Provisions of M. c. 11. s. 6. come to inhabit in any parish shall be charged, and pay 9. OF SETTLEMENT BY SERVING AN OFFICE. Settlement by serving an office depends on 3 and 4 W. 3 and 4 W. and and M. c. 11. s. 6. which enacts, "That if any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall, for himself or on his own account, execute any public annual office or charge in the said parish during one whole year, he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement in the same;" and by 9 and 10 W. 3. c. 11. the service of such office by a party legally placed therein, will acquire a settlement even though he be residing under a certificate. (t) The King v. Chidinford, Burr. S. C. 415; the King v. Oakhampton, Burr. S. C. 5. (u) St. Mary-le-Moor v. Heavytree, 2 Salk. 478. The offices which confer a settlement under these acts Offices confermust be public, but they need not be parochial. The follow- ring settlement. ing have been holden to answer the description of "public annual offices;" the offices of sexton; (v) parish clerk; (w) churchwarden; (x) warden for the Borough; (y) tithingman; (2) borsholder; (a) collector of the land-tax ; (b) collector of duties on births and burials, created by 6 and 7 W.3. c. 6; (c) ale taster of a borough; (d) hog-ringer of a parish, receiving his appointment from the parish, and not from individuals; (e) constable elected for the year, whether for a parish or to superintend the police of a borough, and whether he serve personally, or by deputy; (f) and the street-driver of a borough, chosen by the court leet of the manor. (g) In these instances, where the office is for the public benefit, the mode of appointment is immaterial, nor is it important whether it be filled up on the nomination of the parishioners, or of an individual. (h) The office must be annual; that is, the officer must be bound to serve for a year at least; but a freehold office for life, as that of sexton, is within the statute. (i) But where the office, however notorious, arises out of private contract, the service gains no settlement. Thus no settlement is gained by the governor of a warehouse appointed by virtue of 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 4. at an annual salary; (j) by the curate of a sequestrated living, when the sequestration might be determined at any time; (k) by the deputy of a constable performing the duties for him; (/) or by the schoolmaster of an endowed school, paid by the vicar; (m) for these are employments, not offices. To enable a party to gain a settlement by serving an (v) The King v. Liverpool, 3 T. R. 118. (w) Gatten v. Milwich, 2 Salk. 536. (x) St. Maurice v. St. Mary Calendar, 2 Const. 158, pl. 103. (y) St. Mary v. St. Lawrence, Reading, 10 Mod. 13. (z) Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Sett. and Rem. 72. (a) Wingham v. Sellinge, 2 Stra. 1299. (b) The King v. Hammond, 2 Bott. 156, pl. 199. The King v. Bow, 8 T. R. 445. (g) The King v. Yalding, 3 D. and R. 352. (h) Gatten v. Milwich, 2 Salk. 536, as to a clerk appointed by the incumbent. (i) The King v. Liverpool, 3 T. R. 118. The King v. Mersham, 7 East, R. 167. (k) Helsington v. Over, Burr. S. C. 746. The King v. Winterbourne, Burr. S. C. 520. (m) 1 Wils. 87. of a settlement office, the office must exist in the parish where he lives; but it may extend beyond it; (n) and need not extend over the whole of it. (0) And even a certificated man, elected one of the constables for a city consisting of several parishes, and legally placed in the office, gains a settlement in that parish of the city where he resides. (p) Legal appoint- According to the terms of 3 and 4 W. 3. c. 11. in order ment necessary to enable a party who is certificated from another parish to the acquiring to gain a settlement, it must appear that he was legally by a certificated placed in his office. Where, therefore, a certificated man had served as a borsholder for a year, but there was no evidence of his election or admission to office, or swearing to discharge its duties, he gained no settlement. (q) And where it was the custom for the constable to be presented by the leet jury, and they having presented one man, procured another, residing under a certificate, to take the office, and he was accepted and sworn, but never presented, as constable in his own right, according to the custom, it was held in the case of the King v. All-Cannings, Burr. S. C. 634. that he gained no settlement. man. § 10. OF SETTLEMENT BY ESTATE. he A person who enjoyed an estate of whatever value, and resided in the parish where it was situate forty days, whether he derived the estate by descent or by purchase, before the 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. gained a settlement in that parish, and this even if he were certificated from another parish. But the 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. enacts, "That no person shall be deemed to acquire any settlement in any parish or place, by virtue of any purchase of any estate or interest in such parish or place, whereof the consideration for such purchase doth not amount to the sum of 301. bonâ fide paid, for any longer time than such person shall inhabit in such estate; and shall then be liable to be removed to such parish or place where such person was last legally settled before the said purchase and inhabiting therein." This act, therebefore, confines the acquisition of a permanent settlement by estates purchased to estates for which 301. have been paid by the purchaser; but it leaves settlement by estates not purchased as it was before it was passed. In all cases, therefore, the question is, what kind of estate confers a settlement? If it be suggested that the considerationmoney was under 307. two further questions may arise ;— (n) St. Mary v. St. Lawrence, Reading, 10 Mod. 13. (p) The King v. St. Mary, Calendar, in Winchester, Burr. S. C. 27. first, is the estate within the restriction of the statute as acquired by purchase? second, if it is, was the consideration for the purchase of the amount contemplated by the statute? A further question may also arise, whether, although no permanent settlement is acquired by an estate, the party may not be so connected with it, as to be irremovable during posession. will confer a set tlement. 1. What estate will confer a settlement.-The estate must Estate which be an interest issuing out of the realty; and therefore an annuity charged on personalty confers no settlement. (r) So where the freemen of a borough, acquiring their freedom by descent, had an exclusive right of pasturage over a moor of great value, with important privileges of cutting turf; the Court held that a freeman had not, by such right, any estate which rendered him irremovable, but a mere inalienable privilege, which would not suffice. (s) But the nature of the tenure is immaterial; nor is the duration of the estate material, provided it is of sufficient permanency to ensure to the party a right to remain for forty days. Thus it may be a freehold estate in fee; (t) or for life; (u) or a leasehold interest determinable on lives; (v) or for term of years; (w) but not a mere tenancy at will. (x) It is not necessary that strict proof of an indefeasible title shall be given; for if the party has had twenty years' peaceable possession, or even rather less, unaccompanied by any acknowledgment, the possession is a sufficient title, even if it had its origin in wrong. (y) Thus, where a cottage was built on the waste thirty years before, and had descended to the daughter, the lord making no claim, it was holden there was sufficient title.(x) Thus, although a person originally entering on leasehold property as administrator gains no title before an actual grant of administration, yet, after a long undisturbed possession, the Court will presume such grant. (a) Thus, where a party or his son has resided for nearly twenty years on an estate as given by a relative, although there be no proof of any conveyance, yet a settlement will be gained, as "the strict rules on the trials of ejectments ought not to be applied to ) The King v. Pomroy, Burr. S. C. 762. The King v. Warkworth, 1 M. and S. 473. The King v. Widworthy, Burr. S. C. 109. Much to be in an original title, settlement cases;" and under such circumstances a conveyance, if necessary, might be presumed.(b) The following cases further illustrate this principle. The grandfather of a pauper had given to his father (but ferred respecting it did not appear in what manner,) thirty years ago, a accompanied by piece of land, on which he built a house, and lived in it long possession. several years with his family, of which the pauper was one, Possession and residence undis turbed for more than forty days under a claim of title without fraud or consciousness of wrong. and then removed into a third parish with his said family, lived there some years, and let to a tenant the aforesaid house which he had built. Ten years ago he returned to his said house, and has resided in it ever since, never having paid any rent or acknowledgment for it. The pauper was part of his father's family at the time the house was built, and continued so for fifteen years afterward, when he married, left his father's family, and never returned. From this succession of occurrences it appears that the pauper was emancipated before his father had obtained a perfect title from a possession of the house in question for twenty years; and it was therefore contended, that here was a mere naked possession, but no title; that, till the period of twenty years, he was not irremovable from it, and had not acquired a settlement by his residence it; so thought the justices in session. But the Court of King's Bench said, "he was in for fifteen years under some title or other, and has continued in possession for fifteen years more, and up to the present time; therefore, it must be inferred that the father had a title at the former period, by the gift of his grandfather." (c) So, where one J. F. being seized in fee of a cottage, demised the same to the overseers of the poor of the parish (for the legal consideration of 5s. and the moral one of having received great assistance from them,) for one thousand years, receiving a pepper corn rent, and, with some intervals of absence, continued to reside in it till his death. A short time before his death, with the consent of the overseers, his daughter came to take care of him (he having become very ill and infirm), and resided with him till his death, and continued there afterwards, and in about six weeks was found there by her husband, who laid claim to the cottage in the right of his wife, who was heir at law of the pauper deceased. The overseers having mislaid the deed of conveyance to them, took no steps to dispossess the paupers till it was found some years after. The case was argued at length, and the The King v. Butterton, 6 T. R. 554. |