payments of parochial rates in respect of tenements of the yearly value of 101., removals on this ground fell into disuse, and the settlement became in a degree confounded with that obtained by renting a tenement, the same condition precedent being required in both cases (u). However, as soon as 59 G. III. c. 50 imposed special restrictions on the right of obtaining a settlement by renting a tenement, the settlement by paying parochial rates or levies was again noticed and resorted to; for it often happened that a party had paid a parochial tax in respect of a tenement of the yearly value of 107., as pointed out by 35 G. III. c. 101, though he had neither hired, nor held, nor paid rent for a year, as required by 59 G. III. c. 50; and, in such a case, though he gained no settlement by renting the tenement, he would still acquire one by having contributed to the parochial burdens. The result of this unforeseen circumstance was, that an act which had been passed to shut one avenue of litigation, opened another scarcely less fruitful. Nor has the act of 22nd June, 1825 (v), by which the settlement by paying parochial rates for any tenement not being the party's own property, is expressly narrowed to the same conditions as that by which the settlement in respect of renting a tenement may be acquired under that act, prevented new cases of establishing this settlement in a manner which, if unforeseen, still bears a strong resemblance to the result of 59 G. III., which we have just mentioned. For, in a very late case, where the occupation of a tenement of 107. yearly value was such as to satisfy 6 G. IV. c. 57, it was held, that though, as the hiring had taken place after the passing of 1 W. IV. c. 18, and in consequence of the underletting of a part, no settlement could be gained under that act by renting the tenement, still it might be acquired by payment of the parochial rates in respect of it (w). This important decision appears by a sidewind to render nugatory the strict enactments of 1 W. IV. c. 18; as in nearly every case the householder who lets lodgings has been rated to and paid parochial rates.

By 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 66, no settlement shall be acquired or

(u) 35 G. III. c. 101, s. 4. The sole object of this act was to relieve poor persons likely to become chargeable from being liable to removal before they actually were so. See 4 Chitty's Burn, 28th edit. 761, n.

(v) 6 G. IV. c. 57, s. 2. See p. 792. (w) R. v. Stoke Damerel, 6 Ad. & E. 308; 1 N. & P. 453, S. C. So, though not only had 1 W. IV. c. 18 not been

complied with as to actual occupation; but the party had not been assessed to or paid poor-rates for the whole year, Reg. v. St. Mary Kalendar, 9 Ad. & E. 626; 1 P. & D. 497, S. C. Ante, p. 795. N. B. the occupation under 6 G. IV. c. 57 was complete, but the taking was long after 1 W. IV. c. 18. The case seems remarkable.

completed by renting a tenement, unless the person occupying the same has been assessed to the poor-rate, and has paid the same in respect of such tenement for one year. This section, by reference to 6 G. IV. c. 57, s. 2, seems to show, that if an occupier be assessed, and pays the poor-rate for his tenement, it is immaterial to his gaining a settlement, whether he be rated for any other parochial taxes or not (x).

Sketch of other Cases and Statutes on this Settlement since 35 G. III. c. 101.]-Between 22nd June, 1795, and 22nd June, 1825, when 6 G. IV. c. 57 passed, a settlement might be gained by residence for forty days in a parish, after being rated and paying parochial taxes in respect of a tenement there of the annual value of 107. or more (y), though not rated at 107. (z); if all the forty days were subsequent to such payment (a). So that where forty days had not elapsed between such payment and the passing of 6 G. IV. c. 57, the settlement was not completed (b). All that is requisite is, that the parish shall rate the party so as to show that they are aware he is in the parish, and that he should pay on such rating; so that whether he occupy rent free, in increase of his salary, or is a tenant properly so called; or whether, if he pays the rates, he is reimbursed by another; or whether any other pays them for him, is immaterial (c).

But where land hired, taken, or inclosed under acts for relief of the poor (d), is let by parish officers to a poor inhabitant, he shall not gain a settlement by reason of his paying parochial taxes for it, either alone or with any other land or tenement (e).

SECTION X.

OF SETTLEMENT BY ESTAte.

BEFORE 1722, a person who enjoyed a legal or equitable estate, of whatever value, gained a settlement by forty days' residence in the

(x) See Mr. Archbold's note to this section.

(y) R. v. Penryn, 4 B. & Adol. 224; S. C. 1 N. & M. 74; R. v. St. Pancras, 2 B. & C. 122.

(2) R. v. Ringstead, 7 B. & Cr. 607. (a) Ibid.

(b) R. v. St. Dunstan's, 4 B. & Cr.

686.

(c) R. v. Lower Heyford, 1 B. & Adol. 75.

(d) Viz. 59 G. III. c. 50, as amended by 1 & 2 W. IV. c. 42, and c. 59, as to crown lands.

(e) 1 & 2 W. IV. c. 42, s. 5; and c. 59, s. 2.

parish where it lay (f). In that year it was enacted (g) that no person shall be deemed to acquire a settlement in any parish or place by any purchase of any estate or interest in such parish or place where the consideration for such purchase does not amount to 301. bona fide paid for any longer time than such person shall inhabit in such estate, and shall then be liable to be removed to such parish or place where such person was last legally settled, before the said purchase, and inhabiting therein.

This act therefore confines the acquisition of a permanent settlement by estate acquired by payment of money, to estates for which 301. has been paid by the purchaser, but leaves the settlement by estates obtained in other ways as before. In all cases, therefore, the first question is, Whether an estate of the nature proposed confers a settlement? and if it is suggested that the consideration money was under 301. other questions may arise, viz., is the estate within the restriction of 9 G. I. c. 7, as acquired by purchase? Next, if it is, was the consideration for the purchase of the amount contemplated by the statute? If these questions are decided against the settlement, a further question may arise, whether, though no permanent settlement is acquired by estate, the party may not be so connected with it, as to be irremovable during his possession.

What amount of Estate will confer this Settlement with regard to 9 G. I. c. 7.]-The estate must be an interest issuing out of the realty; and therefore an annuity charged on personalty confers no settlement (h). So where the freemen of a borough, acquiring their freedom by descent, had, simply as freemen, and during residence in the borough, a right of pasturage over a moor, with the privilege of cutting pasture, it was held that such freeman residing in the borough had not, by such rate, any estate which rendered him irremovable, but a mere inalienable privilege, which would not suffice (i); and the like was held in the case of a burgess of a borough, entitled as such to receive a share of the rent of corporate land (j). But the nature of the tenure is immaterial; nor is the duration of the estate material, provided it is of sufficient permanency, and so vested in possession as to ensure to the party a right to remain for forty days. Thus it may

(f) R. v. Deddington, Stra. 1193;

2 B. & Adol. 877.

(g) 9 G. I. c. 7.

(h) R. v. Stockley Pomroy, Burr. S. C. 762.

(i) R. v. Warkworth, 1 M. & S. 473.

(j) R. v. Belford (Inh.), 10 B. &

Cr. 54.

be a freehold estate in fee (k); or for life (1); or a leasehold interest determinable on lives (m); or for a term of years (n), (which includes a tenancy from year to year (o), or for even half or a quarter of a year) (p); but not a mere tenancy at will (q), or an estate in remainder (r).

It is not necessary that strict proof of an indefeasible title should be given; for if the party has had twenty years' undisturbed possession, or even rather less by a few weeks, without any acknowledgment, the possession is a sufficient title from which to presume a grant, though it had its origin in wrong (s). Thus, where a cottage was built on the waste thirty years before, and had descended to the daughter, the lord making no claim, it was holden to be a sufficient title to found a settlement (t). Again, where a party or his son has resided for twenty years within a few weeks, on an estate as given by a relative, although there be no proof of any conveyance, yet a settlement will be gained; for "the strict rules which prevail on the trials of ejectments ought not to be applied to settlement cases;" and under such circumstances a conveyance, if necessary, might be presumed (u). The following cases further illustrate this principle.

Inferring Original Title from Long Possession.]—The grandfather of a pauper had given to his father, (but it did not appear in what manner,) thirty years ago, a piece of land, on which he built a house, and lived in it several years with his family, of which the pauper was one, and then removed into a third parish with his said family, lived there some years, and let to a tenant the aforesaid house which he had built. Ten years ago he returned to his said house and has resided in it ever since, never having paid any rent or acknowledgment for it. The pauper was part of his father's family at the time the house was built, and continued so for fifteen years afterward, when he married, left his father's family, and never returned. Pauper was thus eman

(*) R. v. Great Farringdon, 6 T. R. 520.

(1) R. v. Shenston, Burr. S. C. 468. (m) R. v. Marwood, Burr. S. C. 386. (n) Murphy v. Grandborough, Stra. 97. See 2 Adol. & E. 536; 1 B. & Adol. 750.

(0) 3 T. R. 13; Doe d. Shore v. Porter.

(p) Litt. s. 67; Co. Lit. 54 b.; 5 B. & Adol. 768, Doe d. Phillips v. Roe.

(9) R. v. Widworthy, Burr. S. C.

109; 1 B. & Adol. 750. See 1 Ad. & E. 530.

(r) R. v. Willoughby with Sloothby, 10 B. & Cr. 62; R. v. Eatington, 4 T. R. 177.

(s) R. v. Butterton, 6 T. R. 554 ; but see R. v. Chew Magna, 10 B. & Cr. 747. Possession to confer a right must be adverse against a person having a legal title, 1 B. & Adol. 259.

(t) Ashbrittle v. Wyley, Stra. 608, (u) R. v. Butterton, 6 T. R. 554.

cipated before his father had obtained a perfect title from a possession of the house in question for twenty years; and it was said that as here was a mere naked possession, but no title, he was not irremovable till twenty years had elapsed, and had not acquired a settlement by his residence in it. But it was held that as "he was in for fifteen years under some title or other, and has continued in possession for fifteen years more, and up to the present time; it must therefore be inferred that the father had a title at the former period, by the gift of his grandfather" (v).

The three following cases resemble each other closely, and were decided about the same time:-A. being seized in fee of a close of land gave a small piece by parol to B. who built a cottage there and inhabited it for fifteen years. A. then told him he had sold the land to C. and having asked B. to give him possession, and sell him his right, agreed to give him 31. for giving possession, B. taking the materials. B. pulled down the cottage, carried away the materials, and delivered possession to C. Held, that B. being mere tenant-atwill to A. did not gain any settlement by estate, in respect of his undisturbed possession, it being for less than twenty years (w).

The husband of a pauper being settled in parish A., enclosed a small piece of waste land in parish B. from a common in 1800, and held and cultivated it till Christmas, 1827, when he conveyed it by deed to a buyer. He had not lived in parish B. till 1825, when he removed into it, and in 1826, built a hut on the land, where he lived a year and a half. In 1806, 1811, and 1817, the parish officers and freeholders perambulated the parish, in order to the marking their boundaries and asserting their rights of common. On these occasions they pulled up a part of the fence of the land so enclosed, dug up part of the bank, and rode through the enclosure. In 1820, or 1822, similar acts were done on a perambulation made by order of the lord of the manor. Held, that as no acknowledgment had ever been paid for the land to the lord, there was an adverse possession, notwithstanding the acts of interruption, so that the pauper's husband gained a settlement in B. by estate (x).

A. enclosed an acre of land from a common and built a house on it, for which the parish gave him materials. Fourteen years after, he gave by parol part of the land thus enclosed to B. who built a cottage on it, and afterwards enclosed a further portion of the common, and occu

(v) R. v. Calow, 3 M. & S. 22.
(w) R. v. Chew Magna, 10 B. & Cr.

747.

(x) R. v. Wooburn, 10 B. & Cr. 846.