in Coneythorpe, and the son of course derived that settlement from him (y).

And it is the party who is to gain the settlement that must be thus resident in the parish; a residence by his family will not be sufficient. And therefore where a man, residing and settled in Albury, ran away from his wife and family; but the wife's mother just then dying, and having devised to her two houses in St. Mary, Northchurch, one in fee and the other for life, the wife went there with her children and resided in one of the houses for two years, the husband never returning: the court held that she gained no settlement by this residence; during the life of her husband she could gain no settlement independently of him (z).

What residence necessary to retain the settlement.] By stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 68, it is enacted, "that no person shall be deemed, adjudged, or taken to retain any settlement, gained by virtue of any possession of any estate or interest in any parish, for any longer or further time than such person shall inhabit within ten miles thereof; and in case such person shall cease to inhabit within such distance, and thereafter become chargeable, such person shall be liable to be removed to the parish wherein, previously to such inhabitancy, he may have been legally settled; or in case he may have, subsequently to such inhabitancy, gained a legal settlement in some other parish, then to such other parish." And where a man purchased a leasehold house for 1,575l., for an unexpired term of 94 years, subject to a rent of 150 guineas year, it was holden that this was an estate or interest" within the meaning of this statute, and that he lost the settlement he had gained by residing in it, by going to reside at a distance of more than ten miles from the parish in which it was situate (a). As to the change of residence, it has been holden that even where a person, having thus a settlement by estate, became insane, and was removed to the county lunatic asylum at a distance of more than ten miles, he thereby lost his settlement by estate (b).

The words "within ten miles thereof," in the above section, mean evidently within ten miles of the parish, and not within ten miles of the estate. And where a man had an estate in the parish of A., and gained a settlement by a residence of upwards of forty days in that parish; he afterwards removed into the adjoining parish of B.: and the question was, whether

(y) R. v. Knaresborough, 20 Law J. 147, m.

(z) Berkhampstead v. St. Mary, Northchurch, 2 Bott, 33.

(a) R. v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 2 Q. B. 446; 11 Law J. 18, m. (b) R. v. Whissendine, 11 Law J. 42, m.; 2 Q. B. 450.

his place of residence in B. was ten miles from the parish of A.; it was more than ten miles by the nearest road, but if a straight line were drawn from the one to the other, the distance would be only nine miles: the court held that the words "within ten miles thereof," in stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 68, mean within ten miles measured in a straight line from the house which the party inhabits, to the boundary of the parish in which the estate is situate (c).

If after gaining a settlement by estate, the party leave the parish and inhabit at a greater distance than ten miles from it, if he afterwards come and reside in the parish, whilst he continues seised of or otherwise entitled to the estate, his settlement does not revive; nor will he be deemed to have gained a fresh settlement by estate until after a forty days' residence in the parish (d). And if he part with the estate, and then come back to the parish to reside, it is clear that his settlement by estate does not revive (e). Where, however, the children of a man who has acquired a settlement by estate, become emancipated whilst he continues to have the settlement, and the father afterwards removes to a distance of more than ten miles from the parish, so that he himself loses the settlement, yet the children will retain the settlement they derived from him at the time of their emancipation (f). But if he leave the parish, and reside at a greater distance than ten miles from it, whilst his children are unemancipated, they, as well as the father and mother, lose the settlement (g).

3. Fraud, its Effect upon the Settlement.

Where the pauper, being entitled to two freehold houses, let to tenants, conveyed them to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, and one of the houses becoming vacant, the trustees put a person in it to take care of it, until it should be let; but the pauper, by taking the key from the place where that person had left it, obtained possession of the house without the consent of the trustees, and resided in it a year and three quarters; during this time the trustees had not sold the houses, and nothing was said in the conveyance to them as to what should be done with the houses before sale: the court held that he gained no settlement by this residence; he had no

(c) R. v. Saffron Walden, 15 Law J. 115, m.; 9 Q. B. 76.

(d) R. v. Scriven-cum-Tentergate, MS. E. 1843.

(e) R. v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 11 Law J. 18, m.; 2 Q. B. 440.

(f) R. v. Hendon, 2 Q. B. 455; 12 Law J. 1, m.

(g) R. v. Llansaintfraid Glan Conway, 23 Law J. 5, m.

estate or interest in the house, having parted with the whole of it, and the possession he had obtained by fraud (h). But where the pauper in 1832 conveyed all his freehold estates to trustees, for payment of his creditors, and covenanted to surrender his copyhold estates to the same trusts, and in the mean time to stand seised of them in trust for the trustees; he afterwards resided in the parish in which these copyholds were situate, though not upon the lands, more than forty days, and up to the time of the trial of the appeal: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; he had the legal estate, and his not residing on the land was immaterial, as he resided within the parish (i).

Where the pauper's husband, who was settled in the parish of Great Glen, took a house in the parish of Leir, as tenant from year to year, at the yearly rent of 31., and resided there with the pauper from April, 1827, until the 14th of May, 1831, when he died: she resided in the house afterwards, and was relieved by the parish of Great Glen; but on the 2nd June she told the landlord she wished to pay the rent weekly, to which he assented, and she paid him 1s. 2d. per week from that time until the 5th March following, when she quitted, in consequence of having received a week's notice to quit; in the August after her husband's death, the attorney for the parish of Great Glen called upon the pauper, and offered to take out letters of administration for her to her husband, and did take them out afterwards, and it was stated in the case that this was done fraudulently, and at the expense of the parish of Great Glen, for the purpose of settling the pauper in the parish of Leir; she resided in the house more than forty days after the letters of administration were taken out: the court held, that as to the fraud found, as the sessions had stated the grounds upon which they found it, they could examine and see whether they warranted the finding; and on considering the facts stated, they did not think they amounted to that species of fraud which would prevent the estate of the intestate vesting in the pauper as administratrix, as she was bound by law to take out letters of administration, and consented to their being taken out; and if she resided forty days in Leir, whilst the term which was the property of the intes tate vested in her, she thereby gained a settlement; but as there were some ground for presuming that, after adminis tration, and before she had so resided forty days, she had become a weekly instead of a yearly tenant, and so relinquished the estate of the intestate, the court sent the case back to the sessions, that they might determine that fact (j). So where a

(h) R. v. St. Michael's in Bath, 2 Doug. 630.

2) R. v. Ardleigh, 7 Ad. & E. 70.

(j) R. v. Great Glen, 5 B. & Ad.

188.

man was appointed a schoolmaster by certain trustees under a will, and instead of giving him the profits of a farm, to which by the will he was entitled, the trustees merely gave him a house to live in, and a salary much less than the rent the farm produced; and the sessions thinking the appointment fraudulent, and in no respect consistent with the will, therefore confirmed the order for the man's removal: but the court said that the sessions evidently meant a fraud, not upon the part of the schoolmaster, but upon the part of the trustees, in withholding from him a part of the profits of the farm to which he was entitled: but which of course did not affect the settlement; they therefore held that the schoolmaster gained a settlement (k).

SECTION II.

Estate bought by the Party.

What within the Act, 653.
The consideration, 654.

What not within the Act,
657.
Fraud, its effect, 659.

Formerly a person, by buying an estate for any sum, however small, might acquire a settlement in the parish in which it was situate. This being liable to much abuse, it was thought right by stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 5, to enact, that from and after the 25th March, 1723, "no person or persons shall be deemed, adjudged, or taken, to acquire or gain any settlement in any parish or place, for or by virtue of any purchase of any estate or interest in such parish or place, whereof the consideration of such purchase doth not amount to the sum of thirty pounds, bona fide paid, for any longer or further time than such person or persons shall inhabit in such estate, and shall then be liable to be removed to such parish or place where such person or persons were last legally settled, before the said purchase and inhabitancy therein."

It must be borne in mind that this section is but an exception to the general rule as to settlement by estate laid down under the last head; and that wherever the consideration given for an estate appears to be 301. or upwards, or where by the decided cases it is adjudged that any particular case is not within the statute, it then becomes a question whether the estate, and the residence of the party, be such as to confer upon him a settlement, under the general law of settlement

(k) R. v. Owersby-le-Moor, 15 East, 356.

by estate, which we have considered under the last head. We shall now proceed to consider the cases which have been decided upon this section.

The consideration.] As the Act especially requires that the consideration should amount to the sum of thirty pounds," it has been holden that where the consideration does not consist wholly of money, the case is not within the Act. And therefore where the father of the pauper's wife, in consideration of natural love and affection, conveyed a customary cottage to her for life, remainder to her daughter and her heirs, it was admitted that this was not a case within the statute (1), although it had previously been ruled otherwise (m). So, where the father of the pauper, in consideration of 101. and of natural love and affection, conveyed to him a cottage and premises in fee, of much more than the value of 107., the court held that it was not a case within this statute (n). So, where after the marriage of the pauper, his father-in-law, in consideration of the marriage then lately had, and of natural love and affection for the pauper and his wife, and also in consideration of 108., conveyed to the pauper a piece of land: the court held it not to be a case within this statute (o). So, where the pauper's father, who was in possession of copyhold premises of inheritance in the parish of Takely, to which he had been admitted on the death of his father, verbally agreed to give them up to the pauper, if he would pay 157., which he (the pauper's father) had borrowed on them, and allow him and his wife to reside upon them rent free during their lives; the pauper accordingly paid the 157., was admitted to the copyhold upon the surrender of the father, (the admittance stating the verbal agreement,) and the father and mother continued to reside on the premises, the father, until his death, the mother until the time of the pauper's removal; the pauper also resided on the premises for eighteen years after the surrender, but was not residing there at the time of his removal: the court held that the pauper thereby gained a settlement; it was not the case of a purchase under 301. within the stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, for, from the terms of the agreement and admittance, and from the state of the family at the time, it was evident that natural love and affection formed part of the consideration (p). So, where the lord of the manor granted the lease of a copyhold house and garden to John Tucker, for the lives of himself, his wife and daughter, at the yearly rent of 18., in consideration of the grandfather and granduncle of Tucker surrendering certain leases of the premises, and of Tucker

(1) R. v. Ingleton, Burr. S. C. 560. S. P. R. v. Brungwyn, 2 Bott, 483. (m) R. v. Sawbridgworth,2 Bott, 502, n.

(n) R. v. Ufton, 3 T. R. 251. (0) R. v. Charlton, 2 Bott, 498. (p) R. v. Hatfield Broadoak, 3 B. & Ad. 566.