupied such part at a rent of 5l. 4s. a year. West having been an under-tenant to Ellis of a part of the same premises previously to the making of the above agreement, and having had his furniture distrained upon in consequence of Ellis not having paid his rent to the owner of the premises, he (West) paid his year's rent, which became due in 1839, by a cheque obtained from his (West's) employer, which cheque was handed over by Ellis to Dobell; and Ellis also in that year paid the further sum of 31. 2s. 6d. to Dobell, making together the sum of 81. 6s. 6d. paid during that year on account of the rent which accrued due at Christmas, 1839. During this year Ellis paid no rate whatever. In the course of the second year of the pauper's tenancy, that is to say, from Christmas, 1839, to Christmas, 1840, the under-tenant, West, paid his rent of 5l. 4s. for that year direct to the owner of the premises. In October, 1840, Ellis was rated to a poor's rate for the premises in question, in the sum of 7s. 3d., which rate he duly paid in January, 1841, and subsequently resided on the said premises more than forty days. The question for the Court is, whether the pauper, Richard Ellis, under the above circumstances, acquired a settlement in Cranbrook by payment of rates. If the Court should decide this question in the affirmative, the order of sessions is to be confirmed, otherwise it is to be quashed. Watson and Sir W. Riddell, for the appellants (a).– (a) Before Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Coleridge, and Wightman, Js. That is a 11, s. 6, as The pauper gained a settlement in Cranbrook by pay- (a) Rex v. Bramley, Burr. Sett. C. 75. (b) 10 B. & C. 520. (c) 6 A. & E. 308. (d) 1 Q. B. R. 674. (e) 7 B. & C. 790. (f) 5 B. & Ad. 215. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of pro tanto. [Patteson, J.-We are not told what passed between the landlord and West: the landlord might appropriate the payment as he liked.] No doubt the CRANBROOK. parties may appropriate, but if they do not, the law will. Here no appropriation is found; West was not an agent to make a specific payment, but to pay generally on account; and even an agent of a debtor cannot appropriate a payment to suit his own convenience. If there had been a surety for one year and not for another, the landlord could not have appropriated that payment to the latter year, nor would such payment be a bar to the Statute of Limitations. A constructive occupation has been held sufficient in Regina v. St. Mary Kalendar (a), and at all events this is a constructive payment. Sir W. Follett, Solicitor-General, and Deedes, for the respondents.-The object of the legislature in the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57, s. 2, was to test, by actual payment, whether the tenant was worth 107. a year. The proposition contended for by the appellants amounts to this: that, if a pauper rents a house, and pays one year's rent, and many years after is rated, and pays one rate, he gains a settlement. But there is no evidence that the money here was paid for the year 1840, and, therefore, the Court is not at liberty to find that it was so. It is in distinct terms a payment for the following year. There is no such thing as legal appropriation of payments, except in the case of accounts between parties. [Here they were stopped by the Court.] Lord DENMAN, C. J.-If the sessions wished us to draw an inference from the facts stated, I should say that this was not a payment on accountof the first year's rent. If they did not, they should have found the fact (a) 9 A. & E. 626. expressly. It would be extremely objectionable to send such a case back to be re-heard, as it would invite tampering with the witnesses. 1844. THE QUEEN v. The rest of the Court concurred. Order of sessions quashed. Inhabitants of In the Matter of WHITE. January 18th. bound, at the quarter sessions, in recognisances to keep the peace, is afterwards con victed at the IN this case Butt moved, on behalf of the prosecution, Where a party for a certiorari to bring up a recognisance of the peace entered into by William White, who had been bound over at the Somerset Michaelmas quarter sessions, 1843, to keep the peace, and since convicted at the October petty sessions at Wells, of an assault. The recognisances had of an assault, in been duly returned to the January quarter sessions, order to estreat but no proceedings could be taken on them there, and it was necessary to bring them up to this Court in order to proceed upon them by scire facias. WILLIAMS, J.-You cannot proceed upon them without bringing them up. Rule granted (a). (a) See Regina v. The Justices of the West Riding, (In re Thornton), 7 A. & E. 583. the recognisances, it is necessary to bring them up by certiorari, and proceed thereon by scire facias. 1844. January 20th. THE QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of CUMBERWORTH In the examina tion of a pauper sent by re spondents with an order of removal, it was HALF. ON appeal against an order of two justices for the removal of William Burdett and Sarah, his wife, from the township of Denby, in the West Riding of the county of York, to the township of Cumberworth Half, in the said Riding, the sessions confirmed the order, been bound by subject to the opinion of this Court on the following stated that the pauper had "covenant in denture:"- were sufficient grounds of ap peal stated that these words did not sufficiently describe such a case: The examinations on which the order was made were (so far as was material to the decision of the Court) as follow :- William Burdett, the pauper, said, "When I was about fourteen years old I was put out an apprentice by covenant indenture to Amos Burdett for the term of seven years, to learn the trade of a clothier, and I went to and resided with the said Amos Burdett in Cumberworth Half, under the said indenture, for five years and six months, when my brother, Joseph Morton, purchased my time out, and the indentures were destroyed, and I have never done any act since whereby to gain a settlement." On the hearing of the appeal, as soon as the respondents had opened their case, the appellants objected that the said examination was insufficient on the face of it, and that the order of removal ought to be quashed. The grounds of insufficiency relied on under the grounds of appeal were, that it did not appear, by the said examination, settlement; as whether the said binding was allowed by two justices of the peace, and that it did not appear, by the said examination, exclusively fed either that the money given or contracted for in relation on the growing produce of the to such apprentice was inserted in the said indenture, or tenement as would confer a it did not appear that the cow was to be land. |