« PreviousContinue »
5. The person,
and that of the parish at large; for the overseers are the trustzes for, and Tenthly, of transact the business of, the parish, and they ought to know the state and settlement by conditions of the inhabitants. And, indeed, if we could presume either
payment of 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.
Rex v. Mitcham, Cald. 276. John Heard, removed from Mitcham to It may be inMoredon. Order quashed. Case: The pauper inhabited for several years form or rating, a house at Moredon, which he rented of Mr. Gasson, who was also an inha- who is the person bitant there, at the yearly rent of 5l., clear of all taxes, parliamentary and rated ; and in the
case of land-tax, paruchial. Whilst he occupied it, an assessment for the land-tax was made
the presumption on Moredon, the title of which was, “ Surrey, &c. an assessment on the inha- is (between the bitants of the parish of Moredon, for raising a sum by a land-tax," &c. in the public and the
tenant), that the following form:
occupier is the
person rated, Rent. Landlord's
Tenant's name. £ s. d. £5 00 Mr. Gasson.
John Heard. 0 99 Heard paid the 9s. 9 d. to the collector who demanded the same.—By Lord 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, collateral 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 the rate itself Coppull, confirmed. Case: The respondents proved by the evidence of the must be produced pauper, that his father purchased an estate in Coppull, and actually paid the
being charged. parish rates in respect of it; but the respondents did not produce any rates,
Tenthly, Of and had not given notice for the production of any.—Per Lord Kenyon, C.J. settlement by It is impossible to argue that parol evidence may be given of rates which are payment of
not produced, nor any notice proved to produce them, nor any reasonable rates.
account given for their non-production. The best evidence was not given 5. The person,
which the nature of the case would admit of. Both orders quashed. &c.
Rex v. Bridgewater, 3 T. R. 550. T. Bastard was the occupier of a house, The payment by and the assessment for the land-tax was—Landlord, J. W. Tenant, T. B. another may be Assessment 6s. 9d. Bastard absconded, and the landlord requested the equivalent to payment by him. tax collector to go with him to take a distress for the 6s. 9d., otherwise he self.
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. Aš 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 Bouden ing to the tenant took a house and two closes at Gorton, and the landlord was to pay all taxes the tax paid, does and levies but the window tax. The rating was thus, " Bowden's.” The not prevent the landlord himself for some time paid the taxes; but in the last year the gaining a settle
landlord having some disputes with the overseers about his assessments, directed the overseers to call upon bis 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, salary of a tide
and had a salary: he was rated for this salary to the land-tax. It was paid the land-tax paid for some time by himself, but repaid to him by the collector of the customs; by himself, but and afterwards was paid by the collector. The question is, Whether he paid repaid by the col- his share towards the public taxes and levies of the parish? It was said it lector.
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. An excise officer Rex v. Weobley, 2 East, 68. Removed from Weobley to New Radnor; wais rated for his quashed. The pauper resided as an officer of excise in W., and during rate was always such residence was rated to the land-tax that parish for his salary, which paid by the col.
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 from the salary: 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
Nor where the
lector, and no deduction made
5. The person,
tom house officer was rated to the
ont of his salary, nor was his income diminished by it. I know that the Tenthly, of statute in question has been extended by construction much beyond what settlement by was apparently intended by the legislature. This being a new case, where payment of 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.
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 land-tax, paid by of 50l. ; he did the duty of the office there, and was charged 8l. per annum the pauper, and to the land-tax in respect of his salary of 50l. There had been annually an the collector
reimbursed by order issued from the treasury, authorizing the commissioners to direct the This is sufficient. 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 Eleventhly, Of than modes of acquiring a settlement, but nevertheless are usually classed settlement by under the head of a settlement. (b)
acknowledgParishes upon whom the burden of supporting or relieving a pauper is ment, &c. 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:
(a) See division of the subject, ante, 273.
(6) 2 Nolan, P. S. 134.
Eleventhly, of settlement by acknowledge ment, 8;6.
1. By Certificate.
Of granting certificates.
1. Acknowledgment of Settlement by Certificate.
First, Of the Enactments relating to Certificates.
to inhabit in any
the churchwar. dens, &c., of the
10 W. 3, c. 11, and 12 Apne,
First-Of the Enactments relating to Certificates. 1. Enactments, By 8 & 9W. III.c. 30, s. 1, it is enacted, “Forasmuch as many poor persons
chargeable to the parish, township, or place, where they live, merely for Persons coming
want of work, would in any other place where sufficient employment is to parish, are to be had, maintain themselves and families, without being burthensome to bring with them any parish, township, or place, but not being able to give such security as Gere the hands
of will or may be expected and required upon their coming to settle themselves
in any other place, and the certificates that have been usually given in such parish to which
cases having been oftentimes construed into a notice in hand writing, they they belong. are, for the most part, confined to live in their own parishes, townships, or Explained by 9 & places, and not permitted to inhabit elsewhere, though their labour is wanted
in many other places, where the increase of manufactures would employ stat. 1, c. 18, 5, 2. more hands;” be it therefore enacted, that if any person or persons whatswear to thesexe. soever, from and after the 1st May, 1697, shall come into any parish or other cution of certih place, there to inhabit and reside, shall at the same time procure, bring and cates, &c., by 3 deliver to the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the parish or place Geo. 2. c. 29, 6.8. where any such person shall come to inhabit, or to any or either of them, a
certificate under the hands and seals of the church wardens and overseers of the poor of any other parish, township, or place, or the major part of them, or under the hands and seals of the overseers of the poor of any other place, where there are no church wardens, to be attested respectively by two or more credible witnesses, thereby owning and acknowledging the person or persons mentioned in the said certificate, to be an inhabitant or inhabitants legally settled in that parish, township, or place, every such certificate, having been allowed of and subscribed by two or more of the justices of the peace of the county, city, liberty, borough, or town corporate, wherein the parish or place, from whence any such certificate shall come, doth lie, shall oblige the said parish or place to receive and provide for the person mentioned in the said
certificate, together with his or her family, as inhabitants of that parish, when- Eleventhly, Of ever he, she, or they shall happen to become chargeable to, or be forced to settlement by ask relief of the parish, township, or place, to which such certificate was given ; acknowledge and then, and not before, it shall and may be lawful for any such person, ment, 8c. and his or her children, though born in that parish, not having otherwise
1. Enactments, acquired a legal settlement there, to be removed, conveyed and settled, in &c. the parish or place from whence such certificate was brought.
By 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11, reciting 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, s. 1, and whereas some No person addoubts have arisen upon construction of the said act, by what acts any person judged to have a coming to inhabit or reside within any parish, by virtue of any such certifi- in any parish, cate as aforesaid, may procure a legal settlement in such parish, and whether unless he rent a such certificate did not amount to a notice in writing, in order to gain a set- tenement of ten tlement; for explaining thereof and of the said act, be it therefore enacted, num, or execute “ That no person or persons whatsoever, who shall come into any parish, by some parish 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 bona fide take a lease of a tenement of the [(a) yearly] value of ten pounds, or shall execute some annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such office.”
By 12 Anne, s. 1, c. 18, s. 2, after reciting 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, it is enacted, “That if any person whatsoever, who, upon or after the four-and- apprentice, or twentieth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and thirteen, shall be being a hired an apprentice, bound by indenture to, or shall, upon or after the said four- who came into a and-twentieth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and thirteen, be a parish by certifihired servant to or with any person whatsoever, who did come into, or shall cate, shall not
gain a settlereside in, any parish, township, or place, in that part of Great Britain called ment. England, by means or licence of such certificate, and not afterwards having gained a legal settlement in such parish, township, or place, such apprentice, by virtue of such apprenticeship, indenture, or binding; and such servant, by being hired by, or serving as a servant as aforesaid to such person, shall not gain, or be adjudged to have, any settlement in such parish, township, or place, by reason of such apprenticeship or binding, or by reason of such hiring or serving therein; but every such apprentice and servant shall have his and their settlements in such parish, township, or place, as if he or they had not been bound apprentice or apprentices, or had not been an hired servant or servants to such person, as aforesaid ; any act or acts of parliament to the contrary notwithstanding."
3 Geo. II. c. 29, s. 8. To prevent disputes which often happen, touching Witness to certhe proof of certificates given by the officers of any parish or place, acknow- tificates of settleledging any person or persons therein named, to be an inhabitant or inha- ments to swear
that they saw the bitants legally settled in such parish, town, or place, by virtue of an act church wardens, of parliament made in the eighth and ninth years of the reign of his late &c., sign them. Majesty King William the Third, and for making such certificates more effectual, be it enacted, " That from and after the twenty-fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty, the witnesses who attest the execution of such certificates by the church warden or church wardens, overseer or overseers, signing and sealing the same, or one of the said witnesses, shall make oath before the justices of the peace, who by the said act are directed to allow the same (which oath they are hereby authorized to administer) that such witness or witnesses did see the churchwarden or church wardens, overseer or overseers, whose names and seals are thereunto subscribed and set, severally sign and seal the said certificate, and that the names of such witnesses attesting the said certificate are of their own proper hand-writing; which said justices of the peace shall also certify that such oath was made before them; and every such certificate so allowed, and oath of the execution thereof so certified, by the said justices of the peace, shall be taken, deemed and allowed, in all courts whatsoever, as
(a) It is singular that this word is omitted by Cay, Pickering, Ruffhead, and Run.
nington, the most approved editors of the statutes. See note, Cald. 260. VOL. IV.