A house of the annual value of 10. was hired by A at Michacimas 1824, and he died three days before the year expired, but his corpse continued in the house after the expiration of the year, and after his death his widow resided there, and paid the year's rent: widow and children did not after the statute, will confer a settlement. The statute, however, had in view, as appears by the preamble, the preventing of the disputes and controversies which had arisen respecting the settlement of poor people by the renting of tenements. And we think this object will be best attained by giving to the words of the enacting part their full and absolute effect, and by considering the statute as applicable to every case within its scope, wherein a previous settlement had not been completely gained and established before the statute was passed. A contrary construction might open the door to many disputes and controversies as to the nature and effect of inchoate titles. Whereas, according to the construction which we adopt, the only inquiry hercafter will be, whether a settlement had been acquired before the 2d July, and the case will be considered as if the pauper had died or removed from the tenement on the 1st day of that month, and as if he had resided on, but not after that first day of July.-Order of Sessions quashed, and original order confirmed. 229. Rex v. Inhabitants of Crayford, M. T. 7 G. 4. 6 B. & C. 68. Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby S. S., widow of T. S., and their six children, were removed from B. to C., the Sessions confirmed the order, subject, &c. In the month of September 1824, T. S., the husband of the pauper, was settled in the parish of C. At Michaelmas, in the same year, he hired a house situate in the parish of B. for a year, at the rent and of the annual value of 12. He took possession of the house on Michaelmas-day 1824, and continued to live in the same till the 26th September 1825, when he died. His body remained in the house till the 30th of the same month, when it was buried. The rent for the first three quarters of the year was paid by him, and for the last quarter, ending on the 29th September 1825, by his widow, the pauper. The pauper continued in the house till she was removed under the order, and paid the rent up to the 25th December 1825. The question was, Whether the pauper and her Held, that A's children, under the above circumstances, were entitled to settlement in the parish of B.? — BAYLEY J. The safest rule to adopt gain any settle in these cases is to adhere to the words of the act of parliament. (a) Those words are: "That no person shall acquire a settlement by reason of his dwelling for 40 days in any tenement rented by "such person, unless such tenement shall consist of a house or building, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, bond fide hired by such person 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 shall be held, and "such land occupied, and the rent for the same actually paid for "the term of one whole year, at the least, by the person hiring "the same." In order to gain a settlement, therefore, the house must be held for one whole year by the person hiring the same. Now here the husband was the person who hired the house, and he died three days before the year expired; and, consequently, he did not hold it for one whole year; he, therefore, gained no settlement by the renting of this tenement. Assuming that the widow might be considered to have held this house for a year, she was not the person who hired it, and therefore gained no settleOrder of Sessions confirmed. ment. (a) 59 G. 3. c. 50. 66 66 ment.. ; tlement, by gaining a setcoming to settle upon a tene ment, that the 230. Rex v. Kenardington, M. T. 7 G. 4. 6 B. & C. 70. Upon It is not necesan appeal against an order for the removal of W. K. and S. his sary to the wife and their eight children, from K. to U., the Sessions quashed the order, subject, &c. The pauper, W. K., when about 16 years of age, hired himself for a year to T. K., at the wages of 41. 4s. he served the year in the parish of U., dwelling in his master's house there, and received his wages. He afterwards, and about 22 pauper should years ago, married S., his wife, and having about four years after reside upon any his marriage removed to K., he entered into a contract with J. S., part of it. a farmer there, to serve him as a labourer upon his farm, at the wages of 16s. a week, to have his wheat at 6s. a bushel, butter at 1s. a pound, and a small house of his master's, situate in his master's farm, rent free to live in. He entered into the service, and continued in it under these terms for three years, and between Christmas and Lady-tide, in the third year of his service with J. S., the pauper, with two other persons, hired of J. B. seven acres and a quarter of land in the parish of K., at the price and of the value of 25l. 7s. 6d., being 31. 10s. per acre, and at the same time he on his own account took an acre of land in the same parish of J. B., at the price and of the value of 21. 10s. The seven acre piece was cultivated and cropped with potatoes, and the expences and rent for the same were paid equally by the pauper and his two partners, but the one acre piece was cultivated and cropped with potatoes by and at the sole expence of, and rent for the same was paid by the pauper alone, thereby making his renting in the parish of K., at one time, 10. 19s. 2d.; and these two parcels of Jand were held together by the pauper and his partner six months. The pauper at no time resided on any part of the land taken of J. B., but resided in the small house of his master's, on his master's farm, as his servant. At the end of three years he quitted J. S.'s employment, and at the same time left his house. - BAYLEY J. I am of opinion that the order of Sessions was right, a settlement having been gained in K. The argument against the settlement is that although the pauper rated a tenement of more than 101. annual value, yet as he did not reside upon any part of it but with a master, no settlement was gained. In Rex v. Bardwell (a), (a) Ante,pl.160. expressions were certainly used by Best J. and me, giving a larger meaning to the words "coming to settle," in the 13 & 14 Car.2. c. 12., In than we ought to have done, and Rex v. Shipdem (b), was decided on (4) 6 B. & C. the same ground. In Rer v. Bennetworth (c), the Court took time to 73. n. consider the question, because they were pressed with the former (e) Ante,pl. 161. decisions, and reconsidered them. The point is not mentioned in the judgment pronounced in Rex v. Benneworth, but judgment could not have been given if the Court had been of opinion that Rex v. Bardwell and Rex v. Shipdem were well decided. Rex v. Sutton St. Edmund's (d), it appeared that the pauper (d) Ante,pl.158. entered into a service where he was to have 187. a year wages, and the keep of two cows. He lived in a cottage on his master's farm, but it was found that the occupation of the cottage was incidental to the service. The Court held that he did not gain a settlement, because there was no bargain that the cows should be pasture fed. If the Court had then thought residence upon the tenement necessary, the case would not have admitted of an argument, and the other point would not have been made the ground of the decision. In Rex v. All Saints, Derby (e), there (e) Ante,pl. 155. could not be any residence on the tenement, and yet a settlement (a) Ante,pl.161. was gained. In Rex v. Benneworth, (a) also, there was no residence on the tenement, and the renting of the tenement was during the service. It can make no difference whether the bargain for the tenement is connected with the contract for service, or whether, as in this case, it is a separate contract made with a third person. LITTLEDALE J. concurred. - Order of Sessions confirmed. 173 CHAPTER V. SETTLEMENT BY SERVING AN OFFICE. 1. The Statutes. II. Of the Office, and the Appointment to it. I. The Statutes. 3 W. & M. c. 11. § 6. II. Of the Office, and the Appointment to it. 231. ST. Mary v. St. Laurence in Reading, H. T. 9 Ann. 10 Mod. 13.-One J. M. was first an inhabitant of St. M., and afterwards came into the parish of St. L. During his stay in St. L. he was chosen WARDEN FOR THE BOROUGH, and exercised that office, as well in that parish as in some others; after which he removed into the parish of St. M., and there became chargeable. The question was, Whether his residing in the parish of St. L., and exercising the office of warden in that parish (though he did it in others too), was a settlement within the statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. § 6. or not? And after it had been argued at the bar, and the Court had taken time to consider the case, it was, in the ensuing term, adjudged by the consent of ALL THE JUDGES sufficient to gain a settlement. An order Serving the of 232. Gatton v. Milwich, H. T. 9 Ann. Salk. 536. was drawn up specially for the opinion of the Court; and the question was, Whether one appointed clerk of the parish by the parson, and executing the office for a year, should gain a legal settlement within 3 & 4 W. & M., c. 11. of which the words are, viz. shall execute any annual office or charge? for it was objected that this was not an annual office. POWELL J. His being put in by the parson makes no difference, no more than where the constable is put in by the leet, and not by the parish; it is more than an annual office; for he is not moveable, and has fees: he is by common law an officer, and is in for life. 233. Rex v. Hammond, H. T. 7 G. 1. MSS. - By PRATT C. J. Serving the office of collector of the land-tax is a sufficient office to gain a settlement within the statute of 3 & 4 W. &. M. c. 11. §6.; for it is not necessary that the office should be a parish office; any office is sufficient, so that by the notoriety of it, it may he presumed that the parish had notice of the person's being come into the parish. 234. Bisham v. Cook, H. T. 7 G. 1. MSS. The Sessions, setting out the fact specially, adjudged the settlement of a poor person to be at Bisham, because when he lived in that parish he executed the office of collector of the duties given by the 6 & 7.W. c. 6. on births and burials. It was moved to quash it, because this was not a parish office; and it would be giving the com fice of a parish- parson, and not Rem. 241. Serving the office of collector of the duties on births and burials gains a for it need not settlement; be a parish office, but if it is a public annual office in the parish, it is sufficient. Str. 411. R. v. Ilmin missioners (who are to appoint the collectors) a power to bring what charge they would upon the parish: besides, it was not stated in the order, that this was an annual office, as it must be to give a settlement within the express words of the act. - BY THE COURT. The reason why the executing offices gives a settlement S.C. Foley, 124. without notice is, because of the notoriety of the thing, of which the parliament thought it impossible but the parish should have notice: can any thing be more notorious than this? which is an ster,post,pl.247. office to collect a duty from house to house. We cannot suppose a fraud in the commissioners, that they would appoint a person of no substance to be collector, only to bring a charge upon the parish. It needs not be a parish office, but a public annual office in the parish and as to its not being said that this man executed it for a year, we must take it he did, because it appears, on looking into the statute, that the power given to the commissioners is to appoint a person who shall be collector of the duties for a year, and then give in his accounts. It has been held a settlement in a case of the land-tax, and why not in this?—The order was confirmed. Serving the office of tithing man for a year, although not sworn in until half the year is expired, is serving an annual office. Sed qu 235. Holy Trinity v. Garsington, H. T. 2 G. 2. Sett. & Rem. 72. A certificate-man went into G., and was appointed tithingman (a) by the steward of a leet. He served a year; but was not sworn in until half the year was expired. THE COURT inclined to think that this was a good settlement; but being a new case, and somewhat doubtful, they ordered a second argument to this point, viz. Whether he was legally placed in the office or not, as not having been sworn in till half the year was expired? The S. C. Foley, 123. order, however, was quashed for want of form: but the Court was of opinion, as to the merits, that the man gained a settlement in G.; for, upon subjects of settlement, the statutes are to be expounded favourably, and for the benefit of poor people. Serving the office of parishclerk, although without the licence of the ordinary, gains a settlement. S. C. Fitzg. 105. 272. (b) 2 Roll.' Ab. 286. pl. 44. The office of constable of a 236. Peak v. Bourn, M. T. 6 G. 2. Str. 942. The plaintiff declared in prohibition, that he was sued in the spiritual court for executing the office of deputy parish-clerk without the licence of the ordinary. On demurrer three points were made: FIRST, Whether a parish-clerk be a temporal or a spiritual officer? SECONDLY, Whether he can make a deputy? and THIRDLY, Whether the licence of the ordinary is requisite? It was argued three several times upon all the points. BUT THE COURt, in giving judgment, founded themselves only upon the last, as to which they held, that a licence was not necessary, and therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff in prohibition. They said the canon did not require it, and indeed it would be transferring the right of appointment to all intents and purposes to the ordinary: the Institutio Juris Canonici 22. says, he may be appointed solo presbytero absque scientiá episcopi. (b) As to the other two points, the Court strongly inclined that he was a temporal officer as to the right of his office, and that he might make a deputy. 237. St. Maurice v. St. Mary Kallendar (c), E. T. 8 G. 2. MSS. W. W. went in 1715 to St. Mary K., with a certificate city will gain a from the parish of St. T. About 1721 he was chosen one of the (a) See Buliscomb v. Stamford Peverell, Hilary Term, 9 G. 1. Stra. 544. in which it was adjudged, that serving the office of tithing-man will gain a settlement. (c) See Rex v. Amlwich, post, pl. 256. |