« PreviousContinue »
Rex v. Ampthill, 2 B. & C. 847; 4 D. &. R. 447; 2 D. 8. R. Mag. Ca. 297. Seventhly, Order made on the 5th day of August, 1829, for the removal of J. Apsley, Of settlement from St. Botolph to Ampthill, confirmed. Case: The pauper, a ropemaker,
by renting a came at Midsummer, 1822, to reside in a house in St. Botolph; he had hired it of one Mitchell, for 101. a year; he put his own furniture into it, worth 13. The rent, &c. 151. or 161.; he continued to live in it above a year, and in July, 1823, being the rent must be much distressed, he applied to the parish officer of St. Botolph for relief, paid before any who refused to give him any, but afterwards, in obedience to the order of a
order of removal
made. magistrate, gave the pauper 14s., on the 31st of July. The day after this relief was given, Mitchell called for his rent of 101., but gave the pauper a fortnight to pay it. On the 5th of August, the pauper was removed to Ampthill. He then applied to Furze, an auctioneer, to buy his furniture, to enable him to pay his rent. Furze went to Cambridge, valued it at 131. 35., (exclusive of his tools, which were worth 5l.), and agreed to buy them for iol., which he paid to the pauper, who kept the key of the house all the time, and returned to it about the 14th of August, on which day Mitchell had sent a person to distrain for the rent, but no distress was taken, because the bailiffs, Furze, and the pauper, went together to Mitchell, and the rent was paid by the pauper with the 101. he received from Furze. Another auctioneer had been employed to sell some of the furniture, under the direction and according to the inventory of Furze, and sold it for 3l. 13s., and after this sale the remainder of the furniture and the tools might be worth 61.; without the tools, the remaining furniture would be worth 1l. The sessions decided that the house was not of the annual value of 101.-- Bayley, J., after adverting to other points in this case, for which see post, said, I am of opinion, also, that on the 5th August, 1823, when the order of removal was made, the pauper had not acquired any settlement in St. Botolph. The 59 Geo. III. c. 50, introduces new provisions with respect to the gaining of a settlement by renting a tenement. Before that statute, any person renting a tenement of the annual value of 101., and residing on it forty days, obtained a settlement; but that statute enacts, that no person shall acquire a settlement by reason of dwelling for forty days, in any tenement rented by such person, unless such tenement shall be bona fide hired by such person, at and for the sum of 101. a year at the least, for the term of one whole year, nor unless it shall be held, and the rent for the same actually paid, for the term of one whole year at the least, by the person hiring the same. Now in this case the pauper took the tenement at Midsummer, 1822, for one year ; the year expired, and the rent became due and payable at the expiration of that time; and if the pauper had made a legal tender of the rent upon the premises before sun-set, or the last hour of the day when it became due, and had been able to shew that he was always afterwards ready to pay it, possibly such a tender might have been considered in point of law as equivalent to payment. But in this case he had neither paid the rent, nor done any thing which, in point of law, can be considered as payment, at the time when the order of removal was made. He had not done what was requisite, in order to give him a settlement, by the renting of a tenement, according to the provisions of the 59 Geo. III. c. 50. The order of removal, then, was a valid order at the time when it was made, and the subsequent payment of the rent cannot affect it. I am, therefore, of opinion, that in this case, the pauper, by having applied for relief from the parish in July, 1823, and having received that relief under an order of magistrates, was then actually chargeable, and therefore removable, under the 35 Geo. III. c. 101 ; and I am also of opinion, that when the order of removal was made, he had not acquired any settlement in St. Botolph, because be had then neither paid a year's rent, nor done any act which, in point of law, can be considered as equivalent to payment.— Holroyd, J. A party, in order to gain a settlement, by renting a tenement, is required, by the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, to do certain things which were not requisite before. One of the things required is, that there should be a payment of one year's rent by the tenant to the landlord. Here the year's rent had become due and payable at Midsummer, and on the 1st of August, the landlord gives the pauper a fortnight's time to pay it, and before it is actually paid, and before
The whole rent
and a distress for
less than the
Seventhly, the pauper had done any act which the law considers equivalent to pay. Of settlement ment, the order of removal was made. At that time, then, the pauper had by renting a not gained any settlement in St. Botolph. It is, therefore, unnecessary to
consider, whether the finding of the justices that the annual value of the 13. The rent, &c. tenement was less than 101., is material or not. I am of opinion, that the
subsequent payment of rent does not, by retrospective operation, give the party a settlement in St. Botolph, at the time when the order of removal was made.-Littledale, J. It is unnecessary in this case to decide the question, whether, in opposition to the contract of the parties, any other value than the rent actually payable can be set up, because, since the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50, no settlement can be gained until a year's rent is actually paid. Now in this case the order of removal was made on the 5th of August, and the year's rent was not paid until the 14th. The subsequent payment of the rent cannot, by retrospective operation, give him a settlement at the time when the order of removal was made, and therefore the pauper had not gained any settlement at that time, and having then become actually chargeable, he was properly removed. Order of sessions confirmed.
Rex v. Ramsgate, 6 B. &. C. 713. G. Sweetman was removed from must be paid.
Ramsgate, to St. Lawrence. Order quashed. Case: In April, 1825, the Payment of part, wife of the pa iper hired a house in St. Lawrence for one year, at a rent of the residue, pro
15l., payable quarterly. The pauper occupied it for the year, and his wife ducing more paid 6l. 158. of the rent. Soon after the year, the landlord distrained for altogether than ten pounds, but
the remaining rent, and received 4l. 17s. 6d., making the total rent received
11l. 12s. 6d.—Bayley, J. It is very desirable in all cases to adhere to the entire stipulated words of the act, giving to them that sense which is their natural import, in year's rent, will
the order in which they are placed. The 59 Geo. III. c. 50, enacts (he then read it). That statute, therefore, required that the rent (whatever its amount might be) should be paid for the term of one whole year. But as that statute applied only to settlements which might be gained by reason of renting a tenement, a settlement might still be gained by paying parochial rates, in respect of a tenement, of the annual value of 101., without complying with the requisites of that statute, and that was the cause of much litigation. The 6 Gev. IV. c. 57, was passed to remedy that inconvenience, and it recites
, (he here read the recital and enactments; and added,) It is very material to attend to the collocation of these words, “ for the term of one whole year at the least.” They are the last words of a sentence, and, according to grammatical construction, apply to both branches of the sentence. It is contended that they do not apply to the latter branch, “the payment of rent," but that the words, " and the rent for the same to the amouni of 101.," ought to be construed as if they were in a parenthesis ; but I cannot collect from the recital in previous provisions of the act that they ought to be so read. I think they ought to be construed according to the plain import which they bear, and the order in which they are placed. If the legislature had intended that it should be sufficient to pay rent to the amount of 101., the words " for the term of one whole year at the least,” should have immediately followed the words relating to the occupation. It is true, that the words to the amount of 101. a year at the least,” create some difficulty, but that difficulty is not such as to warrant us in construing them as if they were placed in an order different from that in which we find them. Taking them in that order, their application is not confined to one branch of the sentence. Undoubtedly it will follow from this construction, that if a person rent premises at a high annual rent, he will not gain any settlement, unless he pays the whole amount of one year's rent. On the other hand, if the other construction were adopted, a person who rented premises at 15l. per annun, and resided three years on the premises, would gain a settlement by paying 101. on account of one year's rent. But I cannot think that was intended: upon the whole, I am of opinion, that the rent actually reserved must be paid for the term of one whole year at the least. The pauper, not having done this
, gained no settlement in St. Lawrence.-Holroyd, J. I think that the words ** for the term of one whole year at the least," must be construed according to their nature and import in the order in which they stand in the act of parliament; and so construing them, it appears to me that the rent, which must amount to 101. at least, (but which may exceed that sum,) must be Seventhly, paid for the term of one whole year at the least.-—Littledale, J., concurred. Of settlement Order of sessions quashed.
by renting a Rex v. Ashley Hay, 8 B. & C. 27; by the name of Ashley-de-la-Hay, 2
teneinent. M. F R. 21; i M. R., Mag. Ca. 273. Order of removal of John Sneap, 13. The rent, &c. from Ashley Hay to Mugginton ; quashed. Case : At Lady-day, 1825, the Same point under pauper hired a farm at Ashley Hay by the year, at the rent of 541. per 6 Geo. 4. annum, payable half-yearly. He held and resided upon the farm for more than twelve months, and he paid rent on account of the same to the amount of 401.; but he did not pay a whole year's rent for the same prior to his becoming chargeable to, and his being removed by Ashley Hay. He was, prior to the 22nd June, 1825, charged in respect of the farm in two poor assessments, and with the public levies or taxes of Ashley Hay; and applications were made to him for payment of such levies or taxes prior to the 22nd June, 1825, but he did not pay the same till after the 10th July, 1825. -Lord Tenterden, C. J. I entertain no doubt in this case ; the more particularly as there has already been one express decision upon the point which it raises. In order to arrive at the true construction of this act of parliament, which it is contended was not done in the case of Rex v. Ramsgate, it is necessary to consider the state of the law when this act was framed, and the object which the legislature had in framing it. By the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50, it is quite clear that no person could acquire a settlement by renting a tenement, unless the whole rent for one year was actually paid ; and, therefore, the only question is, whether any alteration in that respect was intended to be, or has been effected, by the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57. The recital states, that inconveniences had been found to exist in consequence of the settlement of the poor being made to depend upon the annual value of tenements which they have rented, or upon the annual value of tenements in virtue of which they have paid parochial rates. The recital, therefore, clearly applies to“ the annual value” only; and the enacting clause, after repealing the former act, and then repeating its words, except so far as it mentions the payment of parochial rates, concludes by declaring, that no person shall acquire a settlement by reason of renting a tenement, unless the rent for the same, to the amount of 101., be actually paid, for the term of one whole year at the least. The true construction of these latter words, in my opinion, is, that a year's rent, which shall not be less than 101., but without reference to its being more than 101., must be paid, in order to entitle the party to a settlement. It is true, the words “ to the amount of 10l.” were not inserted in the former act; it is unfortunate that they have crept into the present act, and they have probably done so through mistake or inadvertence : but they do not appear to me to alter the spirit and meaning of the enactment. I think the passage may be read as if those words were not in it; that they may, in fact, be rejected as surplusage. This heing so, the present case is governed directly by that of Rex v. Ramsgate ; no settlement has been acquired in Ashley Hay, and the order of sessions, quashing the order of removal from that township, must be quashed. The other judges concurred. Order of sessions quashed.
Rex v. Carshalton, 6 B. $. C.93 ; 9 D. 8. R. 132 ; 4 D. S R., Mag. Ca. 249. A person hiring Charlotte Long was removed from Carshalton to Wandsworth. Order quashed. ten pound teneCase: T. Long, the husband of the pauper, at Lady-day, 1824, came to reside ment for more in a house at Carshalton, which he had hired of his father-in-law, by the year,
than a year, and, at the rent of 14. He put his own furniture into the house, and continued the rent is paid to reside there until July, 1825, when he died in possession. During his out of the prolife-time, no more than 25s. was paid by him on account of the rent. His ceeds of the sale widow, after his death, continued to reside in the house until September fol- gains no settlelowing, when the landlord put in a distress, under which he seized the fur- ment, either on; niture and goods put in by T. Long, which were purchased by the landlord. c. 50, or the 6 The following was the receipt, " Received from Mr. Savage, on advance Geo. 4, c. 57. of goods, 121. 15s., for balance of rent due from T. Long, to Midsummer, 1825.” Signed.- Abbott, C. J. The order of sessions must be quashed. The question is, whether the pauper had a derivative settlement from her husband; or in other words, whether the husband had acquired a settlement
after his death,
Seventhly, in Carshalton at the time of his death. I think he had not, whether we conOf seltlement sider the 59 Geo. III., or the 6 Geo. IV., as the governing law. There was by renting a
not any payment of rent by the person hiring the tenement, as required by tonement.
59 Geo. III.; nor was there any payment of one whole year's rent, as re13. The rent, &c. quired by the 6 Geo. IV., at the time of his death; and I think that the
subsequent payment by means of the sale of his goods, is not sufficient to satisfy the requisites of that statute. The husband not having acquired a settlement in his life-time, the pauper cannot have any derivative settlement. -Bayley, J., Holroyd, J., and Littledale, J., concurred. Order of sessions
quashed. Rent paid by the Rex v. Kibworth Harcourt, 7 B. &. C. 790; 1 M. f. R. 691 ; 1 M. & R. churchwarden
Mag. Ca. 255. Order of removal of James Asker from Kibworth Beauchamp sufficient, under 6 Geo. 4, c. 57(a.) to Kibworth Harcourt. Case: About Lady-day, 1825, the pauper took of
Thomas Bradshaw, a house and garden, situate in Kibworth Beauchamp, at the rent of 101. for a year, to commence at the ensuing Michaelmas. "The house and garden were then in the occupation of one Cooper, whose term expired at Michaelmas, but Bradshaw said he should expect Cooper to stand as tenant till Michaelmas, and should expect the rent when Matthew Waterfield, who was tenant of other premises to Bradshaw, paid his : and it should all be put in one receipt. The pauper was let into possession immediately by Cooper, and paid rent up to Michaelmas to Cooper ; after which time he continued to occupy the premises, and paid rent, as after-mentioned, up to Michaelmas, 1826. Early in the pauper's tenancy, Waterfield, then being church warden of Kibworth Beauchamp, called upon
represented to him that Bradshaw had let the pauper's premises, together with other premises, to him, Waterfield ; and that the pauper was thenceforth to pay the rent quarterly to him. At the same time, Waterfield told the pauper that he should make a reduction in his rent of 8s. a year, to which reduction the pauper assented, and a rent of 91. 12s. was accordingly paid by the pauper to Waterfield, in the course of that year, by four quarterly pay. ments; namely, the first two payments to Matthew Waterfield, and the last two, after the death of Mattheu, to John Waterfield, his brother and suecessor in the premises. At the end of the year, a sum of 55l. was carried by John Waterfield to Bradshaw, the landlord, which sum included 10l. for the pauper's rent of the house and garden, for the year just completed, and the residue was composed of rent for the other premises occupied by Waterfield
. Bradshaw returned 51. to Waterfield, and gave him one receipt for the whole rent. Itfurther appeared, that John Waterfield was reimbursed out of the parish funds the sum of 8s. paid by him to the landlord, over and above the 91. 12. The sessions found that there was fraud in this case, on the part of the township of Kibworth Beauchamp, but that neither the landlord nor the pauper was a party to the fraud.-Bayley, J. If 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, had required that the rent should be paid by the pauper, there would be some difficulty in overcoming the fact of fraud found. I'am of opinion that the pauper did acquire a settlement by renting a tenement in Kibworth Beauchamp, under the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57. The renting, upon which the question in this case depends, did not commence till Michaelmas, 1825, after that act came into operation; therefore, the former act of 59 Geo. III. c. 50, does not appear to me to bear upon the case. The new act does not require that the whole rent shall be paid by the person hiring the tenement, but only that it shall be “ actually paid." Here the whole rent of 101. was actually paid; and though a part of it was paid, not by the pauper, but by a third person, still
, the whole having been paid, I think the requisites of the statute have been satisfied in that respect.
Rex v. Ditcheat, 9 B. & C. 183, (see post, 576.)—Bayley, J., said, That the words, “ by the person hiring the same," may be considered as struck out of the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, and the law altered so far as it required that the rent should be paid by the person hiring the premises. It is now sufficient if it be paid, either by the person hiring, or by any other person (i.e. provided
(a) See this case observed upon by Bayley, J., post, 577.
the payment be made in the lifetime of the party hiring. Rex v. Carshalton, (ante, 571.)
Seventhly, The words of the act 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, (ante, 523, 4,) are, “paid for the Of settlement term of one whole year.” If the hiring be from an antecedent period, and by renting a the tenant hold from the time of hiring into a second year, and then pay a full year's rent, that is sufficient. Rex v. Stow, (post, 575.)
13. The rent, &c.
was let off after.
14. Occupation under 13 & 14 Car. II. (a) Rex v. Llandverras, Burr. S. C. 571; 1 Bla. Rep. 603. Eran Hughes, 14. Occupation, father of the pauper, rented a tenement of 101. a year, and paid the rent to the landlord. He lived for above forty days in a part of it, which part was
A renting at ten
pounds a year, of the value of 40s. only. And immediately after his taking the tenement, although part of he let the residue thereof to under-tenants, without residing thereupon at
the premises all himself. It was argued, that being liable only to the rent did not gain wards by the him a settlement. He must occupy, as well as take, a tenement of 101. a tenant to under year value, and he ought to occupy the whole 10l. a year; otherwise, many
tenant, gained a
settlement. different poor families might be introduced into a parish upon one such taking. It would quite evade the act if the mere taking of a tenement would do; for then one would gain a settlement by taking, and another by occupying the same tenement.-By the Court. In case of a gross fraud, the sessions, no doubt, will find it so, and the settlement would be void. But no fraud being found, there is no doubt, upon the law of the case, but that Hughes was the tenant and liable to the rent, and had credit for the whole; and, therefore, he is as much settled as if he had rented a tenement of 101. a year, and let lodgings. The act doth not require a person renting a tenement of 101. a year to occupy it; it is enough if he rents it, and resides forty days in the parish. The ground the act goes upon, is a person's having credit sufficient to hire a tenement of that value. This man appears to have had such credit. The under-tenants do not take a tenement of the yearly value of 101., therefore they do not hereby gain a settlement. Rex v. Newnham, Burr. S. C. 756. The pauper, Hathaway Denton, and Renting
of eleven pounds one Richard Mann, his wife's father, jointly rented and occupied an estate, at Newnham, of 801. a year, for three years. Mann dying about the end of wards occupying that time, Denton soon afterwards took a house of Richard White, at Aure, it jointly with
another person, of the yearly rent of 31., and another estate, consisting of lands, of John
does not destroy Sergeant, at Aewr, at the yearly rent of 8l. Mann leaving a widow, and the right of setshe and Denton being, upon the death of Mann, jointly possessed of the timent, by the remainder of the stock, which had been on the estate at Newnham, they taking. went and lived in the house at Awre, and jointly occupied that house and the said estate of 8l. a year, for one year, the stock on the house and estate being partly the property of Denton, and the other part the property of the widow; and sometimes one, and, at other times, the other of them, sold parts of the stock, and received the money for the same: and at the time of taking the tenements by Denton, neither White nor Sergeant knew of any connection subsisting between Denton and the widow. A moiety of the stock was more than sufficient to stock the house and farm.-(Lord Mansfield was not in court.)—The other three judges declared themselves all thoroughly satisfied, that the settlement was in Aure.— Aston, J., observed, that if two persons jointly take a tenement of less annual value than 201., this will not gain a settlement to either of them. But a man who takes more than 101. in yearly value, may let part of it to under-tenants: and this will not destroy his settlement, though it will not gain one to such undertenants who pay him less than 101. a-year, as was determined in the case of Rex v. Llandverras. The widow, Mann, was in the nature of an undertenant to the pauper. The pauper had the credit of taking the tenement. He alone took the house, and likewise the lands. Neither of the landlords knew of any connection between the widow and him; and he only was
a year, and after
(a) See division of the subject, ante, 520.