be both the house and the service, or it might be a stipulation as to the terms of the service. The Sessions were not, as far as it appears to us, wrong in their decision. WILLIAMS, J.-That is enough for us now to determine. If they had been clearly wrong, we must have quashed their decision; but there was evidence for their consideration. Mr. Knox says, the last stipulation in the agreement tends to contradict their finding. That does not appear so to me. Perhaps nothing more was intended than an indulgence to the pauper, without any intention of conferring any legal rights upon him.

COLERIDGE, J.-The Sessions had the agreement before them; and they drew proper conclusions both of law and of fact. The party objecting to those conclusions must satisfy us that they were wrong. In substance, this was an agreement between a master and servant. All had reference to that; the wages were to be partly money, partly the keep of cattle, and partly the occupation of the cottage. The pauper might have said, it would be inconvenient to be turned out of the cottage as soon as he was dismissed from the service, and so might ask for an indulgence. I will assume that he was to have a six months' notice; still it would not follow that he was a tenant. The cottage had always been occupied by the man who attended to the cattle, and by no other person, and was part payment for that labour.

confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following

CASE.

The notice of appeal stated, "that the said John George is not rated and assessed in the rate for and in respect of a messuage or dwelling-house, occupied by him within the said parish; and further, that the said rate is, in other respects, illegal, unequal, and unjust." At the hearing of the appeal, it was proved that the house had been rated during the occupancy of a former tenant, and up to the time when it ceased to be occupied, at 67. a year, but that the last rate was not paid; that it had been unoccupied for a short time; that, on account of the difficulty of obtaining payment of the rates, it was not afterwards rated; that the appellant had then become the occupier, had expressed his willingness to be rated, and had requested the parish officers to rate him, but they had not done so; that the parish officers have not of late rated similar houses, on account of the difficulty of obtaining the rates.

If the Court be of opinion that the grounds of appeal, stated in the notice, are sufficient, and that the said appellant ought to have been rated in the said rate, then it is to be amended in that particular, and the order of Sessions quashed; if otherwise, both are to be confirmed.

Crompton, for the appellant.-This appeal is right. The omission of the name in the rate, is a grievance of which the party has a right to complain. It may be that he loses a franchise by not being on the

rate.

[LORD DENMAN, C. J.-If the parish officers can raise a sufficient sum, they are not bound to go so low as this property in their assessment. The loss of a franchise is not a grievance contemplated by the act of parliament.]

WILLIAMS, J.-Are you prepared to say that the rate is unequal? Generally, the complaint is that the parish officers assess a party too highly.]

It may be that this is a novel ground of complaint, yet the rate is wrong. The 17 Geo. 2. c. 38. s. 4, which gives a party a right of appeal if he finds himself aggrieved by any rate made for the relief of

the poor, does not confine the grievance to a pecuniary grievance.

[COLERIDGE, J.-Must you not contend that the not being rated is primâ facie a grievance? What facts shew that you have sustained any grievance ?]

The stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. directs the overseers to rate all the occupiers within the parish, and the appellant, not being on the rate, cannot attend parochial meetings, and may lose other advantages.

[LORD DENMAN, C.J.-Every occupier of land should be rated, you say. It is certainly in the power of the overseers to rate all persons, but it is not necessarily their duty to do so, even though certain rights may result from their being rated.] Thesiger and Byles, contrà, were stopped by

The COURT, who were clearly of opinion, that no grievance was shewn in the case, and

After the passing of the 1 Will. 4. c. 18, a pauper hired two separate dwelling-houses under the same roof, together with three acres of land, at an entire rent of 141. a year. He occupied one house and the land, and underlet the other house for 41. a year :- Held, that he did not gain a settlement by renting a tenement, as he did not exclusively occupy the whole subject-matter of the taking.

Upon appeal against an order of two Justices, made the 7th of February 1835, for the removal of John Welday, with his wife and children, from the parish of Burkswell to the hamlet of Balsall, both in the county of Warwick, the Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following

(1) The Reform Act, 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 30, and the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76. 8. 11, authorize parties occupying premises within boroughs to claim to be put upon the rate; and after such claim, they are entitled to vote in elections under those statutes, whether they are put upon the rate or not.

CASE.

Previous to Lady-day of 1832, the pauper hired two cottages, being separate and distinct dwelling-houses, but adjoining to each other, and under one continuous roof, together with three acres of land, situate in the respondent parish, for a year from Lady-day, 1832. The pauper entered into possession of one of the cottages and the land, and occupied the same under the said hiring till Lady-day, 1833. The other cottage he laid out money upon, and converted into a beer shop, and underlet to John Sturley at a yearly rent of 4l.; and Sturley occupied the same till near Ladyday, 1833, and paid the pauper the rent for it. The year's rent of 147., reserved by the agreement for the whole property, was paid by the pauper to the landlord. The cottage and land occupied by the pauper were worth more than 10%. of the rent (147.) paid by him for the whole. If the Court of King's Bench were of opinion, upon the state of facts, that the pauper gained a legal settlement in Burkswell, the order of Sessions to be confirmed; but, if not, the order was to be quashed.

Waddington and Hayes, in support of the order of Sessions.-The question turns upon the 1 Will. 4. c. 18. The pauper occupied a house and land, so as to give a settlement within the meaning of the statute. It is true he underlet another house; but this is a different case from a single house, of which the pauper occupies only a part: then, no doubt, he would not gain a settlement. The result of the case of The King v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (1) is, that, if a party lets lodgings, he cannot gain a settlement; but the case of The King v. Pickering (2) is an authority in support of the order of Sessions. There the land was situate in two parishes; and the Court held, that evidence was admissible to shew the relative proportion of the value of each. Suppose the boundary of the two parishes had run between the two houses, the case would have been exactly the same; and the rent of the two cottages might be apportioned. If not, suppose a man occupied 1,000 acres of land

(1) 5 B. & Ad. 219; s. c. 3 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 54.

(2) 2 B. & Ad. 267; s. c. 9 Law J. Rep. M.C.

106.

in a parish, and let off one acre, he could not gain a settlement. It never was intended by the 1 Will. 4. c. 18. to alter the law as laid down in The King v. Pickering.

Amos (and Daniel was with him), contrà. -The part which was underlet cannot be 'said to have been occupied by the pauper, though the amount of the rent, which was retained by him, exceeded 107.; and the settlement was not gained. The 6 Geo. 4. c. 57. must be considered as incorporated with the 1 Will. 4. c. 18; and then the settlement will not be gained, unless the tenement consist of a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, nor unless such building be occupied by the party hiring the same. (Here he was stopped by the Court.)

LORD DENMAN, C.J.-We think that the statute should not be construed so as to raise these delicate distinctions. The subject-matter, which must form the tenement, must be exclusively occupied by the party.

WILLIAMS, J.-On the old acts many nice distinctions have been raised by the Judges; but I think we should not introduce them on new statutes. The subject-matter of the taking should be entirely occupied by the party renting it. That is the fair and obvious meaning of the 1 Will. 4. c. 18.

COLERIDGE, J.-I am quite of the same opinion; and I decide this case on the same principle-namely, to give full meaning to the plain words of the statute. Looking at the expressions there used, I have no doubt that the whole tenement must be occupied by the party to enable him to gain a settlement. And when I am pressed with the inconvenience which may arise from such a decision, I answer that an argument of the same kind was urged upon the Court when they were called upon to decide, that the payment of the whole year's rent was necessary (3). The Court, however, adhered to the words of the act, and the legislature passed a new act to remedy the inconvenience.

Order of Sessions quashed.

(3) In The King v. Ashby, 8 B. & C. 27, s. c. 6 Law J. Rep. M.C. 74; and The King v. Ramsgate, 6 B, & C. 712, s. c. 5 Law J. Rep. M.C. 69.

Edlaston is a parish in Derbyshire, maintaining its own poor, and is divided into two districts, named Edlaston and Wyaston, which separately repair their highways, but they are not separated for the relief of the poor. Two churchwardens and two overseers are elected annually for the whole parish, and a rate for the relief of the poor had become necessary since August last. The churchwarden and overseer who live in Wyaston, prepared a rate in the usual form, without distinguishing between the persons occupying lands in the one or the other district, and requested the other parish officers to consent to it. They refused to consent to that rate or to make any other rate, unless it were stated therein that certain inclosures, of which one was occupied by the overseer who lived in Wyaston, were situate in Edlaston. This conduct was alleged to be the result of directions from the lord of the manor.

He

Greaves now moved for a mandamus to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Edlaston, to make a poor-rate, on an affidavit which stated these facts. urged, that the one set of officers had no right to compel the others to make admissions against their interest, by refusing to join in the rate; and he mentioned a case in the Bail Court, where a like motion had been made absolute in the first instance, the parties against whom it was moved being left to make a return.

PRACTICE UNDER THE PRISONERS'
COUNSEL ACT.

Criminal Law-Evidence-Depositions— Cross-examination-Right of Reply.

Course of practice on trials for felony, where the prisoner is defended by counsel, as to cross-examination from the depositions, and as to the right of reply for the prosecution, where a supposed variance or contradiction between the deposition and the testimony of a witness at the trial, is relied upon by the counsel for the prisoner-where witnesses are called to character-and where the prosecution is instituted by the Crown.

At a meeting of twelve of the Judges (1), for the purpose of choosing the Spring Circuits of 1837, a discussion took place as to some points which were thought likely to occur at the Assizes, in consequence of the recent Act (2) for allowing prisoners, indicted for felony, to make full defence by counsel; and the following seemed to be the course of practice which the Judges present thought it would be most advisable to adopt :

I. That where a witness for the Crown has made a deposition before a Magistrate, he cannot, upon his cross-examination by the prisoner's counsel, be asked whether he did or did not, in his deposition, make such or such a statement, until the deposition itself has been read, in order to manifest whether such statement is or is not contained therein; and that such deposition must be read as part of the evidence of the cross-examining counsel.

II. That, after such deposition has been read, the prisoner's counsel may proceed in his cross-examination of the witness as to any supposed contradiction or variance between the testimony of the witness in court and his former deposition; after which the counsel for the prosecution may re-examine the witness, and after the prisoner's counsel has addressed the jury, will be entitled to the reply. And in case the counsel for the prisoner comments upon any supposed variance or contradiction, without having read the deposition, the Court may direct it to be read, and the

(1) Littledale, J., Bosanquet, J., and Coleridge, J. were absent from indisposition.

(2) 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 114.

counsel for the prosecution will be entitled to reply upon it.

III. That the witness cannot, in crossexamination, be compelled to answer, whether he did or did not make such or such a statement before the Magistrate, until after his deposition has been read, and it appears that it contains no mention of such statement. In that event the counsel for the prisoner may proceed with his cross-examination; and if the witness admits such statement to have been made, he may comment upon such omission, or upon the effect of it upon the other part of his testimony; or if the witness denies that he made such statement, the counsel for the prisoner may then, if such statement be material to the matter in issue, call witnesses to prove that he made such stateBut in either event, the reading of the deposition is the prisoner's evidence, and the counsel for the prosecution will be entitled to reply.

ment.

IV. If the only evidence called, on the part of the prisoner, is evidence to character, although the counsel for the prosecution is entitled to the reply, it will be a matter for his discretion whether he will use it or not. Cases may occur in which it may be fit and proper so to do.

V. In cases of public prosecutions for felony, instituted by the Crown, the law officers of the Crown and those who represent them, are, in strictness, entitled to the reply, although no evidence is produced on the part of the prisoner.

Chediston, in Suffolk, applied to two Justices for an order of removal to the parish of St. Andrew Ilketshall, in the same county. The examination of the pauper was taken as to the place of her settlement, and that of the overseer as to her chargeability, and an order of removal was made. A notice of the pauper's being chargeable was served on the overseers of St. Andrew's, and a copy of her examination was delivered; but, by an accident, the copy of the overseer's information as to the chargeability was omitted to be sent. The parish officers of St. Andrew's appealed against the order of removal, stating, as one of the grounds of appeal, that it did not appear, from the copy of the examination sent, that the paupers had become chargeable to the parish of Chediston.

At the sessions, the appellants put in their notice of appeal; and thereupon the respondents produced the original examinations and information of the overseer. The Sessions, however, held this to be insufficient, and quashed the order, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the necessity of stating the chargeability in the examinations sent, it being already stated in the order of removal, In Easter term last, a rule nisi for a mandamus, directed to the Justices of the county of Suffolk, was obtained, commanding them to enter continuances, and hear the appeal; and

now

B. Andrews shewed cause.-The Quarter Sessions having granted a case, which the respondents have not thought fit to bring up, this Court will not interfere by way of mandamus-The King v. the Justices of the West Riding (1).

Austin, in support of the rule.-The question in that case was simply one as to the practice of the particular Sessions. Here, the question is as to the proper construction to be put on the new Poor Law Act, 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 72. s. 79 & 81. By the decision which the Justices at sessions have come to, there has been no trial of the appeal at all; and if the Court will decide the point on this motion for a mandamus, the case will be settled in a very cheap manner for the benefit of both parties.

(1) 1 Ad. & El. 606; s. c. S Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 54.

Poor Law-Case sent up from Sessions— Parol Evidence-Contract of Hiring and Service,

The Sessions sent up a case to the Court of King's Bench, which found certain facts, and set out this written agreement: “Memorandum, that the undersigned R. L. agrees on behalf of his son R. L, that he shall serve R. M, of &c., in his business of a wheelwright, from this time to the 27th of May 1830; the said R. M. paying, at the expiration of the said term, 51. to the said R. L. the younger; R. L. to find his son clothes, washing, and all other necessaries, and R. M. meat, drink, and lodging;" and the case also stated that the respondents proposed to give in evidence, conversations between the parties before and at the time of signing the agreement, and also an indorsement on the paper on which the agreement was written, which evidence was rejected; and the case concluded by submitting to the Court, as a distinct question, whether the agreement was an agreement of hiring and service, but not submitting any question as to the admissibility of the evidence:-Held, first, that this agreement was a contract of hiring and service; secondly, that the purport of the conversations not appearing, and no question being submitted thereon, the Court could not say that the evidence was improperly rejected, nor would they send the case down to be restated.

By an order of two Justices, Robert Dickenson Lynn was removed from the parish of Asterly, in Lincolnshire, to the parish of Billinghay, in the same county, The Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following