Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a

tenement.

15. Occupation,

and Widcombe. The question turns entirely on the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57. My
judgment may have the effect of defeating the intention of the framer of
that act. But it is a very safe rule of construction to adhere to the words
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
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 legis-
lature 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.
must suppose that the legislature, when they repealed the 59 Geo.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 legis-
lature, 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.

I

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. & C. 99. Welch was removed from Barham to Dover. Order quashed. Case: The pauper, in 6 April, 1823, hired a house in Dover for a year, of the value and rent of 121. per annum, payable monthly. In January, 1824, the pauper became chargeable, and was by an order directed, with his family, to be removed to Barham. He alone was removed, and an overseer of Barham received him, gave him money, and directed him to return to Dover. He returned the same day to his house, and occupied it 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 put in, 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. C. A. V.-Judgment by Lord Tenterden. The question depends on the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, (He

Seventhly, Of settlement

by renting a

tenement.

15. Occupation, &c.

Where a pauper took a house at

then read it.) The language of this enactment is very peculiar. No person is to acquire a settlement by reason of dwelling forty days in any tenement, unless such tenement shall consist of a house (as it does in the present case) bonâ fide hired by such person, at 101. a-year, for the term of one whole year; 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 gained under 59 Geo. III., by the residence before and after the removal. (His lordship then adverted to the supposed offence of the pauper in returning 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 construction 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. & C. 88; 9 D. & R. 128; 4 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 245. John Hazell was removed from Tonbridge to Lamberhurst; quashed. 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

the annual rent of eight pounds,

Michaelmas,

1821, and then
took another

house from Mi-
chaelmas, 1821,
to Lady-day,
1822, at the an-
nual rent of nine

pounds, and, dur.
ing the whole of

both periods,
was the tenant of

a piece of garden

ground at the rent of two

pounds two shil.

lings, but had agreed with a

third person that they should

share the expence

and the profits equally of culti

81. 10s. At Michaelmas, 1817, he made a fresh agreement for the cottage for one year, at the annual rent of 81., and continued to hold and occupy it from that time until Michaelmas, 1821, paying a rent of 81. per annum only 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 2l. 2s. He agreed with one William Maynard, that they should share the expences and profits arising from the cultivation of the garden. Maynard paid to Hazell half of the rent, but the latter paid the whole rent to the landlord, who was not (to the knowledge of Hazell) aware of the partnership. The garden was thus occupied for a year, until Lady-day, 1822, and the rent paid for the whole year. At Michaelmas, 1821, Hazell, having quitted Douch's house, took a house in Tonbridge of one Lawrence, for a year, at the yearly rent of 91., and he occupied it from that time until his removal in 1825, and paid the rent for it during the whole time. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the pauper gained a settlement by renting a tenement, by operation of the statute 59 Geo. III. c. 50.-C. A. V. Judg ment delivered by Bayley, J. This was a settlement question between the 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. 10s. per annum; but in 1817 the rent was reduced to 8l. He continued in that cottage till Michaelmas, 1821. At Lady-day preceding (in 1821), he took a ment was gained garden at 21. 2s. a-year; but he agreed with one Maynard, that the expence 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 81. 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 following, he had the garden and the 87. house, and from Michaelmas, 1821, to Lady-day, 1822, he had the garden and the 97. 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 2d July, 1819),

vating the garden partner paid half

ground, and the

the rent to the pauper, but the latter paid the whole to the landlord: Held,

that no settle

by operation of
the 59 Geo. 3,
c. 50.

Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a

tenement.

15. Occupation,

no settlement shall be gained by dwelling forty days in any tenement rented,
unless such tenement consist of a house or building in the parish or town-
ship, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land
here, or of both, bonâ fide hired at 10l. a-year, for a whole year; nor unless
such house or building shall be held, and the land occupied, and the rent for
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 be 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 accord-
ingly 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 ground of a settlement in Tonbridge, cannot be sup-
ported. Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Kibworth Harcourt, 7 B. & C. 790. (See the case, ante, 572.) Bayley, J. I also think that the pauper occupied the premises for one whole year under that hiring, for nothing that was done by Waterfield 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 107., if it had been in arrear.

What a holding under the hiring.

16. The whole tenement need not be in one parish, under 13 & 14 Car. II. (b) 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 person resided.

a

South Sydenham v. Lamerton, 1 Stra. 57. A person rented a tenement of 101. a-year, being one entire tenement, but lying in two parishes. The question was, whether this gained a settlement.-Parker, C. J. The quantity of rent is not material, but the value of the land. A tenant often pays 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 101. 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.

Seventhly, Of settlement

by renting a

tenement.

16. The parish, &c.

Different tenements, lying in different parishes, held under

would formerly confer a settlement.

As to that, I am of opinion, that if such a person as this should take a tenement of 81. per annum, in one parish, and another of 31. per annum, in a different parish, that would not gain him a settlement in either; but if the tenement be entire, and the house in one parish, as this case is, and part of the land in another, yet this may properly be called a tenement of 10l. per annum in that parish where the house is. Two distinct tenements, in two parishes, making together 10l. 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 97. a-year, lay in one parish, and 37. 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, 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 10l. 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.

17. In what parish, &c.

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. 10s. 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 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 by 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.)

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 520, and see the statutes, ante, 523, and see ante, 541, 2.

18. Who may acquire this settlement.(a)

Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a tenement.

18. Who may

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 acquire this 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 Borchert and her four infant children by name, from Seaford to Eastbourne, was confirmed by the sessions, subject to the following Case: Ann B.'s maiden 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 107., 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 107. 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 Gloucester to Brighthelmstone. The pauper had been serjeant in the militia, which lay in barracks at Brighthelmstone, and performed all the duties of his situation as serjeant, and during that time had taken a tenement there of the value of 101. 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 101. 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 his 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 (b) 1 Saunder's Rep. by Patteson and
Williams, 6 & 7, note 1.
PP

VOL. IV.

settlement.

A foreigner may gain a settlement tenement.

by renting a

So a soldier,

whilst on duty, may gain this

settlement.