because notice was given four days before, that it was not 1824. intended to resist the appeal. If notice had been given by

The KING the respondents at the same time that they meant to pay

The the costs already incurred, then the appellant need not have

INHABITANTS gone to the sessions ; but he is obliged to go there in order of Cawston. to get his costs.

[ocr errors]

HOLROYD, J.-By allowing the appeal, the sessions “ determined” it. Suppose the justices, notwithstanding the respondents' notice that they did not mean to support the rate, entertained a doubt of the propriety of allowing the appeal, and desired to hear what the appellant could say upon the subject, would not that be a hearing ? Could it be said that that was only a hearing on one side, and that both sides must be heard before the costs ought to be allowed ? Surely not. I think the order must be affirmed.

LITTLEDALE, J. concurred.

Order of Sessions confirmed.


payment, will

Two Justices by their order, dated 5th August, 1823, Merely rentremoved J. Asprey with his wife and five children from the of 101. a year, parish of St. Botolph, in the town and county of Cambridge, without actual to the parish of Ampthill, in the county of Bedford. The not prevent Sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the the removal

of the tenant opinion of this court on the following case.

under the 35

Geo. 3. c. 101. The pauper, a rope maker, being previously settled by if he is actually estate in the parish of Ampthill, came with his family to chargeable. who has the means of paying his rent and sustaining himself and family by the sale of his goods, applies to the parish for relief, and the overseers (without fraud on their part) are compelled by an order of justices to relieve him, he is actually chargeable and removeable if he has not acquired a settlement.

The bonâ fide renting a tenement at 101. a year and paying the rent after a pauper has become chargeable will not confer a settlement under 59 Geo. 3. c. 50. Quære. Whether the justices at sessions are at liberty to inquire into the real value of a tenement where there has been a bonâ fide biring and actual payment of a 101. rent under the statute.

If a pauper,

1824. reside, at Midsummer, 1822, in a house in the parish of St.

Botolph. He had hired it of one Mitchell, for 101. a year. The King

He put his own furniture therein, worth 15 or 161. He The continued to live in it above a year, and in July last, being INHABITANTS of AMPTHILL. much distressed, he applied to the parish officers of St.

Botolph for relief, who refused to give him any till ordered by a magistrate so to do, after being summoned to shew cause why they did not. They then gave the pauper fourteen shillings on the Sist July, according to such order. The tax collector during this month had seized a bed worth it. for a quarter's tax of three shillings in arrear, and the pauper's wife had sold some furniture, but what remained in the house at this time was worth 141. a circumstance which was not communicated to the magistrate by the overseer when the order for relief was made. The day after this relief, Mitchell called for his rent of 10l. and gave the pauper a fortnight to pay it in. Soon after this, the pauper and his family were removed to Ampthill under the above order of removal. He then applied to one Furze, an auctioneer, to buy his furniture, to enable him to pay his rent. Furze went to Cambridge, valued it at 131. 3s. (exclusive of his tools, which were worth 5l.) and agreed to buy them for 101. which sum he paid to the pauper, who kept the key of the house all the time, and returned to it about the 14th August, on which day Mitchell had sent a person to distrain for the rent; but no distress was taken, because the bailiff, Furze, and the pauper went together to Mitchell's, and the rent was paid by the pauper with the 101. he received from Furze. Another auctioneer had been employed to sell some of the furniture under the direction, and according to the inventory of Furze, and sold it for 31. 135.; and after this sale the remainder of the furniture and the tools might be worth 61. Without the tools the remaining furniture might be worth 1l. The Sessions decided that the house was not of the value of 10l. and confirmed the order of removal, subject to the opinion of this court, whether the pauper was liable to be removed from the parish of St. Botolph.


Storks in support of the order of Sessions. There are 1894. three questions intended to be raised on the other side; first,

The King whether the pauper was removeable even though actually

The chargeable, having been resident on a tenement of 101. a

INILABUANTS year at the time of the removal; second, whether the pauper of AMPTHILL. took and rented a tenement of 101. a year

within the meaning' of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 50; and, third, whether it was competent for the Sessions to go into the question of value in the face of a bonâ fide contract for a tenement of 10l. a year. As to the first point, it is perfectly clear, that if the pauper did not rent a tenement within the meaning of the 59 Geo. 3. and had actually become chargeable, he was removeable by the 95 Geo. 3. c. 101. There is abundant evidence of his chargeability; because he had applied to the parish officers for relief, and was relieved accordingly. There is no doubt, therefore, that he was removeable on the ground of his actual chargeability. Then secondly, did he in fact gain a settlement under the 59 Geo. 3. ? Merely residing on a tenement of 101., unless he complied with the requisites of that statute, would gain him no settlement. The 59 Geo. 3. requires a bonâ fide taking of a tenement for one whole year, and the actual payment of a rent of 101. for the whole year. Now, here, the pauper had not paid a year's rent until after the order of removal was executed; and though he subsequently paid it by the sale of his effects, yet that will make no difference, inasmuch as the statute has not a retrospective operation so as to confer a settlement after the party has actually become chargeable and has been removed., Then the third point is equally clear ; because although the statute declares that the hiring of a tenement for the sum of 10l. a year

for one whole


and the actual payment of the rent, shall confer a settlement, yet the legislature did not mean to preclude the Sessions from going into the question whether the tenement so held was of the actual value of 10l. and of deciding against the settlement if it was found to be of less value. This, however, is a poiut not necessary to decide on the present occasion, it

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]


being sufficient to support the order of Sessions, that the

rent agreed for was not actually paid at the time of the The King 0.

removal, The INHABITANTS of AMPTHILL. Nolan, contrà, insisted, first, that, assuming the pauper

not to have acquired a settlement by renting the tenement
in question, still he was irremoveable from the parish of St.
Bololph, although he had actually become chargeable;
second, that the pauper had acquired a settlement under the
59 Geo. 3. by renting a tenement, although he had. not
actually paid the rent until after he had become charge-
able ; and third, that the Sessions were precluded from going
into the question of value, there having been a bonâ fide
taking of the tenement at the actual rent of 101. As to the
first point; by the old settlement law, unless a person came
into a parish in a state of vagrancy he was irremoveable;
but in consequence of the inconveniences resulting from this
in practice, the statute 13 and 14 Car. 2. c. 12. was passed,
which rendered persons removeable within forty days who.
were likely to become chargeable, if they came to settle upon
a tenement under the yearly value of 101. So that by that
statute if a person resided on a tenement of 101., whether
chargeable or not chargeable, he was not removeable; and
if he was not removed within the forty days, though he resided
on a tenement under 101. the same consequence would
follow. Then followed the 33 Geo. 3. which recognizes the
provisions of the preceding statute, by which it is expressly
provided, that the party shall not be removeable though he
has not gained a settlement, unless he has actually become
chargeable. The cases of Rex v. Leeds (a) and Rer v.
Martley (b) are authorities founded upon the principle now
contended for, and shew that during the existence of a con-
tract for a tenement of 101. a year, a pauper is not remove-
able though chargeable. It is clear, therefore, that this pauper

[ocr errors]

(a) Burr. S. C. 524 S. C. 2 Bott. 468.

(6) 4 Burn, 534. See Rex v. Fillongly, 4 Burn, 195. Rer v. Framlington, Id. 471, and Rer v. St. Paul, Deptford, Id. 472.

[ocr errors]

was irremoveable though chargeable. The statutes 7 Jac. 1894. 1.c. 3. and 3 W. & M. c. 11. which prevented persons from The King gaining settlements unless they gave notice of their coming

The into the parish, do not affect the question as to the remove- Inuabitants ability, and therefore this question must be considered as it of AMPTHILL. would have been under the 13 and 14 Car. 2. and 35 Geo. 3. But independently of this construction of the statute this pauper cannot be considered as in a state of actual chargeability; for at the time he applied for relief he had abundance of property to satisfy his rent and sustain himself and family; and consequently he was not removeable as a person actually chargeable, for it was the duty of the overseers to see that he was a person in want of relief. Then secondly, the pauper had in fact acquired a settlement independently of the question of his irremoveability. He had not only taken the house for a year, but he actually paid the rent within the meaning of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 50. It is true the rent was not paid until after he was removed; but still that will make no difference in the fair construction of the statute, the object of which was to prevent the fraudulent acquirement of settlements in a parish, by taking a tenement of a rent of 101. per amum, which the party had not the means of paying. Now in this case although the pauper labored under temporary distress, still he had sufficient means of paying his rent, and in fact paid it. The landlord did not apply for his rent until the day after the relief was applied for, and then he gave the pauper fourteen days to pay it in. He paid it within the fourteen days by the sale of his effects, and therefore he was at least in the state of having an inchoate right of settlement at the time he became chargeable, which was afterwards perfected. Then thirdly, the Sessions had no right to go into the question of value. It is sufficient under this statute that there shall have been a bona fide taking of a tenement at the rent of 101.; and therefore the Sessions were precluded from entering into the value, unless there was any reason to suppose that there was fraud in the contract. Here none was suggested, and no doubt was


« ForrigeFortsett »