Page images
PDF
EPUB

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

1. Enactments, &c.

Payment of du

1. Enactments as to this Settlement.

The 3 W. III. c. 11. s. 6, enacts, "That if any person who shall come to inhabit in any town or parish, shall be charged with and pay his share towards the 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 10l., 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 10l."

By 43 Geo. III. č. 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."

fer a settlement.

What shall be

a settlement.

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, bonâ fide rented by such person, in such parish or township, at and for the sum of 10l. 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 10l., 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."

Proviso.

2. Construction, &c.

A settlement may be gained by being rated and

paying parochial taxes in respect of a tenement, being above the annual value of ten pounds.

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

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 to St. Pancras, Middlesex. Order confirmed. Case: The husband occupied a house in Thornhaugh-street, in St. Pancras, and resided in the same not exceeding nine months, and subsequent to the 2nd of July, 1819, at the yearly rent and value of 801.; and, during such occupation, her husband was regularly rated by, and paid a poor-rate to, the parish of St. Pancras, as occupier of the house.-Cowley was heard in support of the order; and Barnesvall, contra.—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

(a) A residence of forty days previous to the passing of this act, upon a tenement worth more than 101. a year, by a party charged to, and having paid paro

chial rates, will not confer a settlement unless all the forty days are subsequent to such payment. Rex v. Ringstead, 1 Man. & Ry. 448; 7 B. & C. 607. S. C.

Tenthly, Of settlement by

payment of

rates.

paying his, her, or their share towards the public taxes of the said parish, &c., for, and on account, or in respect of any tenement or tenements, not being of the yearly value of 101. ;" and it has been contended, that this 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 10l., 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 10., 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) Rex v. Penryn, 5 M. & S. 443. Case: The pauper occupied four rooms, at the yearly rent and of the value of 4., part of a large dwelling-house of the yearly value of 181. and upwards. The other parts of the dwelling-house were occupied by several other tenants, two of whom also paid 41. a-year each for their respective apartments. This dwelling-house had but one outer door and one staircase, and each tenant kept the key of his own apartment. For three years the pauper was rated to the church and poor-rates for the whole house, and paid the same; and they were allowed to him out of his rent, except in one instance. He had no concern with, or control over, the remainder of the house. -Lord Ellenborough, C. J. It will be in vain for the legislature to make general enactments, if such enactments are to be explained away, and their opera

tion defeated by nice distinctions. The
3rd section was undoubtedly meant to
abrogate this head of settlement, and the
authorities upon it, which, perhaps, had
been carried to some degree of absurdity.
Lord Kenyon appears so to have consi-
dered the operation of the act; and I am
glad that we have his authority for it.
If this construction of Lord Kenyon had
not been felt to be the correct one, I
doubt not that we should have had some
observation upon it from the learned
reporter with whom the act originated,
and which is generally known by his
name.-Abbott, J. This act prevents
the removal of any person before he is
actually chargeable. This rendered it
expedient to do away with settlements
by notice or paying rates, for tenements
of very small value. The Rex v. Isting-
ton, the other case overruled, is in 1
East, 283.

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

2. Construction, &c.

It is not necessary that the

person should be rated at ten

respect of a tenement of that annual value is sufficient.

tlement by the payment of rates, and on that ground only, then, perhaps, the words of the statute might be construed to have a general operation, and to annihilate this head of settlement altogether. One instance, however, has been mentioned, and, possibly, there may be others, where, before 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 107., 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 10l." 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 107., 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.

(a) The sole object of the legislature
in passing the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, was
to take away the power of removing poor
persons likely to become chargeable, and
to make them irremovable till actually
chargeable. But in doing this, it be
came necessary to guard against certain
evils which this change would produce
to parishes. For instance, by the old
law, a person coming into a parish, and
giving a written notice to the overseers,
would, if he resided forty days, gain a
settlement. The reason of this being,
that if likely to be chargeable, the over-
seers, availing themselves of the know-
ledge thereby communicated, might re-
move him.
But when the law was
altered, and actual substituted for pro-
bable chargeability, it would follow that
a person very likely to become charge-
able might, if he was desirous of doing
so, come in and give notice, and, in de-
fiance of the overseers, acquire a settle-
ment by only not demanding relief for
forty days. In order to remedy this
evil, settlement by notice was abolished
by section 3. So, again, if a person
came to settle on a tenement under 10.,
he would, by the old law, be removable
if likely to become chargeable; but if he
was rated, and paid rates in respect of it
for forty days, and was not, during that
time, actually chargeable, he might be-
come settled in the parish, and demand

relief on the forty-first day. For this reason, such persons rated in respect of tenements under 10., were prevented, by sect. 4, from gaining settlements by paying rates. Similar reasons may be given for the two remaining enactments in the 5th and 6th sections. The whole may be thus summed up: Wherever the change of the law from probable to actual chargeability, enabled persons who were likely to become chargeable to obtain settlements, by preventing the parish officers from removing them for forty days, those settlements were abolished; but where, by the law as it stood before the 35 Geo. 3, c. 101, such persons were irremovable, that act did not interfere with their cases. See the judgment of Holroyd, J., in Rex v. Idle, 4 B. & A. 156. Applying this principle to the case here decided, we may conclude that the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, did not prevent settlements by paying rates in respect of tenements above 101.; for to such cases the inconvenience above pointed out did not apply. By 13 & 14 Car. II. persons coming to settle on tenements above 10l., and consequently persons paying rates in respect of such tenements, were irremovable, even though likely to become chargeable. Their situation, therefore, was not altered by 35 Geo. III. c. 101. 2 B. & C. 128, note.

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

If we were to lay down a different rule of construction, it might happen that a person could gain no settlement by rating, even though it could be proved to demonstration, that the tenement was of the yearly value of 201. or any 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 107.," I should have acceded to the argument.

3. Of Inhabitancy.

The pauper must in which he is inhabit the parish

rated.

Rex v. St. Michael-at-Thorn, in Norwich, 6 T. R.536. The pauper resided 3. Inhabitancy. in one, and was assessed to the land-tax in another parish. The two parishes were consolidated by statute, and the poor maintained out of one joint fund. The removal was from a third parish.-Lord Kenyon. Though they were consolidated for that purpose as between them and strangers, each parish continues a separate and distinct parish. Then the stat. 3 & 4 W. & 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 levies, by the payment of which settlements have been claimed. The subject is further elucidated by the following decisions:Rex v. Bramley, Burr. S. C. 75. John Close, the pauper, inhabited and farmed lands at Armley, for which he was charged, and paid two quarterly 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. 161, and c. 59, ante, 650.]

4. What are parochial taxes, &c.

Land tax held to

be a tax within

the act.

is not sufficient.

Rex v. Christ Church, London, 8 B. & C. 660. Order of removal of A tax for a ward 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

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

ward of Farringdon into seventeen precincts; the house of John, with regard to ward matters, is in St. Ewin's, and not in Christ Church precinct. The watch-rate is made by the aldermen and common councilmen of each ward 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 4. What are parochial 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.
Highways.

County bridges.

5. The person, &c.

Payment of the

sum assessed is sufficient,

though the rate be informal.

Not so, if the

By 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 6. No person who shall be assessed to the scavenger's rate, or to the repairs of the highways, and shall duly pay the same, shall be deemed to be settled thereby.

T. 9 An. Set. & Rem. 1. Paying to a county bridge gains no settlement, 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 division 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 Tux.

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.

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 gained no settlement.

after the rate is

paid.
A rate too nar-

rowly made is

poses of a settle

ment.

Rex v. St. Bees, 9 East, 203. Removal of Sarah Tidyman from Egremont 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 churchwarden 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 1s. 2d. as the sum assessed. Some time afterwards she paid 1s. more, upon a similar demand made by another churchwarden. And afterwards 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;

"X John Tidyman

s. d. 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.)

assessment.

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

« PreviousContinue »