nature may be deemed tenements within the meaning of the statute. Where a butcher, who occupied a tenement of the yearly value of 97. 19s., also agreed for a stall in a market at 2s. 6d. per week, which he occupied and had access to only on two days in the week, the market being closed on all other days; it was a permanent building, capable of being locked, and he kept the key of it; he occupied it, however, only nineteen weeks: the court held, that although they thought this stall a tenement within the meaning of the statute, yet as the tenant in fact occupied it only thirty-eight days he gained no settlement (n). Where a man, during his occupation of a tenement of the value of 67. a year, hired himself as a waiter to a tavern, and had the tap, that is, a privilege of selling liquors there, for both of which he paid 607. a year, and for the convenience of keeping his liquors, he had the use of a cellar at the tavern, of the annual value of 6., of which he kept the key: the court held that, as there did not appear any taking of the cellar as tenant, but the use of it was merely a privilege allowed to him as a waiter and keeper of the tap, he gained no settlement by it (o).

Land, &c.] Land is of course a tenement within the meaning of the statute, whether it have a dwelling-house upon it or not. And where a man, renting a tenement at 97. a year, also at the same time rented the fog or aftermath of two fields, the one at 30s., the other at 21s.: the court held clearly that he thereby gained a settlement (p). So, where a man, renting a tenement of the value of 8l. 12s. 6d., at the same time rented the hay, grass, and aftermath of a meadow for 21. 5s. 6d. the court held that he thereby gained a settlement (q). So, where a carpenter had two cattlegates given him, of the value of 17. 4s., in consideration of his keeping some highway gates in repair, and at the same time he rented other tenements, of the annual value of 97. 1s. 6d. the court held that these cattlegates were tenements within the meaning of the statute, and that the party therefore gained a settlement (r). So, where a man rented a house, half an acre of land, and the going of two head of cattle upon the common, from one person, for 87., and the going of four head of cattle upon the common from two other persons for 21. 2s., these being rights of common in gross: the court held that common in gross was a tenement within the meaning of the statute, and that the party therefore gained a settlement (s). So, where a man occupied a house of the annual value of 67., and

(n) R. v. Caversham, 4 B. & C. 683.

(0) R. v. Seacroft, 2 M. & S. 472. (p) R. v. Brampton, 4 T. R. 348.

(q) R. v. Stoke, 2 T. R. 451. (r) R. v. Whixley, 1 T. R. 137. (s) R. v. Dersingham, 7 T. R. 671.

at the same time rented the ley of his two cows, on a large pasture of 100 acres, from May-day to Michaelmas, for six guineas: the court held that the latter was a tenement within the meaning of the Act; it was a pernancy of the profits of the land by the mouths of the cattle, the same as a common in gross; and therefore the party gained a settlement (e). So, where a man hired with a farmer, and he was to have 201. a year, a cottage to live in, and the keep of a cow upon the land, for his own services, and 287. a year, and the agistment of another cow, in consideration of his lodging and maintaining two labourers of his master; and the annual value of the land necessary for the keep of the two cows exceeded 104 : the court held that this agistment was a tenement within the meaning of the statute; and it was immaterial whether it was paid for by money or services, for the value of the tenement alone was in question in these cases (f). So, where a farmer agreed, among other privileges, either to furnish his bailiff with two cows, or the bailiff was to be at liberty to hire two, and feed them on his master's farm; and the bailiff accordingly hired two cows, and they were fed in summer on his master's pastures, and in the winter in the straw yard on straw raised upon the farm; and the pasturage and keep of the two cows for a year were worth more than 107.: the court held that this, being a profit issuing out of land, to be taken in loco certo, was a tenement within the meaning of the Act, and that the bailiff therefore gained a settlement (g).

But in a more recent case, where either the master was to find his servant two cows, or the servant was to provide himself with two, and feed them on his master's farm; in fact, the master found one, the servant the other, and they were depastured on the farm in summer, but in winter they were fed in the straw yard on hay grown upon the farm; the summer feed was worth five guineas, the winter feed as much more: the court held that he gained no settlement by this; the summer feed no doubt was a tenement, for it was a perception of the growing produce of the land by the mouths of cattle; but the winter feed in the straw yard, being nothing more than a right to have them fed upon dry food, was no tenement within the meaning of the Act (h). So, where by agreement a shepherd was to have the going of thirty sheep with his master's flock: the court held that as it was not stipulated that they were to be pasture fed, the shepherd took no interest in the land under the agreement, and therefore it was not a

(e) R. v. Hollington, 3 East, 113. See R. v. Minchinhampton, 2 Str. 874.

(f) R. v. Cherry Willingham, 1 B. & C. 626.

(g) R. v. Minster, 3 M. & S. 276. (h) R. v. Sutton St. Edmund's, 1 B. & C. 536.

tenement within the meaning of the statute (i). So, a contract to feed cows, generally, without saying in what manner, is no tenement, for they might be fed on tares bought in the market (k). So, where a shepherd, besides wages, was to have "twenty-one ewes going," and these, with the ewes of the master, were in fact fed for two or three weeks of the first year off the farm, on the turnips of a neighbouring farmer, and during a part of the winter they were fed upon straw: the court held that as it was no part of the bargain that these sheep should be pasture fed, it was no tenement within the meaning of the statute: all that was meant by the term "going" was, that these sheep should be fed, either on pasture or dry food, in the same manner as those of the master (). So, where two persons agreed with a miller to grind a certain quantity of wheat weekly at his mill, the miller agreeing that they should have gratis the grazing of their horses, which carried the wheat, in a certain close, and the use of a stable and cart-house: the court held that this liberty to graze their horses in the close, was no tenement within the meaning of the Act, and that no settlement therefore was gained by it (m). So, where a man hired with a farmer, and he was to have 30 guineas a year, a house, two gardens, and a rood of potatoes; and after the agreement was made, the master said he might have the keep of a cow, and he had it accordingly: it appeared that the house, gardens, and rood of potatoes were not worth 107. a year, but with the keep of the cow, they would exceed that value: the court, however, held that the party gained no settlement; the keep of the cow formed no part of the agreement, but was given by the master from kindness; to come within the meaning of the Act, the party must have an interest in the tenement, as tenant or occupier, which was not the case here (n). So, where a man rented a dwelling-house, cow-house, and pasturage for his cow, for 41. a year; and during the time, he purchased at an auction some oats then growing in a field for 127. 14s., which he was afterwards engaged in reaping and carting away from the 14th September until the 3rd November; and the question was, whether this crop of oats was a tenement within the meaning of the Act: the court held that it was not; the words "coming to settle," in the statute of Charles, mean coming to settle as tenant, and here it was a purchase of the oats merely, and not a renting of the land in which it grew (0).

(i) R. v. Bardwell, 2 B. & C. 161. (k) Per Lawrence, J. in R. v.

Tisbury, 2 Nol. 19.

(1) R. v. Thornham, 6 B. & C. 733.

VOL. III.

(m) R. v. Hammersmith, 8 T. R. 450, n.

сс

(n) R. v. Langriville, 10 B. & C. 899.

(0) R. v. Borness,4 M. & S. 210.

Dairy.] A dairy of cows may be a tenement within the meaning of the statute, if the cows are to be fed upon some particular land of the annual value of 101. This at first seems to have been ruled otherwise, the court holding it to be merely an agreement for the use of the cows, and not a tenement (k); but afterwards the point was ruled, and has long been deemed settled, as is above stated. Therefore, where a man rented of a farmer a dairy of thirty cows, some at 57. 10s., others at 51. per cow by the year, to be fed on certain grounds at particu lar seasons of the year: the court held this to be a tenement, as it was taking the profits of the land by the mouths of cattle (7). So, where a man rented of a farmer a dairy of twenty cows, at 37. 10s. per cow for a year, to be fed on certain land of the farm, exclusive of other cattle, the farmer to make certain allowances in case any of the cows should be sick, &c.; besides which he was to have a house to reside in, and other advantages, according to the custom of the country: the court held that this dairy, under the circumstances, was a tenement, and the party gained a settlement by renting it; if the cows were his own, there could be no doubt but that the right of feeding them upon any part of the farm would be a tenement; and the merely renting the cows made no difference, as they were his with respect to the profits to be derived from them during the time contracted for (m). So, where a man rented, or paid for the privilege of milking two cows, at 5s. 6d. per week, for forty weeks, the cows to be fed on the farm with the farmer's other cattle; and he also rented a cottage in the same parish at 50s. a year, in which he resided: the court held this dairy to be a tenement, for the reason given in the last case (n). So, where a man rented a house and garden for 87. 18s. a year, and at the same time he and another person agreed for one of several cows then grazing on a farm, at 91. for the season, and they were, from time to time, to be told in what close the cow was grazing, in order that they might know where to go to milk it; nothing more was said as to the manner in which the cow was to be fed, but she was in fact pasture fed on the farm: the court held that although a contract for the mere milking of a cow would not be a tenement, unless, by means of the cow, the party were to have the pernancy of the profits of land; yet as it sufficiently appeared here that the cow was to be depastured on the owner's farm, and if it had been fed otherwise, it would have been a breach of the contract, the court held that this was a tenement within the Act, and that the party gained a

(k) R. v. Lockerley, Burr. S. C. 315.

(1) R. v. Piddletrenthide, 3 T. R. 772.

(m) R. v. Tolpuddle, 4 T. R. 671. (n) R. v. Stoke-upon-Trent, 10 East, 426. S. P. R. v. Ringwood, 1 M. & S. 381, post, p. 599.

settlement (o). But where a man rented inter alia the milk of a cow, to be kept by the owner, and she was in fact pasture fed; yet as it did not appear to have been made matter of bargain that she should be so fed, the court held that it was not a tenement within the meaning of the Act, and that the party gained no settlement by it (p). So where, to prove a settlement by renting a tenement of the yearly value of 107., under the old statute 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, s. 1, it was proved that A., the pauper's father, hired a cow from his master, which in the pasture season was kept on the pasture lands of the master's farm, and in the winter in the straw yard, and that A. put the cow where there was feed for her, but nothing was said, either by the master or himself, as to the manner, or on what particular lands, the cow was to be fed :—the court held that there was in this no evidence from which they could infer a contract that the cow was to be fed upon the growing produce of the land, and that therefore no settlement was gained by it (q). So, where a man rented two cows of a farmer, at 58. a week for thirty weeks, and they were to be fed on certain closes, but these closes were not of the annual value of 10%.: the court held that he gained no settlement by it (r).

Rabbit warren.] A rabbit warren is a tenement within the meaning of the statute. And therefore where a man rented a rabbit warren, and a house upon it, for 107. a year, the court held that he gained a settlement by it (s). So, where a man rented a rabbit warren, with a small house upon it for keeping the nets, at 30l. a year, for the purpose of killing the rabbits for profit, but he was to have no other right in the soil, the owners depasturing their cattle upon it: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; the right of free warren was clearly a tenement, for a real action would lie for it (t).

Tile and pot kilns.] Kilns for the manufacturing of tiles and pots are also tenements within the meaning of the statute. In 1813, one Barnes, a farmer at Iken, having a pot-kiln and sheds upon his farm, employed one Chambers, a pot-maker, to manufacture pots there; Barnes was to provide the materials, for which, and for the use of the pot-kilns and sheds, he was to have half the money for which the pots were sold,

(0) R. v. Darley Abbey, 14 East, 280.

(p) R. v. Oswald Twissel, cit. 1 B. & C. 538.

(q) R. v. Mendham, 16 Law J. 67, m.

See also R. v. Langriville, 10 B. &
C. 899, post, p. 586.

(s) Kinver v. Stone, 1 Salk, 53; 1 Str. 678.

(t) R. v. Piddletrenthide, 3T. R.

772.

(r) R. v. Minworth, 2 East, 198.