Page images
PDF
EPUB

Ninthly, Of 3. Of the Time of Serving. (a)

settlement by

office. Rex v. Fittleworth, Burr. S. C. 238; 2 Botl, 252. A certificate-man was elected and sworn a tithing-man. He executed the office a little more 3. Of the time of than five months, and then became chargeable, and was removed.—Lee, C. J. serving. The question is, Whether a person coming into a parish, under a certificate, Serving a part of who is made a tithing-man, and exercises his office in part only of the the year only. parish, and for half a-year only, gains a settlement? To this three objec- A person executtions have been made. Ist. That the order of removal is bad, because, at removable when the time when he was removed, he was in the execution of a public office, chargeable. from whence they had no power to remove him, and it has been compared to the case of a servant, whom the justices cannot remove: but to this they have not cited any authority; and if a servant should become chargeable to a parish, I think he may be removed. This act of the 8 & 9 W. III. describes the time when a certificate-man shall be removed, that is, when he becomes chargeable, without any limitation : so that the justices by this act had certainly power to remove the pauper. The second objection is, that this office did not extend to the whole parish : but it is stated in the order, that he exercised it in the parish : which is complying with the very words of the act of parliament, which says, that he shall execute it in such, and not through such parish. As to the third objection, which is the chief, I do not know that any case has been determined as to that purpose. That of Garsington was never determined, and, besides, differs essentially from the present case, as Sir John Strange has shown. The 3 & 4 W. & M. differs in words from this act, yet it would be odd to place him on a different footing from other paupers, who are to gain settlements by the exercises of annual offices, and that is for and during a year: which must be the construction of this act, otherwise the bare placing a certificate-man in office would gain him a settlement immediately. As to the case of Mr. Lloyd about the taking of a tenement, there are no words about his living a year, and it is the credit he gets by the taking that fixes him in the parish ; but, in the present case, he gains it by the execution of the office; and though the words of the 3 & 4 W. & M. have no relation by words to this act, yet, I should think, it ought to have the same construction.-Wright and Dena nison, Js., of the same opinion. Cold Ashton v. Woodchester, Burr. S. C. 444; 2 Bott, 253. There was Serving office for

half a year at a a custom to serve the office of tithing-man, for half a year only at a time.

time only, gains By Lord Mansfield, C. J. This cannot be an annual office to gain a settle- no settlement. ment. In this case the pauper had served the office of tithing-man in Cold Ashton for half a year, and twenty days after for another half year.

Rex v. Bow, 8° T. R. 445. The pauper, at a Michaelmas court-leet, An appointment holden by adjournment for Chumleigh, November 16, 1792, was appointed till the steward to the office of ale-taster of the borough, and duly sworn according to the should please to custom of the manor, to execute the office for one year thence next ensuing, hold another,

confers no settleor until he should be lawfully discharged. He entered upon the office, and

ment. served till November 1, 1793, when, at a similar court holden by adjournment, a new officer was appointed. No business is transacted at the original court; and there is only one original court in the year, and it is held within the month after Michaelmas at the convenience of the steward. Lord Kenyon, C. J. This is an attempt to carry the point further than in Rex v. Newstead. This is not an appointment for a year, from one movable feast to another, but from one court till it should please the steward to hold another. The statute is express, and Rex v. Fittleworth shews that it has been construed according to its plain meaning.

Rex v. Holy Cross, Westgate, 4 B. f Å. 619. Order of removal of A pauper was Edward Best, from Holy Cross, Westgate, in Canterbury, to Holy Cross, as borsholder at Westgate, in Kent, confirmed. Case: The city of Canterbury is divided a court-leet, and into six wards, and two of the twelve aldermen of the city are appointed

office a few days, for each ward; a court-leet is held annually by the two aldermen, at which when he was ir

regularly dis

charged from of(a) Sce division of the subject, ante, 636.

executed the

that this did not

ment.

Ninthly, Of a constable and borsholder for the ward are chosen. In October, 1817, settlement by and for some time previously, the pauper resided and carried on busi

office. ness in St. Mary Northgate, Canterbury, which is in the ward of Northgate, 9. Of the time of

that ward containing the parishes of St. Mary Northgate, and St. Alphage. serving.

On the 21st of October, 1817, the annual court-leet was held for the ward of fice by two ma- Northgate, at which the pauper was duly chosen horsholder of the ward for gistrates, and another person

the year ensuing, and upon being sent for, he attended at the court, and was appointed; but regularly sworn in; the staff of office was delivered to him by the former he acquiesced in borsholder. A day or two afterwards, a dispute arose between some persons, this, and did not, and he was desired to preserve the peace; in consequence of which he the office : Held, fetched his staff, and put an end to the dispute, but he did not do any other confer a settle

act as borsholder than that. After he had been sworn in a few days, he was desired to attend the monthly meeting of the magistrates, and he attended with his staff; he was called into the council chamber, and informed by the then mayor, that as it was a question as to what parish he belonged, he must leave his staff there for the present, and that he should know further about it in a few weeks; he left his staff accordingly, and not having heard any thing more, he did not act, nor was he called upon afterwards to act as borsholder. The steward of the leet notified the pauper to the magistrates, as the sworn borsholder for the ward of Northgate, and he appeared so in the list of peace officers entered in their record book. The succeeding courtleet, for the ward of Northgate, was holden on the 20th October, 1818, and the pauper resided during the whole of the year in St. Mary Northgate. The duties that were required to be performed by the borsholder of the ward of Northgate, during the remainder of the year, were performed by another person, who resided part of that time within the ward, and part in the borough of Staplegate, adjoining to the ward, but not within the jurisdiction of the city of Canterbury; but that other person was not chosen or sworn in, as horsholder of the ward, nor did he attend the sessions in that character, nor was his name enrolled in the list of peace-officers.Abbott, C. J. At the time of passing 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 6, it was possible for any individual to gain a settlement by a residence for forty days in the parish. The object of that act was, to add to this the necessity of delivering to the parish officers a notice in writing, which they were required to read in the church, and to register, in order that there might be public notice to all the inhabitants, that they might, in case the individual was likely to become chargeable, procure his removal from the parish. But that act contemplated two cases, in which no notice in writing was to be given, viz. the serving an annual office, and the payment of parish rates. Its object was, obviously, notoriety. Now, this is only attained by the actual execution of the office, and not by the appointment to it. Although, therefore, it does appear that the pauper, in this case, was irregularly discharged from his office, and another person irregularly appointed to succeed him, yet, as he did forbear to do the duties of it, I think he cannot within the statute be considered as having executed a public annual office in the parish, and that he did not thereby gain a settlement. Order confirmed.

[See also Rex v. Yalding, (ante, 638,) one of the points in which case was that the pauper had not served for a year, which was held a good objection.]

4. Residence.

4. Residence. (a) The office of town crier and bellman is an annual office, within the 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, by which a settlement may be gained. And if the town comprises several parishes, the settlement will be gained in that parish in which such officer has last resided forty days, while serving the office. It was before undecided, (see 2 N. P. L. 629), whether a year's residence and a year's service, in the same parish, were not essential in such case. But the Court said, that as the notice in writing of a coming to settle required to be delivered, according to the third section of the above act, and from the

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 636.

delivery of which the forty days are to be calculated, is dispensed with in the case of an annual office by the sixth section, a residence of forty days, without notice, by analogy to the cases of settlement by hiring and service, renting a tenement, &c. is sufficient. So that neither a year's residence, nor a year's service in the parish where the settlement is claimed, is essential according to the words of the act Rex v. St. Nicholas, Hereford, E. T. 1830, (Steer's Par. L. 595.)

Ninthly, Of settlement by

office.

4, of residence.

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

(Tenthly)–Of Settlement by being Charged with, and Paying

Parish Cares, or Lebies.(a) For some time this mode of acquiring a settlement was seldom relied on, for in most instances where the tenement was of the yearly value of 101., the occupier could obtain a settlement on other grounds. But at that period it does not appear to have been the intention of the legislature to abrogate entirely this head of settlement. This was the state of the law from 1795, when the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, was passed, down to June 22nd, 1819, the date of the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, by which latter statute the expediency of resorting to this mode of establishing a settlement was revived, as it required that in order to gain a settlement by renting a tenement, such tenement must be bona fide hired for one whole year at 101. a year, and the rent for a year actually paid. But although the means of acquiring that kind of settlement were thus narrowed, the statute did not affect the right of acquiring a settlement by payment of parish taxes, &c. as it previously existed, and consequently, if a person paid parish rates, &c. in respect of a tenement of 101. yearly value, whether he rented such tenement at that sum or not, or hired it for a year or not, or paid rent for a year or not, it was immaterial, for he was still entitled to his settlement, as being charged with and paying public taxes or levies of the parish. Many, therefore, were driven to rely upon this ground of settlement, who, but for the passing of this act, might have rested their claim upon having taken and held or occupied a tenement for forty days, of 101. annual value.

Such was the state of the law until the 22nd June, 1825, when the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, virtually abolished the use of claiming a settlement by payment of rates, &c.; for in order to acquire a settlement by paying rates, that act requires that all the conditions must have been observed and fulfilled which it imposes upon settlements by renting a tenement; the party, therefore, need not go further, and prove that he has paid rates, when his settlement is already established by proof of all the preliminary conditions, which are in themselves sufficient to entitle him to a settlement by renting a tenement; and it can be of no importance to him whether his settlement is of the one class or the other. See Rex v. Ringstead, 7 B. C. 607, post, 653.

It is proper to remark, that hefore the passing of the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, the annual value of the tenement, in respect of which the taxes or levies were charged and paid, was immaterial ; and that it was this statute which first required that the tenement for which the person was rated, should be of the value of 10l. a year at the least. (See Rex v. St. Pancras, post, 651.]

This head of settlement may be considered under the following titles.

1. Enactments as to this Settlement.
2. Construction and Operation of 35 Geo. III. c. 101.
3. Of Inhabitancy.
4. What are Parochial Taxes or Levies uithin the Act.
5. The Person must be CHARGED and Pay such Tax.

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 273,

&c.

fer a settlement.

What shall be

Tenthly, Of settlement by

1. Enactments as to this Settlement. payment of

The 3 W.JII.c. 11.s.6, enacts, “That if any person who shall come to inhabit rates.

in any town or parish, shall be charged with and pay his share towards the 1. Enactments,

public taxes or levies of the said town or parish, then he shall be adjudged to have a legal settlement in the same, though no such notice in writing be delivered and published, as is hereby before required.

By 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11, it is enacted,That no person or persons whomsoever, who shall come into any parish, by any such certificate as aforesaid, shall be adjudged by any act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in such parish, unless he or they shall really and bonâ fide take a lease of a tenement of the value of 101., or shall execute some annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such office.

But by 35 Geo. III. c. 101, s. 4. “No person, after 22nd June, 1795, who shall come into any parish, township, or place, shall gain any settlement therein by being charged with and paying his share towards the public taxes or levies of such place, for and on account or in respect of any tenement not being

of the yearly value of 107." Payment of du- By 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 59, it is enacted, “ That the payment of any

of ties shall not con- the duties made payable by this act (viz. the assessed taxes), by any person or

persons, in any parish or place, shall not entitle the person or persons so paying such duties to a settlement in such parish or place.”

By 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, s. 2, it is enacted, “That no person shall acquire a setdeemed acquiring tlement in any parish or township maintaining its own poor, by or by reason

of settling upon, renting, or paying (a) parochial rates for any tenement, not being his or her own property, unless such tenement shall consist of a sepaparate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, bona fide rented by such person, in such parish or township, at and for the sum of 101. a year at the least, for the term of one whole year; nor unless such house or building, or land, shall be occupied under such yearly hiring, and the rent for the same to the amount of iol., actually paid for the term of one whole year at the least ; provided always, that it shall not be necessary to prove the actual value of such tenement; any thing in any act or acts, or any construction of or implication from any act or acts, or any usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”

2. Construction and Operation of 35 Geo. III. c. 101. 2. Construction,

Rex v. St. Pancras, 2 B. &. C. 122; 3 D. & R. 343; 2 D. &. R. Mag.

Ca. 28. Removal of Kitty, wife of William Buchan, from Lambeth io A settlement may St. Pancras, Middlesex. Order confirmed. Case: The husband occupied be gained by being rated and a house in Thornhaugh-street, in St. Pancras, and resided in the same paying parochial not exceeding nine months, and subsequent to the 2nd of July, 1819, at the taxes in respect yearly rent and value of 801. ; and, during such occupation, her husband of a tenement, being above the was regularly rated by, and paid a poor-rate to, the parish of St. Pancras, ten pounds.

as occupier of the house. ---Cowley was heard in support of the order; and Barnesvall

, contrâ.-Bayley, J. The question in this case is, Whether the right to a settlement by being rated and paying taxes, was still a subsisting right at the time when the pauper was rated and paid, the tenement which he occupied being of the annual value of 101. or upwards? In this case the pauper could not gain a settlement by renting it, because he had not been in the occupation of it for the period of one whole year, as required by the 59 Geo. III. c. 50. In order to decide the question, we must advert to the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, s. 4, which enacts, that “ no person or persons whatsoever, who shall come into any parish, township, or place, shall gain a settlement in such parish, township, or place, by being charged with and

Proviso.

&c.

annual value of

(a) A residence of forty days previous chial rates, will not confer a settlement to the passing of this act, upon a tene- unless all the forty days are subsequent ment worth more than 101. a year, by a to such payment. Rer v. Ringstead, 1 party charged to, and having paid paro. Man. & Ry. 448; 7 B. & C. 607. s. C.

rates.

paying his, her, or their share towards the public taxes of the said parish, Tenthly, Of &c., for, and on account, or in respect of any tenement or tenements, not

settlement by being of the yearly value of 101.;" and it has been contended, that this payment of head of settlement was entirely put an end to by that clause. It is material to consider what was the law upon this subject, before the 35 Geo. III. c. 101 2. Construction, passed. A person rated and paying taxes for a tenement, whatever might &c. be its value, acquired a settlement. The parish, in such a case, was considered as having adopted him as one of their parishioners. In most instances, where the tenement was of the yearly value of 101., the occupier would obtain a settlement upon other grounds. In the course of the argument, however, one instance was referred to, in which a party occupying such a tenement would not acquire a settlement, unless on the ground of paying rates. I allude to the case of a person living in a house belonging to the king, as a servant of the public. The words of the clause to which I have referred do not, in terms, import an intention of the legislature to abolish this head of settlement entirely. They are qualified, and apply expressly to tenements not being of the yearly value of 101. And, before we give a general effect to words which are not in themselves general, we ought to see clearly that such was the intention of the legislature. I think that it would be going too far to give a general effect to the words of this act, when we find that being rated and paying, as applied to a tenement of above the annual value of 101., was one medium by which a settlement in all cases might be obtained, and in some instances the only medium. Rex v. Islington, and Rex v. Penryn, (a) have been referred to in argument, and are certainly at variance with the opinion of the Court. In the former, however, the point did not arise, and the opinion of Lord Kenyon was quite extra-judicial. The real question was, Whether the operation of the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, s. 4, was limited to persons who should thereafter come into any parish, or whether it extended to persons residing there before. In Rex v. Penryn, the question was again presented to the consideration of Lord Ellenborough, who certainly gave a distinct opinion, that it was the intention of the legislature to abolish, entirely, this head of settlement. The present Lord Chief Justice merely said, “ That it was expedient to do away settlements by paying rates for tenements of very small value.” It does not appear by the report, whether my brother Holroyd or myself were present. These two authorities naturally drew the attention of the Court carefully to consider the words of 35 Geo. III., and the state of the law, as it existed before the passing of that act. If there had been no case before that time, in which the occupier of a tenement of 10l. annual value would gain a set

(a) Rer v. Penryn, 5 M. & S. 443. tion defeated by nice distinctions. The Case : The pauper occupied four rooms, 3rd section was undoubtedly meant to at the yearly rent and of the value of abrogate this head of settlement, and the 41., part of a large dwelling-house of authorities upon it, which, perhaps, had the yearly value of 181. and upwards. been carried to some degree of absurdity. The other parts of the dwelling-house Lord Kenyon appears so to have consiwere occupied by several other tenants, dered the operation of the act; and I am two of whom also paid 41. a-year each glad that we have his authority for it. for their respective apartments. This If this construction of Lord Kenyon had dwelling-house had but one outer door not been felt to be the correct one, I and one staircase, and each tenant kept doubt not that we should have had some the key of his own apartment. For three observation upon it from the learned years the pauper was rated to the church reporter with whom the act originated, and poor-rates for the whole house, and and which is generally known by his paid the same; and they were allowed name.-Abbott, J. This act prevents to him out of his rent, except in one the removal of any person before he is -nstance. He had no concern with, or actually chargeable. This rendered it control over, the remainder of the house. expedient to do away with settlements -Lord Ellenborough, C. J. It will be by notice or paying rates, for tenements n vain for the legislature to make gene- of very small value. The Rer v. Islingal enactments, if such enactments are ton, the other casc overruled, is in 1 o be explained away, and their opera- East, 283.

« PreviousContinue »