the like is held in the case of a householder letting beds or half beds by the night or week (i), where he has access to and control over the whole house, keeping the keys of all the rooms, and conferring on his lodgers no other right than to the use of their beds by night.

So it seems that a party hiring since 30 March, 1831, must pay the rent out of his own funds, and have the exclusive occupation, by right, for the year. A party, after hiring a house and lands, at Michaelmas, 1832, for a year, at 301., occupied for the year, but assigned during his occupation all his personal estate soever, in trust to cultivate the lands as long as the crops then growing should remain, and to sell the stock, crops, &c. and receive the amount of the valuation to be made, as between outgoing and incoming tenant, at quitting the land; and the trustee was to be possessed of the monies on trust, first, to pay the expenses, next to pay the rent, taxes, &c. accruing during the continuance of the trusts, and next to pay the pauper's creditors, parties to the deed. During the year the trustee sold the stock, effects, and crops, which were cut and carried off by the purchasers; after which he paid the rent for the year out of the money thus produced. The pauper by himself or his family occupied the house for the rest of the year. Held, that he obtained no settlement, as he had neither paid the rent, nor had an undivided occupation for the year (k).

It has been held under this act, that no settlement is gained by occupying the same tenement for a continuous year, the occupation during part of that year being under one hiring for a year, and during the remainder under another similar hiring (1). If a tenant from year to year lets from year to year, and then gives up his own interest to the landlord paramount by verbal agreement, and the tenant in possession afterwards verbally agrees with the landlord to become his tenant from year to year, such last agreement is a new hiring, and puts an end to the former hiring as under-tenant (m).

Payment of Rent, &c. since 30th March, 1831, under 1 W. IV. c. 18.]-Pauper hired a house in W., from Michaelmas, 1832, to Michaelmas, 1833, at a yearly rent of 177.; occupied it for the whole year, and on July, 1833, paid half a year's rent, 87. 10s. He continued to occupy till 6th December, 1833, when, becoming chargeable to the

(i) R. v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 4 Ad. & E. 495.

(k) R. v. Pakefield, 4 Ad. & E. 612; adhered to in Q. B. 11 Nov. 1840, Reg. v. Melsonby (Inh.), ante, p. 818.

(1) R. v. Banbury (Inh.), 1 Ad. & E. 136. See, however, Reg. v. Chawton (Inh.), ante, p. 819.

(m) Id.

parish, he was removed, with his family, to B. The order was appealed against. Pending the appeal, viz. the next day, 7th December, his family returned to their old house at W., as, on the 8th, did the pauper. All staid there till 27th January, 1834. On 11th December, 1833, pauper paid the half-year's rent due on the preceding Michaelmas, with 87. 10s. which he had borrowed. On 1st January, the appeal was confirmed by the sessions on the merits. On 27th January, pauper and his family again went to B. and were removed back to W. The question was, whether he gained a settlement in W. subsequent to the order of 6th December, 1833? Held, that the pauper had gained a settlement in W. at the time of the payment of the arrear, though after the year had elapsed; for payment being the last requisite to be fulfilled, completed the settlement; and the confirmation of the order of removal showed only that, as he had not completed a settlement at the time of the order made, he was again removable to W. (n).

Effect of the above Acts on Incomplete Settlements.]-Settlements in progress of acquisition at the time of the passing any of the above acts may be established, if the requisites of the last act be complied with as far as possible, after it comes into operation (0).

As to stating this settlement on examinations and grounds of appeal, see ante, sections 2 & 3 of this Chapter.

SECTION IX.

OF SETTLEMENT BY PAYMENT OF PAROCHIAL TAXES.

THE reason why payment of parochial taxes confers a settlement is, that a parish, by rating a man, admits that he is a parishioner (p). The history of this settlement is curiously diversified. Long and often on the verge of extinction, it has always been revived by the unforeseen result of the various acts intended to destroy it. It originated in 1691, with the enactment (q), that if any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall be charged (r) and pay his share (s) towards the

(n) R. v. Willoughby, 4 Ad. & E. 143; 5 N. & M. 457, S. C.

(0) See per Bayley, J., R. v. Ditcheat, 9 B. & C. 182, 183; R. v. St. Nicholas, Colchester, 2 Ad. & E. 599.

(p) R. v. Llangammarch (Inh.), 2

T. R. 628.

(q) 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6.
(r) See infra.

(s) Payment of one poor's-rate and church-rate held sufficient, R. v. Openshaw, Burr. S. C. 522; 1 Bla. R. 463.

public taxes or levies (t) of the parish, he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement. Under this act a settlement was acquired by forty days' residence on a tenement of whatever yearly value, after being rated to any parochial tax, as the land-tax, or the poor or church rate (u); not including a watch rate (x), or assessed taxes (y). But when this kind of settlement was at length limited to payments of parochial rates in respect of tenements of the yearly value of 107., 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 (z). 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 one or more of the "public taxes or levies” (i. e. the taxes raised within the parish (a)) in respect of a tenement of the yearly value of 107., as pointed out by 35 G. III. c. 101, s. 4, 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 (b), 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 bears a strong resemblance to the result of 59 G. III., just above mentioned. For, in a case where the occupation of a tenement of 101. 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 (c). This important decision appears by a side wind 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.

Between the 22nd June, 1795 (the time of passing 35 G. III. c. 101,) and 22nd June, 1825 (when 6 G. IV. c. 57 passed,) a settlement might be gained by residing in a parish for forty days after being rated and paying parochial taxes in respect of a tenement there, of the annual value of 101. or more (d), though not rated at 107. (e), if all the forty days were subsequent to such payment (ƒ).

Since 22nd June, 1825, we have seen (ante, p. 819) that by 6 G. IV. c. 57, s. 2, no settlement can be gained by payment of " parochial rates" for any tenement not being the party's own property, unless it answers the requisites of that act. The words "parochial rates" in that act, and "public taxes or levies" of a town or parish "in 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6, mean the same thing, viz. the taxes and levies collected within a parish, such as poor's rate, church rate, land tax (g). Again the words "charged with " in 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, and "assessed to" in 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 66, are construed alike (h); accordingly the occupier of a tenement who claims a settlement by payment of parochial taxes in respect of it must be "charged with" as well as pay a parochial rate or tax (i).

We have seen that, since 30th March, 1831, it is sufficient, in order to claim a settlement in this right, or in that of renting a tenement, if 102. of the year's rent is paid (k). All that is requisite now is, that the parish shall rate (i. e. assess or charge) the occupier, so as to show themselves aware that he is in the parish, and that he should pay on such rating (1); so that being so rated, whether he occupy rent free in increase of salary

(c) R. v. Stoke Damarel, 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 of the whole by the tenant; but he had not been assessed to or paid poor's-rates for the whole year, Reg. v. St. Mary Kalendar, 9 Ad. & E. 626; 1 P. & D. 497, S. C. See pp. 822, 828. 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.

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

(e) R. v. Ringstead, 7 B. & C. 607. Ibid.

(g) R. v. Teignmouth, East (Inh.), 1 B. & Adol. 241; R. v. Issey, Bur. S. C. 826; R. v. Ringstead, 7 B. & Cr. 607, church-rate. As to watch-rate, &c., see p. 825.

(h) See Reg. v. Hulme (Inh.), 4 Q. B. 538; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 100, ante, p.

822.

(i) Reg. v. St. Olave, Southwark, 13 L. J. (M. C.) 161; R. v. Bramshaw, Burr. Set. C. 88.

(k) Reg. v. Brighton, ante, p. 821. (1) See judgment of court in R. v. Heyford, Lower, 1 B. & Ad. 75.

due from his landlord, or is a tenant, properly so called, viz. rendering rent, or whether after himself paying the rates he is allowed them in account with his landlord, is immaterial (m). Since 6 G. IV. c. 57, he need not reside forty days in the parish after payment of such a rate (n).

If the premises are rated and the rate paid, the occupier need not be actually named on the rate or assessment itself (o). The assessment will be good if the tenement occupied or the occupier are so described as to show that the parish, though ignorant of his name, are aware (e. g. by collecting rates from him) that he is in fact the occupier (p). If both landlord's and tenant's names appear on the rate, the presumption is that the tenant is intended to be rated till the contrary is shown to the sessions (q).

But where land hired, taken, or inclosed under acts for relief of the poor (r), 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 (s).

Evidence.]-This settlement cannot be established by evidence of payment only without the production of the rate, or accounting reasonably for its non-production after notice given to the parish officers to produce it (t).

We have seen that, by 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 66, (ante, p. 821), no settlement shall be acquired or completed by occupying a tenement unless the person occupying the same shall have been assessed to the

(m) R. v. Heyford (Lower), 1 B. & Adol. 75. N. B. There was no agreement by the landlord to pay the rates; occasionally he paid in the first instance a rate assessed on his tenant; but it was considered by the court that the rates were in fact paid by the tenant himself. Per Lord Denman on the case being cited in Reg. v. Bridgewater (Mayor), 10 Ad. & E. 68. In Reg. v. South Kilvington (Inh.), 5 Q. B. 216; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 3, pauper occupied premises at a yearly rent under an agreement by which the landlord was to pay all rates. The rent was higher on that account. Pauper was assessed to the poor as occupier, but the landlord always paid the rate. Held, that pauper did not gain a settlement by being charged with, or assessed to, or paying the poor's rate under stat. 4 W. & M.

c. 11, s. 6, or 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 55. See R. v. Weobly, 2 East, 68.

(n) R. v. Ringstead, 7 B. & C. 607, relied on arguendo, 9 Ad. & E. 628. (0) Reg. v. Hulme, supra, p. 826; R. v. Walsall, Cald. 35.

(p) R. v. Walsall: "late Lowbridge's house," held sufficient rating coupled with payment, though actual occupier not named. See R. v. Llangammarch, 2 T. R. 628.

(g) Per Buller, J., in R. v. Rainham, 5 T. R. 240.

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

(8) 1 & 2 W. IV. c. 42, s. 5; and c. 59, s. 2.

(t) R. v. Coppull, 2 East, 25, cited by Patteson, J., in R. v. Staple Fitzpaine.