Page images



Tenthly, of tlement by the payment of rates, and on that ground only, then, perhaps, settlement by the words of the statute might be construed to have a general operation, payinent of and to annihilate this head of settlement altogether. One instance, how

ever, has been mentioned, and, possibly, there may be others, where, before 2. Construction,

the statute, 35 Geo. III., a settlement could not be acquired at all by the occupier of such a tenement, unless by the payment of rates ; and that being so, I think that we are not warranted in saying that these qualified words were intended by the legislature to have a general and unqualified operation, so as to abrogate entirely this head of settlement. It might, perhaps, be imagined, when the 59 Geo. III. c. 50, passed, that this head of settlement no longer existed ; and we have avoided delay in giving our opinion, that if such were the notion, the error may be remedied during the present session of parliament. Order of sessions confirmed. (a)

Rex v. St. Dunstan's (See this case, ante, 566), 4 B. & C. 686.- Abbott, C. J. It is contended against the order, that, upon the true construction of

the stat. 35 Geo. III. c. 101, we ought to hold that no person shall gain a pounds, rating in settlement by being charged and paying rates, in respect of a tenement of

the yearly value of 101., unless he is actually rated at that sum in the assessment. Whether that was the intention of the legislature may admit of some doubt, but certainly it is not for us to say that such an effect is to be given to the act of parliament, because the expressions used in the statute are, “that no person shall gain a settlement by being charged with, and paying his share towards the public taxes of the parish, in respect of any tenement, not being of the value of 101.". Then, must not the yearly value be the criterion, and not the sum at which the tenant is actually rated ? In this case, I think that the fixtures having made the tenement amount to the value of 101., we must say that the pauper's husband gained a settlement without any regard to the amount of rate, or the value fixed by the parish officers in their assessment.

It is not necessary that the person should be ruled at ten

ment of that annual value is sufficient.

(a) The sole object of the legislature relief on the forty-first day: For this in passing the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, was reason,

such persons rated in respect of to take away the power of removing poor tenements under 101., were prevented, persons likely to become chargeable, and by sect. 4, from gaining setilements by to make them irremovable till actually paying rates. Similar reasons may be chargeable. But in doing this, it be- given for the two remaining enactments came necessary to guard against certain in the 5th and 6th sections. The wbole evils which this change would produce may be thus summed up: Wherever the to parishes. For instance, by the old change of the law from probable to actual law, a person coming into a parish, and chargeability, enabled persons who were giving a written notice to the overseers, likely to become chargeable to obtain would, if he resided forty days, gain a settlements, by preventing the parish settlement. The reason of this being, officers from removing them for forty that if likely to be chargeable, the over- days, those settlements were abolished; seers, availing themselves of the know, but where, by the law as it stood before ledge thereby communicated, might re- the 35 Geo. 3, c. 101, such persons were move him.

But when the law was irremovable, that act did not interfere altered, and actual substituted for pro- with their cases. See the judgment of bable chargeability, it would follow that Holroyd, J., in Rer v. Idle, 4 B. & A. a person very likely to become charge. 156. Applying this principle to the able might, if he was desirous of doing case here decided, we may conclude that so, come in and give notice, and, in de- the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, did not prevent fiance of the overseers, acquire a settle- settlements by paying rates in respect of ment by only not demanding relief for tenements above 10l.; for to such cases forty days. In order to remedy this the inconvenience above pointed out did evil, setilement by notice was abolished not apply. By 13 & 14 Čar. II. persons by section 3. So, again, if a person coming to settle on tenements above came to settle on a tenement under 101., 101., and consequently persons paying he would, by the old law, be removable rates in respect of such tenements, were if likely to become chargeable; but if he irremovable, even though likely to be was rated, and paid rates in respect of it come chargeable. Their situation, there. for forty days, and was not, during that fore, was not altered by 35 Geo. 111. Ce time, actually chargeable, he might be 101. 2 B. & C. 128, note. come settled in the parish, and demand


If we were to lay down a different rule of construction, it might happen that Tenthly, Of a person could gain no settlement by rating, even though it could be proved settlement oy to demonstration, that the tenement was of the yearly value of 201. or any payment of larger amount. - Bayley, J. I do not agree with the construction put upon the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, in argument. The legislature has said, “ not being

2. Construction, of the value of 101.,” which only shews that the tenement must be of that &c. value. If it had been said, “not rated to the value of 101.,” I should have acceded to the argument.

3. Of Inhabitancy. Rex v. St. Michael-at-Thorn, in Norwich, 6 T.R.536. The pauper resided 8. Inhabitancy. in one, and was assessed to the land-tax in another parish. The two parishes The pauper must were consolidated by statute, and the poor maintained out of one joint fund. in which he is The removal was from a third parish.—Lord Kenyon. Though they were con- rated. solidated for that purpose as between them and strangers, each parish continues a separate and distinct parish. Then the stat. 3 & 4W. & M. (ante, 650), says, that any person who shall inhabit in any town or parish, and be charged with and pay his share towards the public taxes of the said town or parish, shall thereby obtain a settlement; but in this case the pauper's husband lived in one parish, and was assessed to the land-tax in another, therefore this does not come within the statute.

Rex v. Ringstead, 7. B. & C. 607. Being charged with, and paying parochial taxes, did not, before the statute of 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, s. 2, confer any settlement, until the party charged with, and paying the same, had resided within the parish forty days after he had been so charged ; and since that statute passed, no person can acquire a settlement by reason of renting, or paying parochial taxes for, any tenement, unless it be of a certain description ; and, therefore, where a pauper had rented a tenement insufficient to confer a settlement under 6 Geo. IV., and, in respect thereof, had been rated and paid parochial taxes, but had not resided thereon, after such rating and payment, forty days before the passing of the 6 Geo. IV., it was held that he did not thereby acquire any settlement.

4. What are Parochial Taxes or Levies within this Act. Several of the immediately preceding cases exhibit instances of taxes or . What are par levies, by the payment of which settlements have been claimed. The sub

rochial taxes, &c. ject is further elucidated by the following decisions :

Rex v. Bramley, Burr. S. C. 75. John Close, the pauper, inhabited and Land-tax held to farmed lands at Armley, for which he was charged, and paid two quarterly the act. payments to the land-tax only. By the Court. It hath been a great doubt, whether, in this respect, the legislature did not mean parochial taxes. But this hath been long gotten over; and the land-tax has been holden to be within the act, from the notice of inhabitancy that arises by the party's being assessed, and paying it.

In Rex v. East Teignmouth, Sit. before M. 1830, MSS., it was held that the words“ parochial rates,” in the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, applied to the land-tax; and that it was not confined to rates made for the use of the parish,

but to all levies collected within the parish. In Rex v. Axmouth, (post, 659), it was contended, that since the land-tax redemption acts, (38 Geo. III. c. 60, sed vide 42 Geo. III. c. 116, vol. iii.) which perpetuate the tax on lands as a charge upon the lands in the parish, and leave the tax on salaries as a mere personal tax; the rating, in respect of the latter, no longer satisfied the words of 3 W. III. c. 11. But the Court immediately over-ruled it, stating, that the tax was still a public tax, leviable and collected within the parish. [See 43 Geo. III. c. 167, and c. 59, ante, 650.] Rer v. Christ Church, London, 8 B. f. C. 660. Order of removal of A tax for a ward

is not sufficient. Sophia, wife of John Gyles, who was absent from her, from St. Anne, Blackfriars, to Christ Church, confirmed. Case: John occupied part of a house in Christ Church, of the yearly value of 201., for several months, in 1821, and during that time was rated to, and paid two quarters' watch-rates, for the ward of Farringdon. The city is divided into twenty-six wards, and the

4. What are pa

Tenthly, Of ward of Farringdon into seventeen precincts; the house of John, with regard settlement by to ward matters, is in St. Ewin's, and not in Christ Church precinct. The payment of watch-rate is made by the aldermen and common councilmen of each ward rates,

under 10 Geo. II. c. 22, which enables the mayor, aldermen, and commons

of the city, to determine what sum shall be raised for watching, and directs rochial taxes, &c. the aldermen and councilmen of each ward to make an assessment upon

every person who shall inhabit or hold any land in the ward. The rate is collected by the beadle of the ward.-Bayley, J. The land-tax was holden to be within the act, from the notice of inhabitancy that arises by the party having been assessed and paid it. Payment towards a county bridge gives no settlement, because a person pays as an inhabitant of the county, and not of the parish. This watch-rate is not a parochial tax, nor is it collected by any officer belonging to the parish : the parish had no notice that the party who paid the watch-rate was an inhabitant of the parish: no settlement,

therefore, was gained. Order of sessions quashed. Scavengers. By 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 6. No person who shall be assessed to the scavenger's Highways. rate, or to the repairs of the highways, and shall duly pay the same, shall be

deemed to be seitled thereby. County bridges. T. 9 An. Set. f. Rem. 1. Paying to a county bridge gains no settle

ment, for there all the county is liable, and the payment is made as one of the county, and not as an inhabitant of the parish or town where the person resides,

But as the 12 Geo. II. c. 29, charges a sum certain upon every dirision in proportion to their poor-rate, towards the repair of bridges and other county expenses, and (with respect to bridges) is charged by the justices upon every individual, the case may be altered since that act was passed, under which it may be considered a parish rate or tax. And there is in this case the same notoriety of his inhabitancy as in the case of the poor-rate.

5. The Person must be Charged and Pay such Tur. Although the rate be from the manner of making it, or from the want of authority in those who assume to make it, not strictly legal, or be void for want of form, or on any other ground, yet if the party be rated, and pay to such a rate, he shall gain a settlement: for it would be hard, that one of the parish should come and say, that was a void rate, being of their own making, and acquiesced under, and the money paid accordingly. 19 Vin. Abr. 386.

St. Giles's, Cripplegate, v. St. Mary, Newington, 2 Nol. P. L. 126. Not so, if the Rex v. Edgbaston, 6 T. R. 540. A person's name was inserted in a rate name be inserted after payment, and after it was so introduced, he always refused to pay.-He paid.

gained no settlement.

Rex v. St. Bees, 9 East, 203. Removal of Sarah Tidyman from Egremont rowly made is to St. Bees, confirmed. Case: The pauper's husband occupied a house in good for the pur: Egremont till his death. A year after they occupied the house, a church warden

called at the house for an assessment (generally called in the parish a couple sess, but which the pauper understood to be a church sess), and told her that her husband was assessed, and she paid ls. 2d. as the sum assessed. Some time afterwards she paid 1s. more, upon a similar demand made by another church warden. And asterwards another shilling was paid, and the assessment was as follows:

“1791. An assessment upon the householders in the parish of Egremont, at 1s. per couple, for the ornaments and repairs of the parish church ;

d. “ X John Tidyman

1 0 “We, whose names are hereunto subscribed (being of the church vestry),

do allow of this as a regular assessment ; as witness our hands, the

28th of March, 1791.".
(Signed by the minister and eight other persons,

including the two churchwardens.)
The mark x opposite Tidyman's name denoted that he had paid the
assessment. It appeared from the churchwarden's accounts of that year
entered in the vestry book, that the sums received under that assessment,

5. The person, &c. Payment of the sum assessed is sutticicnt, though the rate be informal.

after the rate is

A rate too nar



[ocr errors]



were in part laid out in the repairs and ornaments of the church, and the rest Tenthly, of in payment of a debt due to the preceding overseers. But that assessment settlement by being insufficient, another was made in the same year in aid of it, upon the

payment of landholders of the parish, who were never assessed, but when the assessment upon the householders proved insufficient. And it was frequently the prac- 5. The person, tice for the select vestry of the parish to make out these assessments, in the &c. form of a list of the names of the inhabitants liable to pay; charging the householders at 1s. each, and the widowers and widows, householders, at 6d. each ; which assessments were afterwards submitted to and appproved by the general parish vestry: --Topping, in support of the order, contended. That the rate was clearly bad, as being made upon the householders only, and not upon the parishioners at large.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The settlement is given by 3 W. III. c. 11, to any person inhabiting any town or parish, who shall be charged and pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the town or parish. Now if a public tax be laid too narrowly, is it less a public tax on that account? This was a tax, and it was public, and it was charged and paid within the parish. What else was required to meet the act of parliament? Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Corhampton, Doug. 621. The overseers made a rate for 2s. in the Omission of the pound, in this form, “Rent 41. Q. C. Occupier Richard Goodiff. Sum sum assessed imassessed

The overseers demanded 8s. for the rate, declaring he was assessed in that sum for the relief of the poor. Goodiff objected, alleging that he was not a parishioner. The overseers opened the rate book, and shewed him his name therein, and threatened to distrain for the 8s. if he did not pay it. Goodiff, on this, paid the money directly. In the afternoon of the same day, the overseer returned, with the vestry clerk, and offered to return the money, saying he had taken it by mistake. Goodiff refused to receive it. The overseer however left it, and went away; on which Goodiff threw the money after him. It was contended that the parish never intended to rate him. The mistake of the overseer (and corrected

so soon), in supposing him rated when he was not, could not be binding upon the parish.-By Lord Mansfield, C. J. There is no question in the case. The title of the rate is, 2s. in the pound; and in the column of rent, Goodiffs rent is 41. This fixes his proportion of the rate. For what purpose was his name inserted, if not to rate him? And besides, he has paid it, and against his will; and the overseer shall not have it in his power to say, upon reconsidering the matter, I have thought better of it, and you shall not gain a settlement. Rex v. Warblington, Burr. S. C. 245, was different from this. The payment there was not till a year after it should have been made, and the overseer was induced to receive it by misrepresentation.

Solon Tongham v. Worplesdon, Fol. 128. The landlord was rated to the The person pay. poor for the tenement, as being in his hands, and the tenant paid part of the ing must be the rate.-By the Court. The tenant doth not gain a settlement, unless he be both rated and

pay. Kinfare v. Kingswinford, Fol. 129. The pauper rented a tenement and Same point, and paid all parochial taxes for the same for three years in his own right, but payment by the was not rated in the parish books; but the name of Richard Coates, who a settlement. rented the tenement before the pauper, was kept in the levy books.-By the Court. This was no settlement.

Rex v. Şarratt, Burr. S. C. 73. The landlord, who never occupied the house, was charged to the poor rate ; but the tenant, on demand of the overseers, paid it.—Lord Hardwicke, C. J. The act requires both a charge and payment; and here is only a charge without a payment. The charging is the principal act, as it infers notice to the parish; but both are necessary. The tenant must both be charged and pay.

Rex v. Bramshaw, Burr. $. C. 98. The landlord of the house, who Same point. was also overseer of the poor, was charged to the poor rate; but the tenant on demand of the landlord, paid the rate.—By the Court. It is a settled point, that a person must be rated as well as pay.

Rex v. Lower Walton, Burr. S. C. 100. The father was rated, and the Same point. son who occupied the tenement paid the rate.—By the Court. He must both be rated and pay in order to gain a settlement.

person rated.



without his pame.

Tenthly, Of Rex v. Heckmondwicke, Doug. 564. The mother occupied the house, settlement try and was rated and paid the taxes till the time of her death ; after which, payment of her son occupied the house and paid taxes, but the parish officers continued

her name in the rate, knowing at the same time that she was dead.-By Lord 4. The person,

Mansfield, C. J. There must be such a rating, and paying, as to shew

manifestly that the parish had notice. Here the rate was continued in the The rate must be name of a dead person, whom the parish officers knew to be dead. The on the occupier. rate ought to be made on the occupier, and could be on nobody else. This

(he said) was determined in Rex v. Walsall. It is sufficient is Rex v. Brightman, 8 Mod. 38; 2 Burr. 1062. Where a man lived in a a person is rated place called Hoscoe's tenement, and paid taxes there by the name of the as

occupier of Hoscoe's; this was adjudged to be a sufficient designation of the party, so as to gain a settlement.

Rex v Painswick, Burr. S. C. 465. The pauper, Isaac Moorman, took a house in Cirencester, of Thomas Clifford, and agreed to pay the land-tax, and poor-taxes, and all other taxes. The rating was thus : “ Thomas Clifford, or tenant.Moorman paid the taxes: and the overseers gave receipts to him in his own name. The landlord lived five miles off. It was urged, that Moorman himself was not rated : being neither expressly named, nor even personally hinted at.-But, the Court, (Lord Mansfield absent,) was clearly of opinion, that the pauper was sufficiently charged, to notify to Cirencester that he was an inhabitant there, and consequently gained a settlement by payment of the rates so charged. It was not necessary that he

should be expressly named. It is enough if Rex v. Walsall, Cald. 35. The pauper, Joseph Dean, took a farm in the there be a de- borough of Walsall, and paid the poor rates in his own right, which were scription sufticient to charge

charged in these words, “ Late Lowbridge's house, 21. 6s. Od.-1s. 2d.the tenant. Other tenements in the borough were charged in the same manner, after

new inhabitants had come into them, who severally paid the rates for them: this tenement had been so charged ever since one Lowbridge left it.—By Aston, J. and the Court (Lord Mansfield, C. J., being absent): It is agreed that the person must be both rated and pay; and as to the manner how he is to be rated, it is clear that his name need not be inserted in the rate. If the parish have sufficient notice of him, it is enough ; paying under a rating is equivalent to notice, and the officers have received the rate of this man for two or three years, and therefore must have known him; and it is stated that he paid in his own right. He gained a settlement.

Rex v. Llangammarch, 2 T. R. 628. The pauper was removed from charge upon the Llanuslyd to Llangammarch. Removal confirmed. The pauper, in May, , if

1778, rented a house and land in Llangammarch, at 5l. per annum. No any other way agreement was then made, between

the landlord and tenant, about payment than by name, it of the taxes. The house is called Bryn Frwst, or Waynllwyd, and the land

is rated to the poor tax by the name of Waynllwyd. The pauper lived one notoriously such. year in the house, but paid no taxes for it. In September, 1778, the land

lord informed him, that taxes were wanted for his land. The pauper desired the landlord to pay them, and he would repay him the same. In fact, no taxes were ever paid by or demanded from the tenant; but it appeared that the landlord paid the taxes, and that the pauper allowed them. The overseer, who received the taxes from the landlord for this land, knew nothing of the pauper; nor whether or not he resided at this farm at the time. Rex v. Painswick and Rex v. Walsall were cited.—Ashhurst, J. The circumstance that the overseer did not know the pauper, nor whether he resided at this farm, distinguishes this from the cases cited. The ground of determination, in Rex v. Painswick, was the notoriety of the occupancy. For when Mr. J. Dennison thought that rating the house only might be sufficient, he added, “ for the parish could not but know who was the occupier.” That, indeed, is the natural presumption ; but we cannot presume against the facts of the case; and here it is expressly stated as a fact, that the overseer knew nothing of the pauper, or whether he resided at this farm. The reason why a party gains a settlement by paying taxes, is because it is an admission by the parish that he is an inhabitant. There is no foundation for the distinction which has been taken between the knowledge of the overseer,

There must be a

rate he made in

must appear that the tenant was

« PreviousContinue »