the place, but in those statutes the word " inhabitants" was the only word used as descriptive of the persons liable to be charged. But in the 43d Eliz. c. 2, several words are used as descriptive of the persons to be taxed, and therefore this word in that act is not to be taken in the extensive sense which has been applied to it in the construction of the statute of bridges, but as meaning only a resident within the parish. And the word "resident," where there is nothing to show that it is used in a more extensive sense, denotes the place where a person eats, drinks, and sleeps, or where his family or his servants eat, drink, and sleep. See Rex v. North Currey, 4 B. & Č. 953; 7 D. & R. 424. Therefore partners resident in one parish but holding premises and carrying on business in another parish, by means of a servant who resides on the premises, are not inhabitants of the latter parish, within the meaning of the 43 Eliz. c. 2, and are not rateable to the poor of that parish in respect of their stock in trade there. Ibid. Fourthly, On whom to be made. Occupiers resid ing in another parish. What is designated by the term "occupier," and who is the occupier who an occupier. intended by the statute, may be learnt by the following cases. And as to the latter, viz. who is the occupier intended, it will be seen that every person occupying that which produces profit, whether to himself or to the person under whom he holds, is the occupier intended by the statute. Jeffrey's case, 5 Co. 66; 1 Bott, 122; 1 Nol. P. L. 72.-W. J. had and occupied or received rent for thirty acres of land in H., but was himself an inhabitant of C., in the same county, and never did inhabit in H. He was assessed to the church rate of H. at so much per acre for his land there. And upon application to K. B. for a prohibition to stay proceedings against J. in the spiritual court for payment of the assessment, it was resolved, that although the house he dwelt in was in another parish, yet as he had lands in H. in his proper possession and manurance, he was in law a parishioner of H. That by manuring lands in H. he was by that resident upon it, and was therefore a parishioner of H., as to this purpose. But when there is a farmer of the same lands, the lessor shall not be charged for them in respect of his rent; and see Burn's Eccl. Law, 8th edit. by Tyrwhitt, vol. I. p. 350, n. (9). A corporate body is also rateable, as will be seen in the case of Rex Corporate body. v. Gardner and others, post, 54; Rex v. Commissioners of Salten Sluice, 4 T. R. 730. And in Rex v. Aberaven, 5 East, 453; 1 Nol. P. L. 149, 3d edit.; where the question was, whether a corporation or certain individuals were rateable? It was not doubted that a corporate body might be rated. The farmer or occupier, by whatever tenure he holds possession, shall pay this tax, and not the landlord, who is never to be taxed for his rent, for then the landlord would pay twice. Rex v. Bell, 7 T. R. 598; Lord Bute v. Grindall, 1 T. R. 338. The 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 19, after reciting, that "whereas in many parishes, and more especially in large and populous towns, the payment of the poor's rates is greatly evaded, by reason that great numbers of houses within such parishes are let out in lodgings, or in separate apartments, or for short terms, or are let to tenants who quit their residences, or become insolvent before the rates charged on them can be collected; and it hath been found, that in many instances the persons letting such houses do actually charge and receive much higher rents for the same, upon the ground and expectation that the occupiers thereof cannot be effectually assessed to the poor's rates, and will not be charged with or required to pay such rates, and do thus obtain an undue advantage to themselves; and by means of the premises the other inhabitants of such parishes are unjustly compelled to pay much more than their fair and due proportions of the charges of relieving and maintaining the poor; for remedy thereof, enacts, that after the 1st of January, 1820, it shall be lawful for the inhabitants of any parish, in vestry assembled, and they are hereby empowered, to resolve and direct, that the owner or owners of all houses, apartments or dwellings in such parishes, being the immediate lessor or lessors of the actual occupier or occupiers, which shall respectively be let to the occupiers thereof at any rent or rate Occupier to pay, and not landlord. Power now to rate owners of certain houses, instead of the occupiers. Fourthly, On whom to be made. Goods of occu piers may be disto the amount of the rent actually trained for rates due. Occupiers paying rates empowered to deduct the amount out of their rent. Receivers in cer rated as owners. not exceeding 201., nor less than 67. by the year, for any less term than one year; or on any agreement by which the rent shall be reserved or made payable at any shorter period than three months, shall be assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor, for in respect of such houses, apartments, or dwellings, and the outhouses and curtilages thereof, instead of the actual occupiers; and the inhabitants so assembled in vestry may, and they are hereby authorised from time to time to rescind, renew, vary, and amend every resolution and direction as they shall see occasion, so as no such resolution or direction shall extend to assess or charge the owner of any house, apartment, or dwelling, which shall, with the out-houses and curtilages thereof, be let at a greater rent than 207., or less than 67., as aforesaid; and the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of every such parish are hereby empowered and required to carry into effect all such resolutions and directions of the inhabitants in vestry assembled; and in pursuance and execution thereof, in all rates to be by them made for the relief of the poor, to assess by a fair and equal pound rate the owner or owners, being the immediate lessor or lessors of the actual occupier or occupiers, of every house, apartment, or dwelling to which such resolution and direction shall extend, for, or in respect of the same, according to the actual rent at which every such house, apartment, or dwelling shall be let, after making a reasonable deduction from such rent, not exceeding in any case one-half of the same; and upon non-payment of the sum or sums so to be assessed, the same may and shall be levied upon, and the payment thereof be enforced against, such owner and owners, lessor and lessors, so to be assessed, and his and their goods and chattels, in like manner as rates for the relief of the poor may by law be levied and recovered, and the payment thereof enforced, upon and against any actual occupier on whom the same are charged. S. 20. Provides, that the goods and chattels of every occupier of any such house, apartment, or dwelling, which shall be found in and about the same, shall be liable to be distrained, and sold for raising so much of any such rate or assessment being in arrear, as shall have become due during the occupancy of the person or persons whose goods and chattels shall be so distrained, (to be ascertained in a summary way by the justices granting the warrant of distress), so that in no case any greater sum be raised by distress of the goods and chattels of any such occupiers, than shall, at the time of making such distress, be actually due from such occupier for rent of the premises on which such distress shall be made: Provided also, that every Occupier who shall pay any such rate or rates, or upon whose goods or chattels the same or any part thereof shall be levied, shall and may deduct the amount of the sum which shall be so paid as levied, out of the rent by him or them payable; and such payment shall be a sufficient discharge to every such occupier for so much of the rent payable by him as he shall have paid, or as shall have been levied on his goods and chattels, of such rate, and for the costs of levying the same. S. 21. Provides, that every person receiving or claiming the rent of any tain cases may be such house, apartment or dwelling, for his or her own use, or receiving the same for the use of any corporation aggregate, or of any landlord or lessor who shall be a minor, under coverture, or insane, or for the use of any person who shall not be usually resident within twenty miles from the parish in which any such house, apartment, or dwelling shall be situated, shall for this purpose be deemed and taken to be and shall be rateable as the owner Persons rated as owners may appeal; vestries. thereof. S. 22. Provides, that every person to be rated as the owner of any such house, apartment, or dwelling, who shall think himself or herself aggrieved by any such rate, shall have such and the like remedy by appeal against the and may vote in same, as any other person thereby rated; and every person so rated shall be entitled, as an inhabitant of the parish in and for which he shall be assess to be present and to vote in every vestry or meeting of the inhabi thereof, for the execution of the laws for the relief of the poor, or fo consideration of any matter or question in relation thereto, in like manne the inhabitants of the said parish. No owner, not S. 23. Provides, that nothing in this act contained shall extend to gi, any power or authority to assess the owner (not being the occupier) of any house, apartment, or dwelling, in any city, borough, or town corporate, in which the right of voting for the election of members to serve in parliament shall depend upon the assessment of the voter to the poor's rate, or to vary or affect the manner of assessing and charging any of the inhabitants or occupiers of houses, lands, or tenements, within any such city, borough, or town corporate. Fourthly, On whom to be made. being an occu pier, to be rated, in places where the right of voting for members to serve in parlia the rating. The reason why the occupier in general is to be so charged is, that the ment depends on poor rate is not a charge upon the land, but upon the occupier in respect of the land. Case v. Stephens, Fitzg. 207; 1 Nol. P. L. 71. Of every Inhabitant.] Rex v. The Churchwardens of Weobly, 2 Str. 1259. The Court refused to grant a mandamus, directing them to insert particular persons in the poor rate, upon affidavits of their sufficiency, and being left out to prevent their having votes for parliament men: for that the remedy was by appeal, and this court never went further, than to oblige the making the rate, without meddling with the question, who is to be put in or left out? of which the parish officers are the proper judges; subject to an appeal. By Sir Anthony Earby's case, 2 Bulstr. 354; 1 Bott, 124; 1 Nol. P. L. 71; it was determined that no inhabitant is to be taxed by a parish in regard of any estate he hath elsewhere in any other town or place, but only in regard of the visible estate he hath in the town where he doth dwell. The Court of K.B. will not decide who should be inserted in the rate, and who should not. Inhabitant not to in another parish. be rated for estate Lodger or stall And by Holledge's case, 2 Roll. Rep. 238; 1 Bott, 123; it was determined that the lessee of a stall in a market town, who came there weekly to keeper. the market to sell his wares, was not rateable to the repairs of the church; and that if a man take up his lodging for a week in a town, he shall not be so charged or to such like taxes. Rex v. St. Mary the Less, Durham, 4 T. R. 477; 1 Bott, 120; 1 Nol. P. L. 171, 177. Upon an appeal for being rated for the whole instead of a part of a house, the sessions amended the rate, and also stated, that the appellant purchased the premises and repaired them, but neither he nor any other person resided therein, except as hereafter mentioned, but he kept the key. In one of the rooms the appellant kept a lathe for his amusement, and had sometimes a fire in that room, and three chairs and a table; and in another room he kept corn for his horse; and he also occupied the garden, worth 40s. a-year, and the gardener sometimes put his flower-pots, shrubs, &c. and some of his working tools, into another part of the dwelling-house, where other lumber was also put, but no person had ever slept or lodged in the house, nor had any furniture been kept there, (except as above.) appellant, out of charity, had permitted a poor man and his wife to live rent free in the kitchen, between which and the rest of the house the door of communication was stopped up. The stable had not been for upwards of two years used for any other purpose than as a dog-kennel. By the Court. As this person occupied the garden and part of the house, his servants other parts, and a poor man another part, but those occupations were not distinct from his own, he ought therefore to be rated for the whole, for it would be attended with great inconvenience to have to enquire in each particular case what rooms of a house the owner occupied before he could be rated. The In Rex v. Aberystwith, 10 East, 354; 1 Nol. P. L. 172. The appellant, being surgeon of a militia regiment, was occasionally absent from home, and left an assistant in a part of his house: his wife and daughter also were absent, and the assistant had only the use of the shop, the remainder of the house being completely parted off from it. The garden was taken care of by a person paid by the appellant, and the person with whom the key of the house was left, permitted a friend of the appellant's and his servants to lodge there. The house was always ready for the appellant's return. The Court decided that such person was rateable for the whole house, for that he must be taken to have been, under these circumstances, the occupier of the whole house. If the owner of a house occupy a part thereof only, but his servants occupy other parts, and no one house but a poor person permitted charity, the owner is rateable whole. reside in the to do so out of as occupying the Who shall be said to be a Beneficial Occupier, and, as such, to be rateable Who a beneficial to the Poor Rate.] In Rex v. Waldo, Cald. 358; 1 Bott, 166; 1 Nol. occupier. Fourthly, On whom to be made. A person who builds an alms P. L. 184. It appeared that Mr. Waldo, about sixteen years before, pulled down a house for which he was rated to the poor eight guineas a year, and built on the same spot a new one, in which ten poor girls were educated, maintained, and brought up on his charity; he provided a woman to superhouse is not rate. intend and instruct them. She and the ten girls were the only inhabitants, and the house was solely appropriated for this purpose; Mr. W. was rated for this house. Lord Mansfield, C. J. Mr. W. makes no profit of this building; and it is sufficient that this is so in fact, and the profit is in fact here applied to public and charitable uses. able, if no profit be made of it. Persons living on charitable foundation for their own benefit, are rateable. The preceding was a case where the person dedicating the property to charitable purposes, and making no profit of it, was held not rateable for it. In another class of cases the question has been, Whether the occupants themselves of such property were rateable? Rex v. Munday and others, 1 East, 584; 1 Bott, 223; 1 Nol. P. L. 186. In this case it appeared, that the persons rated were the objects of a charitable foundation, in the actual occupation of the alms-house and charity lands, and of certain stock upon the same (being the increase of stock originally given with the house, &c. by the will of the founder), together with a certain wood, which they were bound to fence at their own charges; and also that they were liable to be dismissed whenever they infringed upon the rules of the foundation; and that they were maintained solely by this charity. Under these circumstances, the Court held that these persons were justly rated; for that the 43 Eliz. c. 2, is general, the rate for the relief of the poor being to be levied upon every occupier of lands, houses, &c.: and there is no exception of lands devoted to charitable purposes. And that in the present case there was a beneficial occupation. Rex. v. Green and others, 9 B. & C. 203. Upon an appeal by the defendants, widows, inhabitants, and occupiers of certain houses and premises in the parish of Lee, in the county of Kent, against a rate or assessment made for the relief of the poor of that parish; the sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the following case. The master and warden of the Merchant Tailors of the fraternity of St. John the Baptist, in the city of London, are and have long been patrons of a charitable establishment for the relief of the widows of poor freemen of the company of Merchant Tailors. About three years ago, the company purchased land in the parish of Lee, whereon they erected thirty alms-houses, for the reception of such poor widows. The appellants are poor women, and are resident in the alms-houses as alms-women and objects of the charitable establishment, and pay no rent for the same, and are also removable at the pleasure of the master, wardens, and court of assistants of the company of Merchant Tailors. The land upon which the almshouses are built, comprising about two acres, is the freehold property of the Merchant Tailors' company; and the same was purchased, and the almshouses erected and built thereon, at the sole expence of the company, out of their corporate fund. Before the purchase of the land as aforesaid, the same was rated on the occupier thereof at the rate of 21. 5s. per annum, and the parochial rates were regularly paid in respect thereof upon such rating. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the defendants were liable to be rated for the relief of the poor of the said parish? The case having been argued by counsel against the rate; Bayley, J., said, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this property is rateable. The statute of the 43 Eliz. c. 2, enacts" that the rate shall be imposed upon every occupier of lands, houses, &c." It has been made a question in several cases whether a person residing in a house used for charitable purposes is liable to contribute to the relief of the poor. In Rex v. Catt, 6 T. R. 332, it was decided that the master of a free school appointed by the minister and inhabitants of a parish under a charitable trust, occupying a house and garden belonging to the school, was rateable, although they were held by him as a recompence for teaching, he being a beneficial occupier. Lord Kenyon there says, "to the authority of the cases cited I subscribe my assent. They proceeded on the grounds that there was no occupier. In Rex v. Waldo, Cald. 358, the rate was held to be bad, because there was no occupier; the poor children who were placed there for education could not be considered as occupiers, neither could the women Fourthly, On whom to be made. servants who superintended them. That case could not be distinguished from that of St. Luke's Hospital, where the rate was also quashed, because there was no beneficial occupier. But when a case arises where a person is found to be the beneficial occupier of a house, he must be rated, though the house be appropriated to charitable purposes. As long as Richmond park continued in the hands of the king, it was not rateable; but when the Property in hands ranger made profits of it, and beneficially occupied it; it was held to be of the king, not rateable in his hands. So if this person had been put in merely to look rateable. after the pupils, and had not occupied the house, he would not have been rateable; but it appears that he is the beneficial occupier of this house and garden. By the old land-tax act, certain property given for charitable purposes is exempted from that tax: but there is no such exemption in the acts respecting the relief of the poor." In Rex v. Munday, 1a East, 584, the objects of a charitable foundation, in the actual occupation of an almshouse, were held to be rateable. That case is not distinguished from the present in point of principle. There they were rated for the alms-house and lands, in the sum of 24. 5s. and the Court held that they were rateable for the house and lands; they must, therefore, have been considered as occupying that house rent free. It is true that in this case the objects of the charity are described as poor persons, but there is no distinction in the statute between poor persons and others. If they are occupiers of property from which they derive a benefit, they are rateable. Mr. Nolan, in his Treatise on the Poor Laws, p. 188, after stating the authorities upon this subject, says, "the distinction, therefore, as to where charities are rateable, and where they are not so, seems to depend upon this: whether there is anybody who can be rated as beneficial occupier." There was therefore no ground for the appeal. Littledale and Parke, J., concurred. Order of sessions confirmed. There is another class of cases in which the question has arisen upon the rateability of hospital lands, and the hospitals themselves, which have been determined upon the same principle, viz. Whether there be a beneficial occupation or not? are rateable. In 2 Salk. 527; 1 Bott, 125; by Holt, C. J., hospital lands are Hospital lands chargeable to the poor, as well as others; for no man by appropriating his lands to an hospital can exempt them from taxes to which they were subject before, and throw a greater burthen upon his neighbours. In Ayre v. Smallpeace, 1 Bott, 131; 1 Nol. P. L. 154, 178; it was decided that the comptroller of Chelsea college, residing in the college, was rateable to the poor of the parish, for having apartments distinctly and separately to his own use. But in the case of St. Luke's hospital for lunatics, 2 Burr. 1053; 1 Bott, 132; 1 Nol. P. L. 177, 184; it appeared, that certain lands were demised to certain lessees for the purpose of erecting an hospital for lunatics: that 29 houses standing upon these lands, were pulled down, and the hospital erected; that the whole hospital was divided into cells for the lunatics, offices for their sustentation, &c., and apartments for the servants who were hired to attend them: and that the whole was supported by voluntary contributions; and that J. M., one of those who were rated, was the principal hired servant, living in the hospital, and that the others who were rated had not nor could have any benefit from the possession or occupation thereof.-Lord Mansfield, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. He said, cases of this kind must depend on the nature of the respective hospitals. That proprietors of lands might convert them into a state in which they could not be rated to the poor. That nominal trustees could not be rated; that servants could not be rated excepting for their own particular apartments, and it was not here stated that there were any such; and that the objects of this charity certainly could not. That, therefore, as no occupier could be found to be rated, there could be no rate at all. In Rex v. St. Bartholomew's the Less, 4 Burr. 2435; 1 Bott, 139; 1 Nol. P. L. 160; it appeared that houses were pulled down, and upon the site of them several buildings were erected, and an area was inclosed for the use of the hospital. The mayor and commonalty of London, (being the gover The officer of a for the apartment he inhabits in the college. Those parts of a lunatic hospital which are appro college is rate priated to its particular objects are such as are occupied by others vants who attend (excepting serfor their liveli hood), are rate not rateable, but able. The rate must be charged upon |