from Lady-day, 1832, at an entire rent of 141.; the cottages adjoined each other, but had no internal communication, and one of them the pauper underlet, the other and the land (of more than the annual value of 107. of the rent), the pauper occupied himself, and paid the whole rent of 141. at the end of the year: the court held that he did not thereby gain a settlement; the renting was of a sufficient tenement, but the pauper did not occupy the whole of it, as required by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18 (ƒ). So, where the pauper agreed to take a messuage, comprising two tenements, in the parish of St. Nicholas, for two years, at the yearly rent of 607., payable quarterly, and possession was delivered to him on the 25th of March, 1831; he occupied for one year, but during that time underlet three of the rooms to one person for three weeks, and the front shop to another for a week; at the end of the first half year, the pauper not having paid his rent, the landlord distraiued for it, and levied the amount by sale of his goods; and at the end of the second half year, upon the pauper's giving up possession, one Hutchinson, who had joined the pauper in the agreement with the landlord, as his surety merely, took upon himself exclusively the payment of the rent then due: it was objected, first, that there had been no sufficient payment of rent by the pauper, within the meaning of stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1; and secondly, that the pauper had not such an occupation of the premises as would confer a settlement; upon the first point, the court gave no opinion, but upon the second, they held that the words" actually occupied," in the stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1, were not satisfied by an actual occupation of part, and underletting the remainder for any portion of the year, and therefore that no settlement was gained; it had been objected also that this case did not fall within stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1, as that statute did not come into operation until the 30th of March, 1831, and the tenancy here commenced on the 25th of March: but the court held that the statute embraced all such cases, where the settlement was not completed before it took effect (g). But where the pauper, in 1831, took a house in the parish of St. Giles, at the yearly rent of 247.; he resided in it with his family, but was in the habit of taking in labouring people to sleep in some of the rooms, sometimes letting a bed, sometimes half a bed, usually by the night, and in some few instances for a week, the persons who slept there having no right to the rooms in the day-time; he thus occupied the premises for three years, and paid the rent: the court held that this was an occupation of the house by the pauper, within the meaning of stat. 6 G. 4, (f) R. v. Berkswell, 6 Ad. & El. 282. (g) R. v. St. Nicholas, Colchester, 2 Ad. & E. 599. e. 57, and 1 W. 4, c. 18; it was almost similar to the case of an innkeeper (h). same. And it must be occupied for a year by the party hiring the And therefore where the pauper, on the 11th of October, 1832, took a house and several acres of land at Pakefield, at a rent of 301. a year, and immediately went to reside there; in July he became embarrassed and assigned all his farming implements, stock, crops, and all other his personal estate and effects, to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors, and the trustee thereupon sold the farming implements, stock, crops, furniture, &c., and out of the proceeds paid the landlord three quarters of a year's rent; the pauper still continued to occupy until the 8th of October, 1833, when he left the house, and went with his wife and family to a house which he had taken elsewhere, taking with him all the goods remaining on the premises, except a few which the waggon could not hold; his son however slept upon the premises, by his directions, during the remaining three days of the year, and gave them up to the landlord on the 11th of October, 1833: the court held, first, that this was not an occupation by the pauper for a whole year; and secondly, that the payment of the rent by the trustee could not be deemed a payment by the pauper, as the rent was paid out of money belonging not to him, but to the creditors (i). So, where the tenant occupied for three quarters of a year, and died, and his widow occupied the remaining quarter, it was holden that no settlement was gained (k). And it must be so occupied during the year, under the yearly hiring. And therefore, where one Cawley let a house in the parish of Banbury to one Ward, and Ward underlet it from year to year to Francis Taylor, the pauper's husband, at the yearly rent of 207., the tenancy to commence at Old Lady-day, 1831; Taylor occupied under this tenancy until Old Michaelmas, 1831, and paid 107., his half-year's rent, to Ward; but it was then agreed between the parties, that Ward's tenancy should terminate, and that Taylor should hold the premises under Cawley at the same yearly rent of 201.; and Taylor continued to occupy until Old Lady-day, 1832, when he went to America without paying the half-year's rent then due, which however was afterwards paid by one Abbott from the sale of some of the goods in the house, in order to prevent a distress, but without authority from Taylor; it was contended that here was an occupation for a whole year of the same tenement, and a payment of rent for the same to the amount of 101., sufficient to satisfy the words of stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, and (h) R. v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 4 Ad. & El. 495. (i) R. v. Pakefield, 4 Ad. & El. (k) R. v. St. Mary-le-bone, 19 Shaw's J. P. 722. that therefore Taylor thereby gained a settlement: but the court held that, as there was a surrender in law by Taylor to Cawley at the end of the first half year, and only an occupation for half a year afterwards, there was not an occupation for one whole year under the same yearly hiring, as was required by the statute, and that therefore no settlement was gained by it (h). At what rent, and how paid.] Rent for the tenement, to the amount of 107. at the least, shall be paid by the person hiring the same. And therefore where a man rented land at 307, a year, but becoming embarrassed he assigned all his farming stock and personal property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, and his trustees paid the rent: the court held that the tenant did not thereby gain a settlement; payment of the rent by the trustees, could not be deemed a payment by the tenant, as the rent was paid out of money belonging to the trustees, not to him (i). So, where A. took a house at 107. a year from Martinmas, 1830, payable half-yearly; but in January, 1831, he gave up the house to B., whom the landlord agreed to accept as tenant, on condition that he would be responsible for the whole of the current half year's rent; B. accordingly occupied the house until October, 1832; he paid the first half year's rent due in May, and 57. more at Martinmas, 1831; in October, 1832, he agreed with C. to give the house up to him, C. giving him 57. for the fixtures, and 47. 58. for some of the furniture, and agreeing to pay the landlord the 91. 58., in respect of the rent due by B. since Martinmas, 1831; and the landlord thereupon agreed with B. and C. to accept C. as his tenant, C. undertaking that he would pay the rent due from B. C. accordingly entered, and occupied the house until Martinmas, 1833, when not having paid the rent due from himself or B. the landlord distrained for it, and levied to the amount of 51. upon the fixtures and furniture that had belonged to B., and the rest upon the goods of C.; the question was, whether B. gained any settlement: and the court held that he did not; the first half-year's rent was paid, partly for the occupation of A., and the last rent was paid out of the goods of C. (k). In R. v. St. Nicholas, Colchester (7), where there was a surety for the rent, and the rent was paid by the surety, it was objected that this was payment of the rent by the tenant, within this statute: but the court gave no opinion upon the point, the case being decided upon other grounds (m). (h) R. v. Banbury, 1 Ad. & E. 136. (i) R. v. Pakefield, 4 Ad. & El. 612, supra. (k) R. v. Melsonby, 12 Ad. & El. But where the pauper became tenant of a house at Willoughby at Michaelmas, 1832, at the rent of 177. a year; he paid half a year's rent in July, but on the 6th December, 1833, before he had paid the second half-year's rent, he became chargeable to Willoughby, and was removed with his family to Byfield, where he had previously been settled on the 7th December, however, his family returned to the house at Willoughby, and he on the 8th, and having borrowed some money on the 11th, he paid the half-year's rent due at Michaelmas, and continued to reside in the house until the 27th January, when he removed to Byfield; in the mean time Byfield had appealed against the order of removal, but it was confirmed upon the merits on the 1st of January; when the pauper and his family went to Byfield on the 27th January, they applied for relief, and they were removed back to Willoughby; and it then became a question, whether the pauper, after his removal to Byfield on the 6th December, had not gained a settlement at Willoughby by payment of rent on the 11th the court held that he had; his removal did not put an end to the contract between him and his landlord; and the settlement, which was incomplete at the time of removal, was completed by the subsequent payment of rent (n). Residence.] There must be a residence of forty days in the parish, in order to acquire a settlement under this Act, in the same manner as under stat. 59 G. 3, c. 50, 6 G. 4, c. 57, and 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, s. 1 (o). SECTION V. Renting a Tenement, since the 14th August, 1834. By stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 66, it is enacted that from and after the passing of this Act [14th Aug. 1834] "no settlement shall be acquired or completed by occupying a tenement, unless the person occupying the same shall have been assessed to the poor rate, and shall have paid the same, in respect of such tenement for one year." The word "assessed" in this Act, and the word "charged" in the Acts relating to settlement by payment of rates, are construed alike; and therefore where a house was rated, but the name of the tenant or party rated was not mentioned in the rate, and the rate, during the whole year, was demanded of and paid by the pauper, who was then the tenant: the court held it to be sufficient (p). In a recent case, where the pauper rented a tenement, within the meaning (n) R. v. Willoughby, 4 Ad. & El. 143. (0) See ante, pp. 608, 618, 595. (p) R. v. Hulme, MS. E. 1843; 12 Law J. 100, m.; and see R. v. Walsall, Cald. 35, and post. of stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, and was rated and paid the poor rates for it, for a part but not the whole of the year, the court held that although he did not gain a settlement under this statute, he gained a settlement by the payment of parochial taxes within stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57 (q). Where a farm was rented by father and son as joint-tenants, in the parish of Husthwaite, the son (Wm. Atkinson) residing on and managing the farm, the father (Thomas Atkinson) residing on a farm he had in an adjoining parish; there were three poor rates in the year, the first two on "Wm. Atkinson," the third on "Thomas Atkinson," and Thomas the father paid them; the rent and value of the land was sufficient to confer a settlement upon both father and son; but it became a question whether William the son was "assessed" to the poor rate, and "paid" the same, within the meaning of the above statute: the court held that he was; the payment of the rate by one joint-tenant, was a payment by both; and as William was the party occupying, there was sufficient evidence of his being assessed (r). The renting and occupying of the tenement, and the payment of rent, &c., is the same as under stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18 (8). (q) R. v. St. Mary, Kalendar, MS. M. 1838; 9 Ad. & El. 626; and see R. v. Stoke Damarel, 6 Ad. & El. 308; and the 8th chapter of this part of the work, post. (r) R. v. Husthwaite, 21 Law J. 189. S. C. nom. R. v. Uthraite. 16 Shaw's Justice, 308, 696. |