agreement for the purchase of a copyhold house and an acre of land in E. for 150l. He paid the sum of 341. on account of the purchasemoney, the remainder being to continue as a loan. The pauper took possession of the house and land, and continued to reside as owner for six months. There was no agreement in writing, nor any surrender on the court rolls. A disagreement arose between the pauper and the vendor, and it was determined between them to rescind their former agreement, the pauper restoring the possession of the premises, and receiving back 147., part of the 341. paid, and the vendor retaining the other 201. The question was, whether the residence on the property for six months, under the foregoing contract, gained a settlement. The court, however, admitting that an equitable estate or interest would be amply sufficient, supposing it to be perfect of its kind, said that here was no clear equitable interest vested, but only an inchoate title by part payment. They added, that "equity would consider the vendor as trustee for the purchaser, where the entire purchase-money was paid, or at least tendered. This may be in common parlance' a purchase,' but the statute requires that the entire purchase-money should be bona fide paid, or at least be ready to be satisfied" (r).

A court of quarter session should give effect to equitable estates or interests when clearly vested in the claimants, e. g. in a vendee who, after paying the vendor the whole purchase-money, has not received possession. Again, where there is a conveyance to uses not executed, or on trusts stated on the face of the deed, they will take notice of the equitable estate for the collateral purpose of settlement, but not of a bare equity or mere equitable right to have a conveyance of the legal estate; for where there is doubt what a court of equity would do, a superior court of law will not take cognizance of the estate (s).

What Parties are Irremovable from an Estate, though they have not acquired a Settlement.]-Although the restrictions which we have noticed may prevent a party from acquiring such a settlement as will continue when his interest in the premises has ceased, and he has left them, yet while he " inhabits on such estate" as his own, he will be irremovable from it. This right to reside on a man's own estate is founded on Magna Charta, which enacts that no man shall be disseised of his freehold (t), although, as we have seen (u), a widow does not gain

(r) R. v. Long Bennington, 6 M. & S. 403. Confirmed, 2 B. & Cr. 132.

(8) R. v. Long Bennington, 6 M. & S. 403 and per Holroyd, J., R. v.

:

Geddington, 2 B. & Cr. 121.

(t) R. v. Aythorp Rooding, Burr. S. C. 412.

(u) Ante, p. 834.

a settlement in her own right by residing on an estate out of which she is dowable before the assignment of dower, yet where she resides there with her children, who are of tender years, she, being by law their natural guardian, is not removable from the estate (x). The following case also may further illustrate this part of the subject.

The pauper's husband was settled and resided at White Rooding, from which place he went away and deserted his wife and children. The wife left White Rooding, and went, with her children, and lived forty days without her husband, in a copyhold tenement of her husband's own, at Aythorpe Rooding. Held, that, "although the wife could not gain a settlement for her husband by residing forty days upon his own estate, yet that she was irremovable from the property of her husband, in Aythorpe Rooding; for she had a natural, or at least a matrimonial, right to go to her husband's estate; and as there did not appear to be any dissent of her husband, it was rather to be presumed that he consented" (y).

A house in parish W. was let to A., and B. his wife, for their joint lives, and the life of the survivor; A. and B. were wrongfully ejected from their house, but their former lodger and furniture remained in it. A. afterwards, in B.'s absence, helped lessor to destroy the lease. A. and B. were held irremovable from W., though actually chargeable there (z). A woman seised of a house in A. parish, as tenant in common, with her three sisters, married and resided some years with her husband in parish B., his place of settlement. The husband being transported, the wife went with her daughter to the house in A., where one of her sisters resided, and lived there more than forty days. Held that she was irremovable (a).

Residence necessary to a Settlement by Estate.]—To enable a party to gain a settlement by estate, there must be a residence of at least forty days (b) in the parish where the estate lies (c); besides which it is now enacted (d) that no person shall be deemed, adjudged, or taken to retain any settlement gained by virtue of any possession of any estate or interest in any parish for any longer or further time

(x) R. v. Willey, 2 M. & S. 504. (y) R. v. Aythorpe Rooding, Burr. S. C. 412; but see Berkhamstead v. St. Mary, North Church, 2 Sess. Ca. 182, contra.

(z) R. v. Matlock (Inh.), 1 Ad. & E. 124.

(a) R. v. Brington (Inh.), 7 B. & C.

546. See, however, Berkhamstead v. St. Mary, North Church, 2 Sess. C. 182, contra.

(b) R. v. West Shefford, Burr. S. C. 307.

(c) Ryslip v. Harrow, 2 Salk. 524.
(d) 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 68: came

into operation 14th Aug. 1834.

than such person shall inhabit within ten miles thereof; and in case such person shall cease to inhabit within such distance, and hereafter become chargeable, such person shall be liable to be removed to the parish wherein, previously to such inhabitancy, he may have been legally settled; or in case he may have, subsequently to such inhabitancy, gained a legal settlement in some other parish, then to such other parish.

This enactment embraces a settlement claimed under 13 & 14 C. II. c. 12, s. 1, by "coming to settle" on a tenement of the yearly value of 107. in right of the pauper's own estate in it, but such a settlement is extinguished by ceasing to inhabit within ten miles from the parish (c). However, the only settlement thus defeazible is that of the individual who possesses the interest or estate, and a settlement acquired by derivation through him is not affected. So that, where a man possessed of an estate went with his son to reside more than ten miles from the parish where it lay, the son retained the derivative settlement in that parish, whether he was emancipated or not at the time he so left it (d). Being removed by order of two justices, under 9 G. IV. c. 40, to a county lunatic asylum more than ten miles off, is a "ceasing to inhabit" (e).

The residence need not be actually on the estate; it may be on another person's estate, or at an inn; and the forty days' residence need not be forty successive days, if there be that amount of residence in the whole (f). But the estate must be vested in the party during the residence; and therefore, where a person entitled to administration of the effects of a deceased person resided on his leasehold premises for three years, but took out administration only eighteen days before removal, it was held that this grant, though for some purposes having relation to the death, had not this effect in reference to the settlement before it was taken out; so that no settlement could be gained under the grant. But the administrator being entitled to the entire estate as sole next of kin, the settlement was sustained without reference to the grant (g). On the other hand, if an estate descend to a pauper, and he resides in the same parish forty days after, though immediately after the acquisition he contracted to sell the estate, yet, if the con

(c) R. v. St. Giles's-in-the-Fields, 2 Q. B. 446; 1 G. & D. 557, S. C. (d) Reg. v. Hendon (Inh.), 2 Q. B. 455; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 1.

(e) Reg. v. Whissendine (Inh.), 2 Q. B. 450; 1 G. & D. 560; 11 L. J. (M. C.) 42. See 1 Ad. & E. 221.

(f) R. v. St. Nyott's, ante, Burr. Sett. C. 132; R. v. Sowton, Andrews's R. 345.

(g) R. v. Dorstone, 1 East, R. 296; R. v. Great Glenn (Inh.), 5 B. & Adol. 188; 2 M. & Ry. 91.

veyance be not executed till after the expiration of the forty days during which he has resided, he will gain a settlement (h).

Certificated Persons, (see post, p. 844.)]—It was formerly thought that a person residing in a parish under a certificate, might obtain a settlement there by estate (i). But in 1697 it was enacted (k), “that no person who shall come into any parish by certificate shall be adjudged by any act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in such parish unless he shall bona fide take a lease of a tenement of the value of 107., or shall execute some annual office in the parish, being legally placed there." Upon this act it has been decided, that the purchase of an estate for 301. and upwards, by a certificated party, was such an act of his own, as under the statute debarred him from obtaining a settlement (1).

But where such a party became possessed of an estate in the parish where he was resident, by descent, or act, or operation of law, or for a mixed consideration, consisting partly of money and partly of love and affection, the certificate was held to be discharged, and the settlement by estate to be gained (m). Whether a voluntary conveyance to such a party will discharge a certificate, is not expressly decided (n).

A., a certificated man, was hired by a farmer residing in parish B. as his shepherd, to go into his service at Midsummer. It was agreed between them that A. should have a cottage in B. rent free, and the going, viz. the pasture feeding of 105 sheep with his master's flock [on pasture in B.]. The feeding on pasture in B. was worth 107. per ann. At the same Midsummer, A. hired C. to serve him for a year as shepherd's page, and C. served accordingly. Held that C. gained a settlement by hiring and service with A., because A. never resided in parish B. by virtue of the certificate; for having come there to settle on a tenement of 107. per annum, he was irremovable as soon as he came into the parish, though he could not gain any settlement there till he had resided forty days (o).

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

(h) R. v. Deddington, Stra. 1193, Burr. S. C. 220, S. C.

(i) Stra. 1193, R. v. Deddington. (k) 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11.

(1) R. v. Great Driffield, 8 B. & Cr. 684.

(m) Ibid. R. v. Ufton, 3 T. R. 251;

R. v. Cassington, 2 B. & Adol. 874. See
R. v. Lydlinch, 4 B. & Adol. 150; 1
Nev. & Man. 83.

(n) R. v. Cassington.

(0) R. v. Nacton (Inh.), 3 B. & Adol. 543. See 4 B. & Adol. 254; 1 Adol. & E. 126.

SECTION XI.

OF SETTLEMENT BY SERVING AN OFFICE.

THIS settlement originated in 1691, when it was enacted (p), " that if any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall for himself or on his own account execute any public annual office or charge in the said parish during one whole year, he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement in the same;" and by a later act (q), the service of such office by a party legally placed therein will acquire a settlement, even though he be residing in the parish under a certificate.

But, since 14th August, 1834, no settlement can be acquired by serving an office (r).

Offices conferring Settlement.]-The offices in respect of which a settlement may have been obtained before 14th August, 1834, must be public, but need not be parochial. The description of " public annual office," includes the following, viz. the office of sexton (s); parish clerk (t); churchwarden (u); warden for the borough (x); tithingman (y); borsholder (z); collector of the land tax (a); collector of duties on births and burials, created by 6 & 7 W. III. c. 6. (b); ale taster of a borough (c); hog-ringer of a parish, receiving his appointment from the parish, and not from individuals (d); constable elected for the year, whether for a parish or to superintend the police of a borough, and whether he serve personally or by deputy (e); the streetdriver of a borough, chosen by the court leet of a manor (ƒ); town crier and bellman of a city, appointed by the corporation (g); an uncertificated tithingman, who had been appointed by the proper persons

(p) 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6.

(g) 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11.

(r) 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 64. (8) R. v. Liverpool, 3 T. R. 118. Churchyard in two parishes.

(t) Gatton v. Milwich, 2 Salk. 536. Approved in R. v. Bobbing, 5 Ad. & E.

682.

(u) St. Maurice v. St. Mary Calendar, 2 Const. 158, pl. 103.

(x) St. Mary v. St. Lawrence, Reading, 10 Mod. 13.

(y) Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Sett. & Rem. 72.

(z) Wingham v. Sellindge, 2 Stra.

1299.

(a) R. v. Hammond, 2 Bott, 156, pl.

199.

(b) Bisham v. Cook, 2 Bott, 156, pl 200.

(c) R. v. Bow, 8 T. R. 445.

(d) R. v. Whittlesea, 4 T. R. 807.

R. v. Hope Mansell, Cald. 252; but not special constables appointed under 1 & 2 W. IV. c. 41, s. 12, or constables appointed under a local act authorizing justices to appoint constables for such period as they judge expedient, R. v. Middlewich, 3 Ad. & E. 156.

(f) R. v. Yalding, 3 D. & R. 352. (g) R. v. St. Nicholas, Hereford, 10 B. & C. 832. See R. v. Lew, 8 B. & Cr. 655.