after the 6th of May, he only remained on the farm in A. for 36 days, when he failed, and

o

applied for relief, and after being kept a day in the poor house, agreed farm, and was to give up his removed: Held, that this was a coming to settle upon the tenement in A.

of C. for relief, and agreed to quit the farm there. The overseers of C. relieved H. and his children, and kept them a day and a night longer in a house appropriated for the use of the poor at C., and on the 38th day (computing from the 6th of May) H. and his children were removed by the order in question from C. to E. SCARLETT, in support of the order of Sessions, adverting to the case of Doe and Lord Bradford v. Watkins (a), and that class of cases, said that it might have been a question, whether, upon such a holding as this, the notice to quit must not have referred to the time when the tenant was to take possession of the dwelling-house and the rest of the premises; but by the words of the statute 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12., on which this question turns, the party can only be removed within 40 days after he shall come to settle in any tenement under the yearly value of 10l., and here it was evident that the pauper came into the township of C. to settle while he boarded and lodged with T. for the purpose of superintending the from the beginlands which he had taken possession of under his leases, which ning of his would make in all a residence of above 40 days in C. LORD lodging with ELLENBOROUGH C. J. who asked, if the pauper did not come to settle in C., what he came there for? TOPPING, who was to have supported the original order of justices, then declined arguing the case. PER CURIAM, absente GROSE J.-Order of Sessions confirmed. (6). May, made above 40 days in the whole, and settled him there.

V. Of certificated Persons.

the outgoing tenant; which, residence there joined with his after the 6th of

man gains a settlement by residing on his

own estate, although the

9 & 10 Will. 3.

c. 11. says that no certificateman shall gain

a settlement ing a tenement except by rentof 10. a year, and although the estate is under that

value.

681. Burclear v. Eastwoodhey, E. T. 5 G. 1.-H., being A certificatelegally settled in B., about 18 years before the removal, married, and had four daughters; and about ten years afterwards went with his wife and children into E. as a certificate-man. Whilst they were there, a copyhold of 20s. a year was surrendered to his wife by her father, which they enjoyed for five years till her death, and then according to the custom of the manor it descended to the eldest daughter. About half a year ago the man asked relief in E., and thereupon the Sessions sent him back to B. It was contended that as the statute 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. had provided that a certificate-man should not gain a settlement except he take a tenement of the yearly value of 10l. a year, or execute an annual office in the parish; the pauper had not gained a settlement in E., by residing on this estate, for that the statute being an explanatory act, must be literally taken, and could not be extended by construction to any case not expressly within it; and that the pauper, not being within either of the cases therein mentioned, was removable from this estate on his becoming actually chargeable to the parish. SED PER CURIAM: This is not an explanatory, but a new law, and must, therefore, receive a liberal construction. The exceptions in the statute prove that this case is a case more reasonable than either that are there mentioned. If a certificate-man, by taking a tenement of 10%. per annum gain a settlement, à fortiori shall he who has an estate of his own, especially in this case, where he does not come to it by his own act, (which might favour of fraud,) but it is cast upon him by the act and operation of law. If he who serves a parishoffice gains a settlement upon account of his presumed ability, (a) 7 East, 551. (b) Vide Rex v. St. Mary Lambeth, ante, pl. 465.

S. C. Str. 168. s. C. Sett. and

10 Mod. 480.

Rem. 88.

And see Rex v. Deddington, post, pl.684.

(a) Harrow v Edgware, ante, pl.608.

And such certi. ficated person gaining a settlement in the certificated

parish, will not-
withstanding
12 Ann. c. 18.

confer a settle-
inent therein to
his apprentice.

with greater reason shall he who has ability of his own visible to all the world. It has been already adjudged, that any other person, by the descent or purchase of a freehold or copyhold (a), or by becoming entitled to a lease for years, gains a settlement; and it cannot be supposed that the legislature intended to put a certificate-man in a worse condition. The value of the copyhold is not material, for it is its being his own that makes him not removable. A man must take a tenement of 10l. per annum to gain a settlement; but yet he may come to settle upon a tenement of his own, though of ever so small a value. This man, therefore, being for five years irremovable from E., has gained a good settlement there, and the order to remove him from thence must be quashed.

682. Ivinghoe v. Stonebridge, H. T. 6 G.1. Str. 265. — In 1702 P. was bound apprentice to E., who was legally settled in I.; he served part of his time there, and then the master went with all his family as a certificate-man to S., where he purchased an estate of the value of 60., and after such purchase the apprentice lived with him six months till the apprenticeship expired. The statute 12 Ann. c. 18. provides, that the apprentice of a certificateman shall gain no settlement in the parish to which the master goes by certificate, therefore the justices adjudged the settlement at I., where the binding and great part of the service was. SED PER CURIAM: The order must be quashed: for as the apprenticeship expired in 1709, the statute 12 Ann. is out of the case, not being made with any retrospect; and then the case is no more, than that an apprentice of a certificate-man lives 40 days in S., which before that statute was enough to gain him a settlement. But if this had been a case since the statute, yet we think the settlement would be in S.; for, according to the (a) Ante,pl.681. case of Burclear v. Eastwoodhey (b), when a certificate-man makes a purchase, he immediately ceases to be there in nature of a certificate-man, and becomes a settled inhabitant; so that, laying the statute out of the case, (as we must do, it being nothing to the purpose,) in this view here is a service for six months as an apprentice, in a parish where the master was legally settled, which is more than sufficient to give a settlement to the apprentice.

A certificated person who

resides 40 days on leasehold premises purchased by him, gains a settle ment notwithstanding the statute 9 & 10 Will.3. c. 11. :

for an estate acquired as well

by purchase as by descent will

avoid a certificate though

under the value

of 101. a year.

683. Rex v. Stansfield, E. T. 16 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 205. — B., being settled in S., came into the township of Spotland, in the parish of R., by virtue of a certificate: by a deed not indented, bearing date the 4th February 1728, made between A. of T.in the parish of R. aforesaid, yeoman, of the one part, and the said B. on the other part, the said A. demised to B., his heirs, execu tors, administrators, and assigns, 20 square yards of land in W. in the said parish, to hold to him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of 999 years, under the reserved rent of 1s. a year; by virtue whereof, B. entered to the said premises, and afterwards erected a house and other out-buildings upon the same: and by indenture bearing date the 9th day of July 1730, made between the said B. of the one part and H. of Hoodley, of the other part, the said B., in consideration of 167. 10s. paid to him by H., assigned the premises, with the buildings thereupon erected, to H., his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, during the residue

of the said term of 999 years; to hold to the said H., his heirs and assigns; by virtue thereof entered to the premises. And afterwards, by indenture bearing date the 16th day of September 1731, made between the said A. of the one part, and the said H. of the other part, the said A. leased, set, and to farm let, to the said H., his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, the said 20 square yards of land before granted by him to the said B., and also, &c. and also, &c. to hold to the said H., his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of 999 years: by virtue of which grant, the said H. entered to the said premises : afterwards an uncle of B.'s having died, and left some money to the said B., he thereupon applied himself to the said H. in order to purchase the said premises by him the said B. before sold to the said H., and also the said premises granted by the said A., by the deeds last above mentioned. Upon which the said H. and he came to an agreement; and by indenture bearing date the 9th day of July 1736, made between the said H. of the one part, and the said B. of the other part, (reciting all the deeds beforementioned,) the said H., in consideration of 471. bond fide paid to him by the said B., bargained, sold, assigned, and set over unto the said B., his heirs and assigns, all and singular the beforementioned premises, to hold unto the said B., his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, during the residue of the said several terms of 999 years then to come: that the said premises all lie in the said township of S., and at that time were worth the said sum of 47., and now are worth the sum of 631. to be sold: by virtue of which grant, the said B. entered into the said premises, and inhabited upon the same for two or three years then next following. That by indenture bearing date 23d day of May 1738, the said B. assigned over the said premises to the above-named H. by way of mortgage, for the sum of 451. B. was removed by two justices from S. to Spotland; but the Sessions quashed the order of removal and stated the above case. It was contended that this purchase did not gain B. a settlement in Spotland, for that by 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. no certificated person could gain a settlement by any act whatsoever, except by taking a tenement of 10l. a year, or executing an annual office in the parish; and that the voluntary purchase of a leasehold estate for 999 years for 47., was not without either of those exceptions. - LEE C. J. I do not know that the certificate act has been taken so strictly. A descent or a devise, and I believe a purchase too, have been determined to gain a settlement (after 40 days' residence) upon the foot of the person's not being removable from his own, and as not being an intruder within the meaning of 13 & 14 C. 2. c. 12. So that whenever a man has an interest of his own, though under 10. a year, he shall not be removable by that statute. The present

question turns indeed upon the construction of the certificate act 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. Now, though this person was a certificate. man, yet if he had come to this by act of law, it would have gained him a settlement; and I believe it has been so determined in the case of Rex v. Burclear (a) on purchases too. I think the same (a) Ante,pl.681. construction has been made upon this act, as upon that of 13 & 14 Car. 2. Before 9 G. 1. c. 7. every body that came into a parish and made any purchase whatsoever was irremovable. We think the Sessions wrong, and the two justices right; for a certificate.

man gains a settlement by becoming irremovable, and continuing so for 40 days: and the order of Sessions was quashed and the original order affirmed.

684. Rex v. Deddington (a), T. T. 16 & 17 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 220.- Richard M., the father of the pauper Edward M., who was removed with his wife and family from D. to T., about the year 1719 had a certificate from T. to D., which acknowledged the said Richard M., and Anne his wife, and Edward their son, to be inhabitants legally settled in T.; Richard and Anne, and Edward their son, lived in D. many years under the certificate, during which time Richard purchased a dwelling-house in D. for 42., and paid for it with his own money, and afterwards dwelt in it many years. Edward M., his son, lived with him therein as part of his family for many years, and never gained any settlement of his own. Richard M. sold the messuage five years ago; Edward, the son, had no interest therein, but became chargeable to D.; Richard M., the father, is living, but has now no house or estate whatsoever in D.-LEE C. J. The present case is no more than this: A certificate was given many years ago to old Richard and his wife, and Edward their son; afterwards Edward marries and has children; Edward, and his wife and children, are the present paupers; old Richard made the purchase in D. Now, the act of 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11. mentions the doubts that had arisen upon the former act, and then declares, "that no settlement shall be gained by certificate persons, except by the two methods therein specified." But I think the case of Burclear and Eastwoodhey (b) is an authority in the present case, that order has now been read, and it appears "that a cer"tificate-man's wife's father surrendered to her a copyhold of 20s. "per annum;" and this was held a settlement, though it was most plainly neither of the two cases mentioned in the act. I remem ber the case. Pratt Lord C. J. held it more than equivalent to renting 101. a year. Eyre J. held, that the construction of this act of 9 & 10 Will. 3. should be agreeable to that of 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12., upon which a man was irremovable from any tenement of his own, though it should be under 10l. a year. I do not see that the parish will be safer as to the notice arising from renting 107. a year, than as to the notice arising from a purchase; there seems to be an equal notoriety in both cases. If this act were to be taken so strictly as has been contended for, a certificate man could never gain a settlement, though he should purchase 5000/. a year. One of the other judges in that case of Burclear observed, indeed, that it was not strictly to be considered as an act of the party himself, as he came in by the surrender to his wife; but all the Court held it not to be within the prohibition of the act of 9 & 10 Will, 3., the man being irremovable as long as he had any thing of his own, though he should become actually chargeable to the parish. And if this be so in the case of the old man, Richard M., then all his rights will be communicated to those that derive from him; for, after gaining a settlement by purchase, the man himself is to be considered as an inhabitant of the parish

(a) See Rex v. Leek Wotton, post, pl. 749.

(b) Vide Cases of Settlements, p. 90. case 121, and Sir J. S. 163, 164. S. C.

But Sir J. S. is under a mistake in stating it to have been a descent to the wife; it came to her by the surrender of her father.

in which he has gained it, in the same manner as if he had actually
rented a tenement of 10l. a year, or executed an annual office:
in which cases it must be agreed, that legitimate children who
have no settlement of their own, must derive from their father's
last legal settlement (for the settlements which the father might
have previous to the last are out of the case, as much as if there
never had been any such, they being extinguished by his gaining
a new one, and having no more existence.) WRIGHT and DEN-
NISON JS. concurred with the chief justice in opinion, and ex-
pressed themselves to the same effect. And Sir JOHN STRANGE
observing, that it was stated, that the old man's settlement in D.
was at an end, and therefore this might alter the case, THE COURT
said, It did not, because it did not appear that he had gained any
subsequent settlement. This was his last legal settlement, and it
may very well remain so, though he has no estate there now.
685. Rex v. Cold Ashton (a), H. T. 31 G. 2. Burr. 444.-In
July 1725, D. H., and Mary, his wife, went from W. to C. A.,
with A CERTIFICATE from W., directed to C. A., acknowledging
that they were inhabitants legally settled in W. D. A., and his
wife, lived in C. A. under the certificate, from July 1725, till
about Christmas 1728; at which time W. F., the father of the
said Mary, died intestate, leaving the said Mary, his daughter,
and five other children. He was, at the time of his death, pos-
sessed of, and entitled to, a tenement and two acres and a half of
land, of the yearly value of 67. 17s. in C. A., for the remainder
of a term of 99 years, determinable on the death of himself, and
of the said Mary, his daughter. Upon his death, D. H., and his
wife, entered upon and took possession of the said tenement and
land; and lived in, and occupied the same, ever since until this
time; but no administration of the goods or personal effects of
F. was ever granted to, or taken out by, D. H., Mary, his wife,
or either of them, or any other person.- LORD MANSFIELD.
The question is, Whether D. H. gained a settlement in C. A., to
which place he came originally as a certificate-man? D. H. had
been 29 years and a half in possession at the date of the order:
the question is, Whether he is within 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11.,
which mentions only two methods whereby certificated persons
can gain settlements in parishes to which they come with certi-
ficates, viz. taking a lease of a tenement of 10l. per annum, or
executing an annual office. But an estate of a man's own, from
which he cannot be removed, has been, by construction, (and a
very reasonable one too,) holden to be within this act; for it
would be a very hard thing to remove a man from his own estate.
And the rule holds as well in the case of a certificate person as in
any other case, that no person ought to be removed from his
own property and estate. The principle of this determination is,
because a property of a man's own is a stronger case than hiring
another person's of 10l. per annum value. And THE COURT held
that he had acquired such a right to this estate by 20 years' pos-
session, as gave him and his family a settlement in C. A. in avoid-
ance of the certificate.

686. Rex v. Long Wittenham, M. T. 24 G. 3. EDITOR'S MSS. Two justices removed the paupers from the parish of U. to L. W.; and the Sessions, upon appeal, confirmed the order, and stated (a) See Rex . Leek Wotton, post, pl. 749.

A certificateperson gains a settlement, in avoidance of the

certificate, by residing 40 days on any estate which would confer a settlement on

another person;

for the 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11. makes no difference in that respect.

If husband and wife be certifi cated, and the husband pur