Tenthly, Of settlement by

payment of

rates.

were in part laid out in the repairs and ornaments of the church, and the rest in payment of a debt due to the preceding overseers. But that assessment being insufficient, another was made in the same year in aid of it, upon the 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 pound, in this form, "Rent 4l. Q. C. Occupier Richard Goodiff. Sum assessed 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, Goodiff's rent is 4l. 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 poor for the tenement, as being in his hands, and the tenant paid part of 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 paid all parochial taxes for the same for three years in his own right, but was not rated in the parish books; but the name of Richard Coates, who rented the tenement before the pauper, was kept in the levy books. By the Court. This was no settlement.

Rex v. Sarratt, 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.

Omission of the sum assessed im

material.

The person paying must be the

person rated.

Same point, and payment by the person claiming a settlement.

Rex v. Bramshaw, Burr. S. 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.

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

4. The person, &c.

The rate must be on the occupier.

It is sufficient if

Rex v. Heckmondwicke, Doug. 564. The mother occupied the house, and was rated and paid the taxes till the time of her death; after which, 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 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 name of a dead person, whom the parish officers knew to be dead. The rate ought to be made on the occupier, and could be on nobody else. This (he said) was determined in Rex v. Walsall.

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

as" occupier,"

without his name.

It is enough if there be a description sufficient to charge the tenant.

There must be a

tenant, and if the rate be made in any other way

than by name, it

must appear that the tenant was

notoriously such.

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.

Rex v. Walsall, Cald. 35. The pauper, Joseph Dean, took a farm in the borough of Walsall, and paid the poor rates in his own right, which were charged in these words, “Late Lowbridge's house, 21. 6s. Od.—1s. Qd.” 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. 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.

If

Rex v. Llangammarch, 2 T. R. 628. The pauper was removed from charge upon the Llanwslyd to Llangammarch. Removal confirmed. The pauper, in May, 1778, rented a house and land in Llangammarch, at 5l. per annum. No agreement was then made, between the landlord and tenant, about payment of the taxes. The house is called Bryn Frust, or Waynllwyd, and the land is rated to the poor tax by the name of Waynllwyd. The pauper lived one year in the house, but paid no taxes for it. In September, 1778, the landlord 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,

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

5. The person,

and that of the parish at large; for the overseers are the trustees for, and
transact the business of, the parish, and they ought to know the state and
conditions of the inhabitants. And, indeed, if we could presume either
way, it would rather be, that the parish even did not know that the pauper
resided in his farm.-Buller, J. The poor's rate is a tax on the occupier; if
the house be rated, it is primâ facie a rate on the occupier, but it is not &c.
conclusive. If the overseer call on the occupier for the rate, and he pays,
that shews that he intended he should pay. But here the overseer did not
know that he was an inhabitant, and he went to the landlord and received
the rate from him.-Grose, J., concurred.

Rex v Folkstone, 3 T. R. 505. The rate for the land-tax was as follows:
Sum assessed. Proprietors.

Occupier.
J. King.

Houses.

Quarterly payment.

2s. 6d.

The sessions were of opinion that the landlords were the persons intended to be rated.-Lord Kenyon. On the rate there is one column of the proprietors, and another of tenants; but the names of the tenants were only inserted in order to shew for what property the landlords were rated.Buller, J. Whether the landlord or tenant is rated, is a question of fact which should always be found by the justices.

Rex v. Mitcham, Cald. 276. John Heard, removed from Mitcham to Moredon. Order quashed. Case: The pauper inhabited for several years a house at Moredon, which he rented of Mr. Gasson, who was also an inhabitant there, at the yearly rent of 51., clear of all taxes, parliamentary and parochial. Whilst he occupied it, an assessment for the land-tax was made on Moredon, the title of which was, "Surrey, &c. an assessment on the inhabitants of the parish of Moredon, for raising a sum by a land-tax," &c. in the following form:

Rent. £5 0 0

[ 6 * *

d. 99

.-By Lord

Heard paid the 9s. 94d. to the collector who demanded the same.-
Mansfield, C.J. The question is, Whether the landlord or tenant is the person
charged? The assessment does not say who is, but the names of both landlord
and tenant are used. The rate alone then, in this case, is no charge upon
either. The answer to this question must, therefore, be gathered from other
circumstances. In the first place, who ought to be charged? Undoubtedly
the occupier ought. The landlord, it is true, is the debtor, but the rate is
pointed at the occupier. The parish cannot tell who is the landlord, or who
has a rent charge. It is upon the occupier that the officer of government
takes his remedy; and though the landlord is directed to allow the sum
levied out of the rent, the parish have nothing to do with the transactions
between landlord and tenant: this is a matter between them; but for the
sake of the public, the occupier, the ostensible person, is to be considered as
the person first liable. The next consideration is, What does the assessment
profess to be? It professes to be an assessment on the inhabitants, that is,
the occupiers; the landlord may or may not be an inhabitant: the tenant
must be. Then, of whom is it demanded? Of the occupier. Who pays it?
The occupier. We may, therefore, supply from the circumstances that which
is omitted in the rate itself; and intend here, that which was expressed in
Rex v. Carshalton, Burr. S. C. 809, with which the present decision does
not interfere.-Willes, J. There are two circumstances which differ this case
from that of Rex v. Carshalton, viz. the title of the rate, and the manner of
making it; and the Court were there of opinion, that the landlord was charged
upon the face of it. Here, where the expressions fall short, and we cannot,
from the instrument itself, collect enough to found our judgment upon, col-
lateral circumstances point out the tenant as the person meant to be charged.
Order quashed. [See Rex v. Endon, Cald. 374.]

Rex v. Coppull, 2 East, 25. Removal from Standish with Langtree to Coppull, confirmed. Case: The respondents proved by the evidence of the pauper, that his father purchased an estate in Coppull, and actually paid the parish rates in respect of it; but the respondents did not produce any rates,

It may be inform of rating, ferred, from the who is the person rated; and in the

case of land-tax, the presumption is (between the public and the

tenant), that the occupier is the person rated,

The rate itself must be produced

as evidence of being charged.

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

rates.

5. The person, &c.

The payment by

another may be equivalent to

self.

and had not given notice for the production of any.-Per Lord Kenyon, C.J. It is impossible to argue that parol evidence may be given of rates which are not produced, nor any notice proved to produce them, nor any reasonable account given for their non-production. The best evidence was not given which the nature of the case would admit of. Both orders quashed.

Rex v. Bridgewater, 3 T. R. 550. T. Bastard was the occupier of a house, and the assessment for the land-tax was-Landlord, J. W. Tenant, T. B. Assessment 6s. 9d. Bastard absconded, and the landlord requested the payment by him- tax collector to go with him to take a distress for the 6s. 9d., otherwise he should lose the money. They went, and saw Bastard's daughter, who pleaded her poverty, and said a friend would pay it. She then went with them to Mrs. O. who gave a guinea to the collector who received thereout the land-tax. The Court were clearly of opinion, that it was money paid for his (Bastard's) use, for which an action might be maintained against him. The money was advanced by a friend, in order to protect him from a distress, under which his goods would have otherwise been taken.Lord Ellenborough, C. J.; Rex v. Okehampton, is not to be distinguished from the present. The land-tax being a public-tax within the 3 W. III. c. 11, the officer was both charged to it, and paid it within the parish, and nothing more was wanting to give him a settlement there. Rex v. Weobley, was distinguished from the other cases by Lord Kenyon, because there the officer did not pay the tax mediately or immediately; and, as he says afterwards, because the pauper neither in fact paid the rate himself, nor constructively by the hands of his agent. As to his being reimbursed afterwards, all the cases agree that that makes no difference, and that is not contradicted by Rex v. Weobley. Order of sessions confirmed.

Rex v. Openshaw, Burr. S. C. 522; 1 Blac. Rep. 463. James Bowden took a house and two closes at Gorton, and the landlord was to pay all taxes and levies but the window tax. The rating was thus, "Bowden's." The landlord himself for some time paid the taxes; but in the last year the landlord having some disputes with the overseers about his assessments, directed the overseers to call upon his tenant Bowden for a poor-rate, and a church-rate, and tell him that his landlord ordered him to pay, and he would allow it to him out of his rent. The tenant paid the same, declaring he paid them for his landlord, and the overseer said he accepted them accordingly. But the landlord, not being asked by the tenant to allow it did not allow it out of the rent till three quarters of a year after he left the estate, (which was six days before the order of removal,) when he repaid the money.-By Lord Mansfield, C. J. This was a tenant's tax, and he is assessed by name, "Bowden's." The agreement between his landlord and him, that the landlord should pay it, is nothing to the parish.

Rex v. Okehampton, Burr. S. C. 5. A tide-waiter resided in Kenton, and had a salary: he was rated for this salary to the land-tax. It was paid for some time by himself, but repaid to him by the collector of the customs; and afterwards was paid by the collector. The question is, Whether he paid his share towards the public taxes and levies of the parish? It was said it was not his own money, but the money of the collector.-By Lord Hardwicke, C. J. Suppose the landlord has agreed to reimburse his tenant, would not the tenant be settled? This collector did not pay it to exonerate the parish, but to better the man's salary. And by the Court. It hath been settled, that the land-tax is a parish tax within the act; and his being taxed for his salary makes no difference.

Rex v. Weobley, 2 East, 68. Removed from Weobley to New Radnor; quashed. The pauper resided as an officer of excise in W., and during such residence was rated to the land-tax in that parish for his salary, which was proved by the production of the land-tax assessment; but it appeared by the evidence of the pauper that he never paid such rate himself, or any rate; the same being paid by the collector of excise, and not deducted out of the pauper's salary.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. If the rate had been paid by him through the medium or by the hands of another, that would have been a payment by himself; but here he neither paid it mediately nor immediately. He was not affected by the payment at all. It was not deducted

Tenthly, Of settlement by payment of

ont of his salary, nor was his income diminished by it. I know that the
statute in question has been extended by construction much beyond what
was apparently intended by the legislature. This being a new case, where
the pauper neither in fact paid the rate himself, nor constructively by the
hands of his agent, it is better to abide by the letter and true spirit of the
act, and to hold that he did not thereby gain a settlement. Order of &c.
sessions quashed.

rates.

5. The person,

tom house officer land-tax, paid by the pauper, and the collector: reimbursed by This is sufficient.

was rated to the

Rex v. Axmouth, 8 East, 383. Removal of Martha Clarke from Axmouth Salary of a custo Lyme Regis, quashed. Case: The pauper's husband, deceased, (J. Clarke) was an officer under the custom-house, stationed at Axmouth with a salary of 50%.; he did the duty of the office there, and was charged 81. per annum to the land-tax in respect of his salary of 50l. There had been annually an order issued from the treasury, authorizing the commissioners to direct the collectors of the outports to reimburse those officers of the customs whose salaries did not exceed 60l. per annum, the taxes assessed on such salaries, and paid by them. It most frequently happened that Clarke was unable to pay the tax assessed on him, until he had received the same from the colLector of the customs, and the tax collector of the parish was at such times in the habit of trusting Clarke with a receipt, and the collector of the customs upon having this receipt given him, paid Clarke the sum, and Clarke paid the same to the collector of the parish. The Court said, his being reimbursed made no difference, and that he gained a settlement.

(Eleventhly)—Of Settlement by Acknowledgment; as by
Certificate, &c. (a)

Settlements of this description are rather evidence of a previous settlement than modes of acquiring a settlement, but nevertheless are usually classed under the head of a settlement. (b)

Parishes upon whom the burden of supporting or relieving a pauper is sought to be cast in any particular instance, and who resist the attempt of the removing parish, are regarded by the courts, and are subjected to the same rules of law as individual litigants. If, therefore, the defendant parish has previously made any practical acknowledgment of the liability against which it is defending itself, such admission or acknowledgment may be given in evidence, and will in some cases be conclusive, and estop the parish from afterwards controverting the fact either as to the party himself, or those who claim settlements through him, unless its effect can be explained away, by shewing that the acts which are pressed against the parish, as amounting to an acknowledgment that the pauper was settled with them, were exercised towards him as casual poor, and not from a sense of his having the more permanent right to relief in consequence of a legal settlement in such parish.

As in all other cases, so in this, the admission of the party sought to be charged, of the justice of the claim, is the strongest proof in support of it; and hence it has happened that a notion has prevailed, that a pauper may gain a settlement by the acknowledgement of a parish that he is settled there; it is necessary, however, to bear in mind, that it is no more than evidence that the pauper was previously settled there, and is not in itself a means of acquiring this right. The parish which has placed itself in such a position, is not, in all cases, absolutely bound thereby, if it can be clearly shewn that the burthen ought to be assumed by some other parish.

It is material to consider the nature of the acknowledgments which afford this almost irresistible evidence of settlement. They are of three kinds, namely:

Eleventhly, Of settlement by acknowledg ment, &c.

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

(b) 2 Nolan, P. S. 134.