Page images
PDF
EPUB

tenement.

and Widcombe. The question turns entirely on the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57. My Seventhly, judgment may have the effect of defeating the intention of the framer of Of settlement that act. But it is a very safe rule of construction to adhere to the words by renting a of an act of parliament in their grammatical and natural sense, unless it appears clearly from the context that they were intended to be used in some 15. Occupation, other sense. There is a material difference between the statute 6 Geo. IV. &c. c. 57, and the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50. The last-mentioned statute expressly requires the building to be held, and the land to be occupied, and the rent to be paid, by the person hiring the same. The statute 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, omits the words “ by the person hiring the same.” It does not require the payment of rent or occupation by the person hiring the same, but occupation under the yearly hiring. These words may be satisfied by the continuance of the term and occupation by a sub-tenant or assignee during the continuance of that term. It is not necessary to decide in this case whether occupation by an assignee would be sufficient or not. Here there was an occupation by a person whose character is left doubtful. It does not appear by the case whether it was that of a sub-tenant, having an entire occupation of one part of the building, or that of a lodger. It seems to me there was an occupation by the husband of the pauper under the yearly hiring, provided the premises continued in the occupation of any person entitled under the tenancy created by the yearly hiring. I think we ought to give effect to the words of the act of parliament in their plain, natural sense, unless we see clearly from the context that the intention of the legislature was different; but I find nothing in the context to shew that that, which those words taken in that sense import, was not their intention. I must suppose that the legislature, when they repealed the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, which expressly required an occupation by the person hiring, had some reason for omitting those words in the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57. Possibly that omission may have arisen from inattention on the part of the framer of the act, and it may have been intended to require occupation by the person who took the term. But it seems to me that the words used do not expressly require such occupation, and we must not presume the intention of the legislature, but collect it from the words of the act of parliament. Then if the meaning of the legislature be that which the words used, naturally import, a settlement has been gained, provided there has been a residence of forty days. As to that the case is ambiguous. I think it ought to be referred again to the sessions for the purpose of having the facts stated one way or the other. If it be found that there was no residence by the husband for forty days, then no settlement will be gained. Case sent back to the sessions.

The authority of this case has been questioned, the point argued, and judgment given; and the result was that the decision of the Court of K. B. was confirmed.

Rex v. Barham, 8 B.f. C. 99. Welch was removed from Barham to Dover. During the ycar Order quashed. Case: The pauper, in 6 April, 1823, hired a house in Dover the pauper, but for a year, of the value and rent of 12l. per annum, payable monthly. In was removed by January, 1824, the pauper became chargeable, and was by an order directed, an order. He with his family, to be removed to Barham. He alone was removed, and

same day: Held, an overseer of Barham received him, gave him money, and directed him to sufficient occupareturn to Dover. He returned the same day to his house, and occupied it tion under 59 under the original contract, till Michaelmas, 1824 ; when, in consequence of threats by the overseer of Dover, to send him to gaol for coming back, he agreed with his landlord to take the house by the week. At Michaelmas, 1824, the pauper owed some rent. No final settlement took place till June, 1825 ; when, a distress having been putin, the pauper paid the rent, and left the house which he had occupied, first under the yearly, and then under the weekly hiring, uninterruptedly since April, 1823. The pauper paid his rent on account as it suited him, part in meat (being a butcher), and part in money, but had no regular settlement till he left the house. Barham did not appeal against the order in January, 1824. The sessions thought that the pauper gained no settlement by the occupation of the house. Č. A.V.-Judgment by Lord Tenterden. The question depends on the 59 Geo. III. c. 50. (He

returned the

.

&c.

Where a pauper took a house at the annual rent

Seventhly, then read it.) The language of this enactment is very peculiar. No person Of settlement is to acquire a settlement by reason of dwelling forty days in any tenement, by renting a unless such tenement shall consist of a house (as it does in the present case) tenement.

bona fide hired by such person, at 101. a-year, for the term of one whole year; 15. Occupation,

nor unless such house shall be held, and the rent for the same paid for the
term of one whole year at the least. It should seem, therefore, that if a
pauper resides for forty days upon a tenement, and the other requisites of
the act have been complied with, he gains a settlement. Now here the
pauper resided in the house more than forty days, both before and after the
removal, and all that the act requires in other respects was complied with ;
the house was taken for a year; held upwards of that period; and the rent
paid. It has been contended, that the effect of the order of removal was to
prevent the settlement only: all that the act requires has been complied with
after that order was made. If the effect of the order had been to compel the
pauper to abandon his tenement, it would make a difference. But he was
absent from his home not even a day, and his family were never removed at
all. It is admitted that Rex v. Fillongley has decided, that the removal did
not put an end to the contract between the landlord and tenant; and under
all the circumstances, we think it safer to say that a settlement was gamed
under 59 Geo. III., by the residence before and after the removal. (His
lordship then adverted to the supposed offence of the pauper in retuming
after removal, for which see post, and concluded.) Our decision may,
perhaps, in this particular case, operate to defeat the object of 59 Geo. III.;
but it is better to abide by the consequence, than to put upon it a con-
struction not warranted by the words of the act, in order to give effect to
what we may suppose to have been the intention of the legislature. Order
of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Tonbridge, 6 B. f. C. 88; 9 D. & R. 128 ; 4 D. & R. Mag. Ca.

245. John Hazell was removed from Tonbridge to Lamberhurst ; quashed. of eight pounds, Case: The pauper, about Michaelmas, 1816, took a cottage, situate in Tonfrom Lady-day to bridge, of one Douch, for a year, at the yearly rent, and of the value of

81. 10s. At Michaelmas, 1817, he made a fresh agreement for the cottage
for one year, at the annual rent of sl., and continued to hold and occupy

it from that time until Michaelmas, 1821, paying a rent of 8l. per annum only to Lady day, for it, from Michaelmas, 1817. At Lady-day, 1821, he took a garden, also

situate in Tonbridge, for a year, at the yearly rent, and of the value of 2.28. nual rent of nine pounds, and, dur. He agreed with one William Maynard, that they should share the expences ing the whole of and profits arising from the cultivation of the garden. Maynard paid to was the tenant of Hazell half of the rent, but the latter paid the whole rent to the landlord, a piece of garden who was not (to the knowledge of Hazell) aware of the partnership. The ground at the

garden was thus occupied for a year, until Lady-day, 1822, and the rent rent of two pounds two sbil. paid for the whole year. At Michaelmas, 1821, Hazell, having quitted lings, but had Douch's house, took a house in Tonbridge of one Lawrence, for a year, at third person that

the yearly rent of 91., and he occupied it from that time until his removal in they should 1825, and paid the rent for it during the whole time. The question for the share the expence opinion of the Court is, whether the pauper gained a settlement by renting a and the profits equally of culti. tenement, by operation of the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50.-C. A. V. Judg. vating the garden ment delivered by Bayley, J. This was a settlement question between the partner paid haif parishes of Tonbridge and Lamberhurst, depending on the 59 Geo. III. c. 50

. The facts were these :—The pauper was removed to Lamberhurst, in 1812,

and there was no appeal. In 1816 he took a cottage in Tonbridge, at 8l. 108. latter paid the

per annum; but in 1817 the rent was reduced to 81. He continued in that landlord: Held, cottage till Michaelmas, 1821. At Lady-day preceding (in 1821), he took a ment

was gained garden at 21.28. a-year; but he agreed with one Maynard, that the expence by operation of and profits should be shared between them. The garden was occupied a

year, and the rent paid. At Michaelmas, 1821, when he quitted the house
at 8l. a-year, he entered upon another at the yearly rent of 91., which he
occupied till 1825. So that from Lady-day, 1821, to the Michaelmas follow-
ing, he had the garden and the 81. house, and from Michaelmas, 1821, to
Lady-day, 1822, he had the garden and the 91. house; and it is only from
Lady-day, 1821, to Lady-day, 1822, that there is any pretence for saying he
had 10l. a-year. By 59 Geo. III. c. 50 (which operated from 20 July, 1819),

1821, and then took another house from Mi. chaclmas, 1821,

1822, at the an.

[ocr errors]

agreed with a

the rent to the pauper, but the

whole to the

that no settle.

the 59 Geo. 3, c. 30.

tenement.

no settlement shall be gained by dwelling forty days in any tenement rented, Seventhly, unless such tenement consist of a house or building in the parish or town- Of settlement ship, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land by renting a here, or of both, bona fide hired at 101. a-year, for a whole year; nor unless such house or building shall be held, and the land occupied, and the rent for

15. Occupation, the same actually paid, for one whole year at the least, by the person hiring &c. the same. One of the requisites, therefore, under that statute in the case of land, was, that it should occupied by the person hiring it for one whole year at the least. A distinction is made in that statute between houses and buildings on the one hand, and land on the other; and though this distinction is removed by the 6 Geo. IV. as to settlements subsequent to the period from which that statute operates, it must still be attended to in cases of previous settlements. By the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, it was required, in case of a house or building, that it should be held for a year by the person hiring it; in the case of land, that he should occupy. In the case of houses and buildings, therefore, so as the tenure subsisted, it was, in this respect, before the statute of 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, sufficient; so that under-letting a part of a house or building would not have prevented a settlement; and that point was accordingly so decided in Rex v. North Collingham (a), which was cited in the argument. But in the case of lands, the person hiring was to occupy for the year. Did the pauper, then, occupy the garden for the whole year? It is stated in the case, that though the pauper took the garden, it was agreed between him and Maynard that they should share the expence and profit

. It is also stated, that Maynard paid the pauper half the rent, and that the garden was thus occupied. It is not in terms stated that there was a joint occupation; but as Maynard was entitled to participate in the occupation, we think it must be taken that he did, and if so, the pauper cannot be considered as occupying more than a moiety of the garden. Unless the garden was separately occupied by the pauper the whole year, no settlement was gained. We are, therefore, of opinion, that there was no settlement in Tonbridge, that the settlement in Lamberhurst remained, and that the order of sessions, which quashed the removal to Lamberhurst, on the gronnd of a settlement in Tonbridge, cannot be supported. Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Kibrcorth Harcourt, 7 B. 4. C. 790. (See the case, ante, 572.) What a holding Bayley, J. I also think that the pauper occupied the premises for one whole under the hiring. year under that hiring, for nothing that was done by Water field could have the effect of altering the original tenancy created between the pauper and the owner of the premises. The pauper remained tenant under the original taking, and the landlord ought to have distrained on him for the 101., if it had been in arrear. 16. The whole tenement need not be in one parish, under 13 & 14 Car. II. (6)

As the renting of a tenement of the prescribed annual value, was all that 16. The parish, was required, the Courts held, that if a person rented several different tene- &c. ments, making together the required amount, it followed, that if these several tenements were situated in different parishes, that would not defeat the settlement, which would, in such case, be acquired in that parish in which the

South Sydenham v. Lamerton, 1 Stra. 57. A person rented a tenement An entire tene. of 101. a-year, being one entire tenement, but lying in two parishes. The ment, lying part question was, whether this gained a settlement.-Parker, C. J. The quan- part in another, tity of rent is not material, but the value of the land. A tenant often pays a will gain a settle. fine, and thereby lowers the rent, and yet the land is of equal value. And if a man should, out of kindness, settle another in a tenement of 10l. per annum value, reserving no rent, that will not alter the case. The only difficulty is, that there is not, in this case, 10l. per annum in one single parish.

person resided.

[blocks in formation]

&c.

Different tene.

held under

confer a settlement.

Seventhly, As to that, I am of opinion, that if such a person as this should take a teneOf settlement ment of 8l. per annum, in one parish, and another of 31. per annum, in a by renting a different parish, that would not gain him a settlement in either ; but if the tenement.

tenement be entire, and the house in one parish, as this case is, and part of 16. The parish,

the land in another, yet this may properly be called a tenement of 101. per annum in that parish where the house is. Two distinct tenements, in two parishes, making together 101. per annum, will give no settlement: but it seems to me to be otherwise, where the tenement is entire.— Eyre & Pratt, Js., accordant. (But see infra.]

Elsted v. Hollibourne, 2 Sess. Ca. 130; 2 Stra. 849. The case was this: A person rented a tenement, consisting of a farm-house and lands, at 121. 10s. a-year, which house and land lay contiguous, and had been usually letten together, and occupied by the same person; but the house and so much of the land, as together amounted to 91. a-year, lay in one parish, and 31. 10s. in another parish. By the Court: This was held to be a settlement, on the authority of South Sydenham v. Lamerton, 1 Stra. 57, (ante, 581.)

Rex v. Sandwich, Burr. S. C. 44; 2 Bott, 107. A person rented a house, ments, lying in different parishes,

in Studland, at 30s. a-year. After he had lived in it about two years, he

took lands, in Langton, of 121. a-year, on which there was no house, and different takings, occupied the lands two years; all which time he inhabited in, and rented

also, the house in Studland. By the Court: It hath been a question, whether two distinct tenements, taken at different times (where neither of them, alone, amounted to 101. a-year in value), should make a settlement ? But it is now settled that it does : and it is the same thing, whether the takings were distinct or entire, or in one parish or two parishes. The settlement is in the parish where he lives; Rex v. Fritwell. The ground of these resolutions is the ability to rent a tenement of such a value; which excludes the

presumption of his being likely to become chargeable to the parish. Same point.

St. Lawrence v. St. Maurice, Winchester, Burr. S. C. 588; 2 Bott, 169. Richard Gradidge, husband of the pauper, rented a tenement of Henry Warne, in Hursley, for a year from Lady-day, at 31. 108. a-year, but resided therein five or six weeks only, and then quitted it, and tendered the key to Warne, which Warne refused to accept, whereupon Gradidge left it with a neighbour, before Midsummer-day then next, for Warne to take it when he thought proper. On Midsummer-day, Gradidge took a tenement in St. Maurice, at 91. a-year; and on the same day entered into possession, and resided thereon above forty days, before the key in Hursley was received by Warne, who did not accept it till the 16th of August following.–But by the Court: Here is a contract for a year in Hursley not dissolved; nor could it be dissolved; the landlord refused to accept the key; and he did not receive it at last till the middle of August, which was more than forty days after hiring the second tenement. 17. In what parish the tenement must be, under 59 Geo. III. c. 50, and

6 Geo. IV. c. 57. (a) Among the several important alterations made by the above statutes, is to rish, &c.

be noticed that by which a person can no longer acquire a settlement by renting several small tenements, in different parishes, making, together, a total of sufficient annual value. This settlement

can now only be acquired in respect of the renting in the same parish in which the settlement is claimed.

By 59 Geo. III. c. 50, the whole of such land shall be situate within the same parish or township as the house, wherein the person hiring such land, shall dwell and inhabit. The 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, requires that the tenement shall consist of a dwelling house, or land, or both, rented hy such person in such parish or township, (ante, 523, 4.) But it is not necessary that the whole of the tenement should be taken at one time, (ante, 541, 2.)

17. In what pa

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 520, and see the statutes, ante, 523, and

see ante, 541, 2,

tenement.

18. Who may

Seventhly, 18. Who may acquire this settlement.(a)

Of settlement

by renting a It would probably be difficult to say who may not gain this kind of settlement; of course, every person capable of entering into a contract for the renting of a house, or land, is competent to acquire this right by such means; and even where, from the peculiar condition of the individual, it may be seluineenis doubtful whether he is of ability to contract, yet if he actually hire a house or land, and continue in the enjoyment of the property the requisite length of time, it will be sufficient.

Thus, in Rex v. Eastbourne, 4 East, 103; an order of removal of Ann A foreigner may Borchert and her four infant children by name, from Seaford to Eastbourne, by renting a was confirmed by the sessions, subject to the following Case: Ann B.'s maiden tenement. settlement was in Eastbourne ; she married J. B., a German, by whom she had the children mentioned in the order. J. B. was, at the time of the removal, resident in a house at Seaford, of above the value of 101., exercising therein the trade of a baker. His trade declined at Seaford, and he thereupon thought he could exercise it with more advantage at Eastbourne. The wife and children thereupon became chargeable, and were removed as above. The husband acquiesced in every thing which took place with regard to the removal; accompanied them to Eastbourne, and afterwards continued to reside there with them.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. This man was not an alien enemy, but a German by birth; an alien amy; and as such, though he may not take a lease of a dwelling house or shop, yet he may occupy a tenement of 101. a-year, and carry on his trade there like any other person. (b). Then he has that interest which may enable him to gain a settlement by the provision of the legislature. Order quashed.

Rex v. Brighthelmstone, 1 B. & A. 270. W. Lancaster was removed from So a soldier, Gloucester to Brighthelmstone. The pauper had been serjeant in the militia,

whilst on duty,

may gain tl.is which lay in barracks at Brighthelmstone, and performed all the duties of his settlement. situation as serjeant, and during that time had taken a tenement there of the value of 10l. a-year or more, in which he had resided with his family for more than forty days. After hearing Nolan and Twiss in support of the order, the Court called upon Bolland and Norton, contra, who cited Rex v. St. James, Bury St. Edmunds.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. In this case, it seems to me, that the sessions have drawn the right conclusion. It is contended that the party here had no intention of coming to settle at Brighthelmstone ; that is not correct; certainly he had the intention of settling there, subject, however, to the power of those who directed his movements. The case states that he himself took the tenement as a lodging for himself and his family. Now suppose an action then to have been brought against him for non-payment of rent, he clearly could not set up as a defence, that he was not the tenant of the premises; then if he, as a tenant, occupied this house of the yearly value of 10l. and upwards, he was, during his occupation, irremovable, and that having continued for forty days, he has gained a settlement. But it is said the mutiny act prevents a soldier from gaining a settlement; that act, however, contains no such express provision: the clause enabling every soldier to be examined as to bis settlement, does not disqualify him from obtaining a new one. The case of hiring and service is quite distinguishable from this; that proceeds on the ground of a person's not being permitted to contract two relations inconsistent with each other. In order to gain a settlement by hiring and service, he must engage to serve at all events for a year; now a soldier has not the capacity to render such service, for an order from the war office may at any time intervene, and take him from his master's controul. The case of taking a tenement is quite different, he does not there engage to reside in it for any definite period, and if he does actually reside for forty days it is sufficient. If not, it would equally follow, that supposing an estate to have devolved upon him by act

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 520 (6) 1 Saunder's Rep. by Patteson and

Williams, 6 & 7, note l. VOL. IV.

PP

« PreviousContinue »