As to the payment of parochial rates, see ante, pp. 660, 665, and R. v. Husthwaite, 21 Law J. 189, m., ante, p. 624.

The words "parochial rates" in the above section, are deemed to mean the same thing as the words "the public taxes or levies of the said town or parish," in stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 5 (b). Therefore, where a man rented and occupied a tenement from Lady-day, 1825, to Christmas, 1826, at 30%. a year, but did not pay his rent, and therefore did not acquire a settlement by renting a tenement; he was assessed to the land-tax, however, in April, 1826, and paid it in the July following; it was contended that he thereby gained a settlement; the statute related only to the payment of parochial rates, and not to the land-tax, and therefore as to a settlement by pay ment of land tax, it was still left as it was under the statutes of 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, and 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 4, and consequently, the tenant in this case gained a settlement: but the court held that this statute must be construed in reference to stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, and the words "parochial rates' in the one, and "public taxes or levies of the parish" in the other, must be deemed to mean the same thing, namely, the taxes raised within the parish: they therefore held that the tenant did not gain a settlement (c). Where the pauper rented a tenement from the 5th October, 1835, to the 5th October, 1836, paid his rent, and paid all the poor-rates for the year, except the last, which was made on the 29th September, allowed by the justices on the 4th October, but not published until the 9th; it was argued that the pauper gained no settlement, as he had not paid all the poor-rates to which he had been assessed during the year, as required by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 77, s. 66 (d): but the court, without deciding whether the last of the rates above mentioned was a rate of the year within the meaning of that section, held that the section related only to settlements by renting tenements, and not to settlements by being rated to and paying parochial taxes; and that even since that Act, the being rated to and paying any rate, and residing in the parish forty days afterwards, will still gain a settlement, if the tenement in respect of which the party is rated be within stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, and that statute be in other respects complied with (e).

It will be perceived that this stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, requires the tenement to be occupied under the yearly hiring, and the rent paid for one year; but it does not require that the tenement shall be occupied by the party hiring the same, as was required by the previous Act, 59 G. 3, c. 50. This was recti

(b) See ante, p. 660.

R. v. East Teignmouth, 1 B.

241.

(d) See ante, p. 624.

(e) R. v. St. Mary Kalendar, MS. M. 1838; 9 Ad. & El. 620.

fied, as to settlements by renting a tenement, by stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1; but that section did not extend to settlements by payment of taxes. And therefore, where after the passing of stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, the pauper hired a tenement for 167. a year, paid a year's rent, and was rated to and paid parochial taxes for the year, but the whole of the tenement was not in his occupation, he having underlet a part, of the annual value of 41., during the whole of the year: as the stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, 8. 1, requires that the tenement should be actually occupied by the person hiring the same, it was objected that the pauper therefore gained no settlement; but the court held that stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1, extended only to a settlement by renting a tenement, and not to a settlement by payment of parochial taxes; and as the pauper in this case had been rated and paid such taxes, he had thereby gained a settlement (f). But the second section of the above stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18 (g), which provides that where the rent exceeds 107. a year, payment to the amount of 107. shall be sufficient for the purpose of the settlement, extends not only to a settlement by renting a tenement, but to a settlement by payment of rates. And, therefore, where a man rented a house in Brighton, under a lease for years, and underlet a part of it, but was rated and paid the rates for the whole of it; he occupied for a year, but only paid three quarters' rent, amounting to 80l., the rent for the last quarter never having been paid: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement (h).

(f) R. v. Stoke Damarel, 6 Ad. & El. 308.

(9) See ante, p. 619.

(h) R. v. Brighthelmstone, 10 Law J. 93, m.; 1 Q. B. 674.

CHAPTER IX.

Settlement by Serving Office.

It is necessary to premise, that by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 64, it is enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act (14 August, 1834,) no settlement shall be gained by serving an office. As cases, however, will of course occur of such settlements gained previously to the passing of that Act, we shall here consider the subject under the following heads :—

It must have been a public annual office, p. 672.
The party must have been legally appointed, p. 674.
The party must have served, p. 675.

Residence, p. 675.

It must have been a public annual office.] By stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, "if any person who shall come to inhabit in any town or parish, shall for himself and on his own account execute any public annual office or charge in the said town or parish, during one whole year," then he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement in the same.

A constable is a public annual officer, within the meaning of the statute. But where by a local Act the justices at sessions were empowered to appoint constables for a particular place, for such a period as they should deem expedient; and the pauper was" duly appointed" by them, and served the office fifteen months: the court held that as the justices might appoint for a less time than a year, this was not in its nature an annual office, and therefore the pauper gained no settlement by serving it (a). But in ordinary cases a constable duly appointed gains a settlement, not only when he serves the office personally, but when he serves it by deputy; and in the latter case the deputy does not gain a settlement by serving the office, because he does not serve it "for himself and on his own account." Thus, where a man being appointed constable of a parish, objected to serve the office, and therefore appointed another his deputy, and gave him 10s. 6d. for serving the office for him: the court held that the principal thereby gained a settlement (b). But in a similar case, the court held that the deputy gained no settlement by his service (c).

(a) R. v. Middlewich, 3 Ad. & El.

156.

(b) R. v. Hope Mansel, Cald. 252.

(c) R. v. Winterbourn, Burr. S. C. 520; 1 W. Bl. 452.

A tithing-man is also an annual officer, within the meaning of the Act (d). But if a tithing-man serve by deputy, his deputy is not (e).

A parish clerk has been holden to be a public annual officer within the meaning of the Act (f). This was doubted in R. v. Stogursey, 1 B. & Ad. 795. But in a subsequent case, where it appeared that the office of parish clerk and sexton in the parish of Bobbing being vacant, the rector desired the pauper to act as clerk for a Sunday, and upon coming out of the desk, said to him, "I shall appoint you my regular clerk and sexton, and to follow me in marriages and funerals; " no other appointment took place, but the pauper from that time continued to execute the duties of clerk and sexton, for upwards of twenty years, and resided in the parish; soon after he first began, some of the parishioners objected to his appointment, and the overseers refused to pay him the usual wages, on account of his not being settled in the parish; but the rector persisted in the appointment, and the overseer being threatened with legal proceedings paid the usual wages, which in four years afterwards the parish increased: the court held that the pauper had thereby gained a settlement, and that the appointment to the office was sufficient (g).

So, the office of overseer of the poor is a public annual office within the statute. So is the office of assistant overseer, where it is an annual office; for he is not a deputy chosen by the overseer, but a substantive officer chosen by the inhabitants (h).

The crier and bellman of a town has been holden to be a public annual officer within the meaning of the statute: and where the town contained many parishes, it was holden that he gained his settlement in that parish in which he last resided forty days (i).

Where a "hog ringer" was chosen for a parish by the leet, for a year, was sworn into office and served; and it appeared that his duties were to attend to open commons, and to see that the hogs turned out there were rung, and to impound those that were not, and the office was one of great antiquity: the court held this to be a public annual office within the meaning of the Act (k).

So, where a man was appointed for a year, bailiff and aletaster for the borough of Overton, and sworn into office at the leet, and his duties were to inspect all weight

easure

and to warn the leet jury in the borough only, which formed but part of the parish of Overton; the sessions held that the party did not thereby gain a settlement: but the court, upon application, granted a rule nisi to quash the order of sessions, and no cause being shown against it, it was made absolute (b). And it is not necessary that it should be a parochial office; any office, if it be public and annual, was within the Act (c). And therefore, serving the office of collector of land-tax (d), or the office of collector of the taxes imposed by stat. 6 & 7 W. 3, c. 6, on births and burials (e), have been holden to confer settlements.

But the governor or master of a workhouse, under stat. 22 G. 3, c. 83 (f); or of any other workhouse, unless found specially by the sessions to be a public annual officer (g); a curate appointed under a sequestration (h), or nominated by the rector and licensed (i); a schoolmaster of a charity school (k); an organist of a parish chapel (1); and a pinder, if the office do not appear clearly to be an annual office (m); have been severally holden not to be public annual officers within the Act. So, being appointed tithing-man for half a year, and afterwards for another half year, has been holden insufficient, for it appeared to be merely a half yearly office (n). So, the office of street driver in a borough where the party appeared to be appointed merely from court leet to court leet, and not annually, has been holden not to be an office within the Act (o).

The party must have been legally appointed.] It must appear that he was appointed to the office by some person or persons having lawful authority to appoint, and that the appointment was made in a proper manner. And therefore where the pauper did the duties of parish clerk for a salary paid to him by the parish, but he was never appointed by the vicar, in whom the appointment legally was: the court held that as there was no appointment, he gained no settlement (p). So, where the homage for the manor of Fordham Biggen appointed a pinder for the town and parish of Fordham; but the manor formed a part only of the town and parish: the court held the appointment bad, as the homage had no right to appoint a

(b) R. V. Whitchurch, Burr. S. C. 365; Say. 134.

(c) Per Pratt, C. J., 2 Bott, 156. (d) Id.

(e) R. v. Bicham, 1 Str. 411. (f) R. v. Hambledon, 4 B. & C. 459. R. v. Mersham, 7 East, 167. (g) R. v. Ilminster, 1 East, 83. (h) R. v. Over, Burr. S. C. 746. (i) R. v. Wantage, 2 East, 65.

(k) R. v. Melborne, 2 Str. 1925; Burr. S. C. 244.

(1) R. v. St. George, Hanover Square, 5 B. & Ad. 571.

(m) R. v. Clixby, 4 B. & Ad. 153. (n) R. v. Deddington, Burr. S. C. 220; 2 Str. 1193.

(0) R. v. Falding, 8 D. & R. 352. (p) R. v. Stogursey, 1 B. & Ad. 795; see R. v. Bobbing, 5 Ad. & El. 682, ante, p. 673.