CHAPTER VIII. Settlement by Payment of Parochial Taxes. SECT. 1. Settlement from 1690 to 22nd June, 1795, p. 660. 2. Settlement from 22nd June, 1795, to 22nd June, 1825, p. 667. 3. Settlement from 22nd June, 1825, p. 669. SECTION I. Settlement from 1690 to 22nd June, 1795. What taxes within stat. 3 | The party must pay them, By stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, "if any person, who shall come to inhabit in any town or parish," "shall be charged with and pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the said town or parish, then he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement in the same." What taxes within the Act.] The words of the Act are "the public taxes or levies of the said town or parish." The poor rate is clearly a tax or levy within the meaning of the Act. But where the pauper served on board one of the hulks in the river, and 6d. per quarter was deducted from his wages, by order of the admiralty, towards the maintenance of the poor of Sheerness: the court held that he gained no settlement in Sheerness by such payments, for he was not rated (a). So, a church-rate is a tax or levy, within the meaning of the Act. And where a man, who occupied a house in Egremont, was charged with and paid what was there called a "couple cess," but which was in fact a church-rate: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; it was a public tax, and charged and paid within the parish, which was all the statute required (b). So, the land tax is holden to be a public tax, within the meaning of the statute. And where the tenant of lands in (a) R. v. Friendsbury, Burr. S. (b) R. v. St. Bees, 9 East, 203. C. 644. Armley, was assessed to and paid two quarters' land-tax for them; and it was objected that although the tenant usually pays the land-tax in the first instance, yet as he is allowed for it out of his rent by his landlord, it is a tax upon the landlord and not upon the tenant, and therefore the tenant cannot gain a settlement by paying it: but the court held otherwise, saying that the point had been already decided; the reason of making this a mode of gaining a settlement was, from the notoriety of the party's inhabitancy, arising from his being rated to and paying the tax, and it therefore was not confined to parochial taxes (c). But where a person, occupying a house in Christchurch, London, was rated to and paid two quarters' watch-rate, which in London was not a parish rate, but a ward rate: the court held that he did not thereby gain a settlement; it was not a parochial tax, nor collected by any parochial officer, and the parish therefore had no notice that the party who paid the rate was a parishioner (d). There are also some exceptions by statute: by stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 7, persons rated to and paying the scavenger's rate or highway rate, shall not thereby gain a settlement. By stat. 23 G. 3, c. 23, no prisoner in the King's Bench prison or the rules thereof, shall gain a settlement in the parish of St. George the Martyr, by payment of taxes for any tenement there. And by stat. 43 G. 3, c. 161, s. 59, persons assessed to and paying the window tax, or any of the assessed taxes on carriages, servants, &c., shall not thereby gain a settlement. But where a man purchased a tenement for a sum under 307., and he was assessed to and paid the land-tax and poor-rate for it; and it was argued that as by stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 5, no person could gain a settlement by reason of a tenement purchased by him for a sum under 307., that was a virtual repeal of the settlement by payment of taxes, as far as related to such a tenement: but the court said that the stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 5, was passed merely for the purpose of preventing persons gaining settlements by estates purchased by them for small sums, and it was not intended by it to affect any other mode of settlement (e). The party must be charged with them.] The statute requires that the party should "be charged with and pay" the rates, &c., in order to gain the settlement. And therefore, where it appeared that the pauper paid taxes, but was not rated for them: the court held it to be insufficient (ƒ). So, (c) R. v. Bramley, Burr. S. C. 75. (d) R. v. Christchurch, London, 8 B. & C. 660. (e) R. v. Uffculme, Burr. S. C.. 430. S. P. R. v. Worth, Burr. S. C. 90. 08. (f) R. v. Bramshaw, Burr. S. C. where in Birmingham it was the custom to make but one poor rate in the year, and if any person came to reside there after the making of such rate and before the making of the next, the overseers collected the rate from him, and afterwards inserted his name in the next assessment; shortly after the making of such a rate, a man came to reside in a house which he had taken in Birmingham at eight guineas a year, and the overseers demanded a rate from him, and he paid it; but by the time the next rate was made, and in which he was assessed, he had been arrested and taken to gaol, and he never afterwards paid the rate: the court held that he gained no settlement; at the time he paid the rate he was not rated: and when he was rated, he did not pay (g). So, where the landlord was rated, and the tenant paid the rate, the court held that the tenant did not thereby gain a settlement (h). So, where a person paid all parish taxes for a tenement which he rented, but the rates were made out in the name of the former tenant: the court held that he did not thereby gain a settlement (i). So, where the pauper's mother occupied a house, and was rated and paid the taxes for it until her death; the pauper occupied it afterwards, and paid rates and taxes for it, but the assess ments continued to be made out in the mother's name although the overseers knew she was dead: the court held that as the pauper was not rated, he gained no settlement (j). So, where a man having a small estate, for which he paid taxes, agreed to let it to his son for a year, and the son, instead of paying rent for it, was to support his father; the son thereupon resided upon the estate for the year, his father living with him, and he paid all the taxes for the estate, but the father was the person actually rated: the court held that the son gained no settlement by this payment of taxes; to gain such a settlement he must both be rated and pay (k). What amounts to a charge or assessment upon the party, has sometimes been made a matter of question. And it has been holden that in order to its being a good assessment upon him, it is not necessary that he should be actually named in the rate; if he be described in such a way as to show that the parish, although they may not know his name, are aware of his being a parishioner, it is sufficient (7). Where the pauper paid rates for a house for two or three years, and the house was (g) R. v. Edgbaston, 6 T. R. 540. (h) R. v. Sarratt, Burr. S. C. 73; 2 Str. 1023. S. P. Scalon Tongall V. Worplesdon, Fol. 128. Stanlake, Burr. S. C. 627. Painswick, Burr. S. C. 465. St. Cuthbert's, Burr. S. C. 817. R. v. R. v. R. v. (i) Kinver v. Kingswinford, Fol. 120. (j) R. v. Heckmondwicke, 2 Doug. 564; Cald. 103. (k) R. v. Lower Walton, Burt. S. C. 100. (1) See R. v. Husthwaite, ante, p. 624. rated to the poor in these words, "late Lowbridge's house," one Lowbridge having before then occupied it; and in the same rate various other tenements were in like manner charged, where new tenants had come to them, and those tenants severally paid their rates when demanded: the court held that the pauper thereby gained a settlement; it was not necessary that he should be actually named in the rate, it was enough if the parish had sufficient notice of him; and here the parish must have had sufficient notice, for they collected the rate from him for two or three years (m). But where a house and land, named Waynllwd, was rented by the pauper at 57. a year; and it was rated in the poor-rate by the name of the tenement, and not in the name of the pauper, the overseers not knowing him, or even that he was the occupier; no rates were demanded of the pauper, but on being told by his landlord that rates were due, he desired the landlord to pay them, and he would repay him the amount, which was accordingly done: the court held that he gained no settlement by thus paying taxes for the tenement; the reason that the payment of taxes confers a settlement is, that the parish by rating him admit that he is a parishioner, and if in this case the party were well known, perhaps the rating by the name of the tenement would have been sufficient; but he was not in fact known to be the occupier (n). So, where a Mrs. Hippesley let a tenement to a tenant, and died, and it was rated in this form, "Occupier of late Mrs. Hippesley's, 3s. 2d. ;" and this rate having been demanded of the pauper, who was in the receipt of one-third part of the rent of the tenement, he paid it: the court held that he gained no settlement by it; the rate was not upon him but upon the "occupier," that is, the tenant (0). If indeed the rate be merely informal and defective, the party rated, if he pay the rate, shall be deemed to have gained a settlement; for it would be a hardship on parties to allow the parish to set up as a defence defects in a rate made by themselves, which has been acquiesced in and paid by the ratepayers (p). And therefore, where it was objected that a poorrate was made upon the householders only, and not upon the parishioners generally the court overruled the objection, saying that the rate being laid too narrowly, was not the less a public tax, and that the party being rated to and having paid this public tax, thereby gained a settlement (q). So, where one Goodiff was rated thus: "Rent 4l., quære certi (m) R. v. Walsall, Cald. 35; and see R. v. Hulme, ante, p. 624. R. v. Mary-le-bone, 19 Law J. 201, m. (n) R. v. Llangammarch, 2 T. R. 628. (0) R. v. Chew Magna, Cald. 365. (p) St. Giles, Cripplegate, v. St. Mary Newington, 19 Vin. Abr. 386. (q) R. v. St. Bees, 9 East, 203. ficate, occupier Richard Goodiff, sums assessed," leaving a blank for the sum, but it appeared on the face of the rate that it was made for 2s. in the pound; when the rate, 8s., was demanded, Goodiff at first refused to pay it, saying that he was not a parishioner, but upon the overseer threatening to distrain for it, he paid it; afterwards on the same day the overseer returned with the vestry clerk, and offered to return the money, saying that he had taken it by mistake, but the pauper refused to receive it; the overseer then left it, but the pauper took it and threw it after him: it was objected that as the sum was not filled in, the pauper was not in fact rated, and therefore gained no settlement; but the court said it sufficiently appeared what sum he had to pay, for the rate was 28. in the pound, and he was rated on a rental of 41. which made 8s. (y). But in a previous case, where the rate stated merely the name, the sum not being inserted until afterwards by the overseer when the rate was paid to him, and there was nothing on the face of the rate to show otherwise what the amount should be: the court held that the rate was not merely informal, but was no rate at all, and the pauper therefore gained no settlement by paying it (z). Where both the landlord's and the tenant's names appear in the assessment or rate, it is a question for the justices to decide upon the evidence, whether the landlord or the tenant was the person intended to be rated. The general presumption in such a case is, that the tenant is the person intended to be rated unless the contrary appear (a). But where the columns in a land-tax assessment were headed thus, "Rent-Landlords rated-For what-In whose occupation-Sums assessed," and the landlord's name was inserted in the second column, the tenant's in the fourth; the tenant paid the land-tax for several years, and by agreement it was deducted from his rent: the court held that the landlord was the party assessed, and that the tenant gained no settlement by paying the tax (6). But where there was a column for the landlord's name, and another for the tenant's, but it did not appear which was assessed; the tax in fact was demanded of the tenant, and he paid it: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement (e). On the other hand, where the pauper came to reside with his mother, in a house and land which she occupied, and he was rated for the tenement both in the poor-rate and church (y) R. v. Corhampton, 2 Doug. 621; Cald. 108. (2) R. v. Warblington, Burr. S. C. 787. (a) Per Buller, J., R. v. Rainham, 5 T. R. 240. (b) R. v. St. John's, Southwark, 1 Doug. 225. S. P. R. v. Carshalton, Burr. S. C. 809. R. v. Folkestone, 3 T. R. 505. (c) R. v. Mitcham, Cald. 276. |