Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Q.B. Div.]

REG. v. GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE STEPNEY UNION.

Thursday, May 22, 1884.

(Before STEPHEN and MATHEW, JJ.)

REG. on the prosecution of THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE MERTHYR TYDVIL UNION v. GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE STEPNEY UNION. (a)

Poor law-Settlement by residence-Pauper a sailor in the mercantile marine-Constant absence of pauper-Pauper without any independent home -39 & 40 Vict. c. 61, s. 34.

A

pauper, who was born in the appellant union, from 1876 up to the time of his application for relief, was a sailor in the merchant navy, serving on board different ships and on different voyages. Between the different voyages he always returned to his mother's house in the respondent union, remaining there on an average for four or five weeks in each year. In 1881 he also obtained jobs on shore, which lasted about three months, during which time he came to his mother's house in the respondent union, from Saturday to Monday in each week. When away he invariably left some of his clothes and other belongings at her house, and also brought to her a portion of his earnings as a contribution towards the expenses of the house, but he had no separate bedroom or bed there. In 1883 the pauper became afflicted with blindness, returned to his mother's house, and then sought parish relief. The justices made an order that he was settled in the appellant union, and directed that he should be removed there.

Held, that the justices were right in holding that the pauper had not a residence, and therefore had not acquired a settlement, in the respondent union, and had not become irremovable from there, and that he was settled in the appellant union. ON an appeal to the Glamorganshire quarter sessions against an order of removal of the stipendiary magistrate of Aberdare, adjudging the last legal settlement of John Mullines to be

in the parish of St. Paul, Shadwell, in the Stepney Poor Law Union, the Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the order subject to a

CASE.

The pauper, John Mullines, was born in the appellant union in 1849, and resided with his parents until 1865, when he accompanied his father to America.

In Aug. 1866 his father died in America, and the pauper returned to his mother, who was living at Swansea.

From that time till 1871 the pauper gained his living by employment on shore at Swansea, and by going to sea as a sailor on different voyageswhile working on shore he lived with his mother, and when following the sea he always returned to and resided with her after each voyage, and until the commencement of the next.

In 1872 the pauper's mother removed to the parish of Aberdare, in the respondents' union, and married William Crammer.

In August of that year the pauper, on his return from a voyage, went to reside with her.

William Crammer died Nov. 1875. During his stepfather's life the pauper, when on shore for a

(a) Reported by W. P. EVERSLEY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

[Q.B. Div.

short time, resided at his stepfather's house, and during the longer periods (which never exceeded four or five months) paid for his lodgings and food,

In Jan. 1876 the pauper returned from a voyage to his mother's house at Aberdare, and remained there till June 1876. On the 9th June 1876 he joined the Etna, and left her in July 1876, when he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, where he remained till 31st Aug. 1876.

Between Aug. 1876 and Oct. 1877 the pauper served in different ships on different voyages, returning after each voyage to Cardiff, and in Oct. 1877 he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, and remained there till December.

Between Dec. 1877 and April 1879 he served in different ships on different voyages, returning to various ports in the United Kingdom between each voyage, and in April 1879 he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, where he remained till May.

On the 16th May 1879 he joined the Cartsburn, at Cardiff, for Calcutta and back, and upon his discharge from her at Dundee, on the 11th April 1880, he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, where he remained until the end of May 1880.

On the 31st May 1880 he shipped at Cardiff on board the Euphrates for Calcutta and back, and was discharged from her in London, on the 31st March 1881, when he returned to his mother's house in Aberdare, where he remained a month.

He then got a shore job at Cardiff, returning from Saturday to Monday in each week to his mother's house at Aberdare. On the 8th June 1881 he shipped on board the Beatrice, and went certain voyages in her until his discharge the 9th Aug. 1881, when he returned to his mother's house, and remained there for a week

or two.

He then obtained work under the Great Western

Railway Company, at Quaker's-yard (adjoining respondents' union) five miles from Aberdare, returning at first each night to sleep at his mother's house. He afterwards slept at Quaker'syard, leaving his clothes at his mother's house, and returning there from Saturday to Monday. He contributed to the house while with his mother, and generally brought home what he could.

When this work was over, he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, where he remained for a week or two.

On the 21st Nov. 1881 he shipped on board the Cordillera to Sydney and back, and on his discharge on the 20th Feb. 1883 he returned to his mother's house at Aberdare, having in the meantime become blind, and remained there till he made his first application for relief on the 25th May 1883.

When the pauper was away at sea or otherwise, he invariably left some of his clothes and other belongings, and when on the conclusion of his voyages he returned to his mother's house, he had no separate bedroom or bed, but generally slept with his brother.

Upon returning home from any voyage he was in the habit, up to the date of his discharge in

Q.B. Div.]

REG. v. GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE STEPNEY UNION.

[Q.B. DIV.

Feb. 1883, of handing over to his mother a por- where it was held that a person might reside in tion of his savings.

The questions for the court were:

1. Whether under the circumstances stated the pauper had, during the period which elapsed from the death of his stepfather on the 22nd Nov. 1875 to the date of the order, acquired a settlement by residence (actual or constructive) in the parish of Aberdare, in the respondent union, under the 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61; or

2. Whether the pauper was, at the date of the order, irremovable from the respondent union, by reason of a residence therein (actual or constructive) for a year without receiving relief during the same period.

B. F. Williams for the appellants.-The question here resolves itself into this, whether the pauper had resided in the respondent union in such a manner as to acquire a settlement under 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61, s. 34. The statutes fixing the period of residence necessary to render any person irremovable are 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, fixing it at five years; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 55, s. 1, which altered the term to three years; and 28 & 29 Vict. c. 79, 8. 8, reducing the term to one year. The facts here show that the pauper resided with his mother for more than three years in the respondent union before the application for the warrant, going to sea for different voyages, but always returning to his mother's house. Hence he had an animus revertendi, and so there was no break in his residence. Where there is an animus revertendi, there is no break in the residence :

Reg. v. Brighton, 4 E. & B. 236;

Req. v. East Stonehouse, 4 E. & B. 901.

Reg. v. Glossop Union (L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 227) was cited in the court below against the appellants, but that case is distinguishable on the ground that there was no absolute intention of returning, but only a conditional intention; and also on the ground that the pauper had no house to which he had a right to return. In the present case the pauper helped by his earnings to keep up the house, and always left his things there when he

went away.

[ocr errors]

W. Evans for the respondents. When the pauper came home, he merely lodged with his mother; no room was kept for him which he could call his own. There is no finding here that the had animus revertendi. Reg. v. Glossop pauper any Union is the case most in point. That case shows that there must be not only an intention to return, but also a place to which the pauper had a right to return. Here the pauper resided for a very short time in each year in the respondent union; but even supposing that he had an intention to return when he went away, his mother's house was not a place to which he could claim a right to return. He gave his mother a great part of his earnings, but he was merely a lodger, not having any bedroom of his own.

Williams in reply.-The argument that the pauper had no fixed abode to which he could claim the right to return is disposed of by the case of

Reg. v. St Leonard's, Shoreditch, 13 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 278; L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 21,

a parish, though he wandered about the street of the parish by day, and slept on doorsteps at night.

STEPHEN, J.-During the argument of this case I have had doubts first on one side and then on the other, which are not very easy to deal with. In 1846 it was enacted that no person should be removed from any parish in which such person had resided for five years next before the application. In 1861 the five years constituting a status of irremovability was reduced to three years, and at a later date, in 1865, to one year. But the foundation of the whole is the statute of

It

1846, as to the status of irremovability. The question, therefore, before us is, did the pauper in the present case reside for three years in the parish of Aberdare within the respondent union. comes to that in point of fact, because, if the mode in which the pauper lived with his mother constituted a "residence," he resided for more than three years. Now I feel bound to say that the question is mainly one of fact to be decided in each particular case, and does not admit of any absolute rule or principle of law being laid down upon the point. But there are principles of law which guide the courts in coming to a conclusion on the facts, and having found those principles it is for the court to apply them to the facts of each particular case. That being so, there are a large number of cases which show that if a person lives in a parish, but removes for a temporary purpose with the intention of returning, he does not break his residence SO as to destroy his settlement. I may go further, and say that, if a person had a house which he made his head-quarters and where he kept his servants, but was absent for fifty-one weeks out of the fifty-two in the year, I should hold that that absence did not break his residence. Therefore, I do not feel concluded by the fact that the pauper in this case was away from his mother's house for a considerably longer time than he lived there. But the question comes to this, had he a residence there? Now this is a question of fact. Mr. Williams cited a case to us of a woman sleeping on doorsteps, and one can imagine cases from that to the opposite extreme. present case is more like that of Reg. v. Glossop Union (L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 227) than any other. The pauper here lived with his mother when he returned from sea or from other work. There was no contract with his mother, though I do not lay much stress upon that, except in so far as it tends to show that, if she had turned him out of her house, he would have had no remedy against her. He did in one sense reside with his mother, because he lived there when he returned, but I do not think thathe had a residence there. Upon the whole I have come to the conclusion that I cannot say that the magistrates were wrong in holding that he was not settled in Aberdare, and that he was settled in Stepney.

The

MATHEW, J.-I am of the same opinion. I can. not say that the magistrates were wrong. During the life of his stepfather, the pauper was clearly only a lodger with his stepfather's consent. Then after the death of his stepfather, he lived with his mother, but was most of the time away. It

Q.B. Div.]

COMPAGNIE FRANÇAISE DU TÉLÉGRAPHE, &c., v. PENZANCE UNION.

is rather difficult to discover upon what footing he was received at her house. He appears to have been generous to her, and to have given her a part of his earnings, but her house was not a place to which he had any right to come back as a residence. On the whole, therefore, I think that the judgment ought to be affirmed. Order affirmed.

Solicitor for the appellants, W. H. Swepstone. Solicitors for the respondents, J. H.Wrentmore, for James and Co., Merthyr Tydvil.

Feb. 22 and March 8, 1884.

(Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J. and CAVE, J.) THE COMPAGNIE FRANÇAISE DU TÉLÉGRAPHE DE PARIS À NEW YORK (apps.) v. THE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF THE PENZANCE UNION AND OTHERS (resps.). (a)

Poor rate-Telegraph company-Rateability of overhead wires-43 Eliz. c. 2.

A telegraph company entered into an agreement with the Postmaster-General by which it was agreed that the latter should provide and keep appropriated and maintained for the exclusive use of the company certain telegraph wires between certain specified places and a pneumatic tube between two specified places, and should also provide, "keep appropriated, maintain, and work for the exclusive use of the "company in connection with the wires two translators and the

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

necessary batteries;" the special wires, pneumatic tube, and translators and batteries to remain the property of the Postmaster-General;" the Postmaster-General not to be liable to make good any damage to any of the special wires certified by his officers to have been occasioned by the act, neglect, or default of the company; the company not to use any of the special wires for the transmission of any messages except American messages and service messages of the company; the company to pay, in consideration of the appropriation and maintenance by the Postmaster-General for the use of the company of the special wires in respect of each special wire a yearly rent or sum calculated at the rate of 51. for every mile, and, in respect of the pneumatic tube, the yearly rent or sum of 3501., and, in respect "of the appropriation, maintenance, and working by the PostmasterGeneral to the use and on the behalf of the company" of the translators and batteries, the yearly rent or sum of 3501.; the company not to part with the possession of the special wires without the consent of the Postmaster-General; the Postmaster-General, on the expiration of the agreement, "to resume possession" of the wires: The company, under this agreement, took the use, as therein provided, of certain telegraph wires, which were supported on poles in the ordinary way, and, a portion of them passing through

|

[Q.B. DIV.

a parish in the P. Union, the Assessment Committee thereof rated the company to the relief of the poor in respect of an alleged occupation by them of the said wires and poles. The company having appealed:

Held, on case stated by consent, that, upon the true construction of the agreement, the company had not the exclusive occupation of the wires, and, therefore, were not liable to be rated in respect of them. THIS was a special case stated by consent of all parties and by the order of a judge under the provisions of the statute 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, for the opinion of the court as to the liability of the appellants therein to be rated to the relief of the poor under the circumstances therein appearing.

The facts set out in the special case were, so far as material, as follows:

The appellants are a telegraph company owning certain submarine telegraph cables between France and America, and also working submarine cables between France and a point on the Cornish coast near the Land's End, and carrying on the business of a telegraph company in connection therewith; and the respondents were the assessment committee of the Penzance Union in the county of Cornwall and the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Buryan in the said union.

In order to enable them to carry on their business as aforesaid, the appellants on the 14th April 1880 entered into an agreement with certain submarine telegraph companies, who were possessed of concessions for the laying of submarine telegraph cables between England and France, for the construction of a telegraph cable between the aforesaid point near the Land's End and a point of the French coast, and also with Her Majesty's Postmaster-General. And on or about the 25th Jan. 1881 they also entered into a supplemental agreement with the Postmaster-General relative to the above matter.

Under and in pursuance of such agreements, the appellants have the use, as therein provided, of two telegraphic wires which are the property of the Postmaster-General. These wires are supported upon poles in the ordinary way, and extend from Penzance in Cornwall to the landing place of the aforesaid telegraph cable near the Land's End.

During a portion of their course the said wires pass through the parish of St. Buryan in Penzance Union in the county of Cornwall, and the respondents, the assessment committee, having jurisdiction over such parish, in drawing up their supplemental valuation list, included the appellants as persons liable to be rated to the relief of the poor of such parish in respect of an alleged occupation by them of the said telegraph wires and poles situated in such parish, and in accordance with such valuation list the appellants were on the 5th Oct. 1881 rated to the relief of the poor in the said parish in the sum of 168., the following being a copy of such rate:

[blocks in formation]

Q.B. Div.]

COMPAGNIE FRANÇAISE DU TÉLÉGRAPHE, &C., v. PENZANCE UNION.

whether the appellants were liable to be rated in respect of the said telegraph poles and wires, or either of them, and judgment in conformity with the decision of this court, and for such costs as the court might adjudge, was to be entered on motion by either party at the sessions next or next but one after such decision should have been given.

The following were the paragraphs of the abovementioned agreement of 14th April 1880 which were material to the issue raised in the case:

10. The Postmaster-General shall, with all convenient speed, provide and shall thenceforth during the continuance of his agreement keep appropriated and maintain for the exclusive use of the Paris and New York Company the following telegraph wires (hereinafter called special wires) that is to say

(1) A telegraph wire between the landing place of the Déolin Cable, near the Land's End, in the county of Cornwall, and an office to be established by the said company at Penzance in the said county.

(2) A telegraph wire between the office to be established by the said company at Penzance aforesaid, and an office to be establised by the said company in the city of London.

(3) A telegraph wire between the office to be established by the said company at Penzance aforesaid, and an office to be established by the said company at Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster.

(4) A telegraph wire between the office to be established by the said company in the city of London, and the office to be established by the said company at Liverpool aforesaid.

11. The Postmaster-General shall also, with all convenient speed, provide and shall thenceforth during the continuance of this agreement keep, appropriate, and maintain for the exclusive use of the Paris and New York Company a pneumatic tube connecting the Central Telegraph Office of the Postmaster-General in the city of London with the offices of the Paris and New York Company at No. 24, Royal Exchange, in the said city.

12. The Postmaster-General shall also, with all convenient speed, provide and shall thenceforth during the continuance of this agreement keep appropriated, maintain, and work for the exclusive use of the Paris and New York company in connection with the said special wires, two instruments called translators and the necessary batteries in connection therewith at the head post-office in Bristol, or at such other postal telegraph office as may be selected by the Postmaster-General, and the said translators shall be such as can conveniently be worked in connection with the instrument known as the Morse apparatus, with polarised relay and single or doublecurrent key.

13. The special wires, pneumatic tubes, and translators and batteries for the time being appropriated to the use of the Paris and New York company as aforesaid shall remain and be the property of the PostmasterGeneral.

14. Except as aforesaid, the Paris and New York Company shall provide and maintain their own instruments and batteries, and shall work the special wires for the time being at their own cost.

15. The Paris and New York Company shall not in working either of the special wires passing through Bristol use any instrument which, in the opinion of the Postmaster-General or any of his officers, cannot conveniently be used in connection with the said translators; and the Paris and New York Company shall not in working the special wires to be provided and appropriated as aforesaid, or any of them, use any instrument, battery, or materials which, in the opinion of the Postmaster-General or any of his officers, shall or may injure or be likely to injure any part of the said wires; and the Paris and New York Company shall within twentyfour hours after notice in writing shall have been sent to their principal office for the time being in London by or on behalf of the Postmaster-General, or any of his officers, that any instruments used by the company cannot be conveniently used in connection with the said translators, or that any instrument, battery, or materials used by the Paris and New York Company is or are injurious or likely to be injurious to any of the special

[Q.B. DIV.

wires, discontinue the use of the instruments, batteries, and materials specified in such notice; and the Paris and New York Company shall permit the Postmaster-General, by his engineers, electricians, or any other officer or officers who may be appointed by him for that purpose, to inspect from time to time, with or without notice, the instruments, batteries, and materials used or intended to be used by the Paris and New York Company in the working of the special wires or any of them.

16. The Postmaster-General shall incur no liability to the Paris and New York company by reason of any accidental defects or interruptions to the working of any of the special wires or of the translators or batteries for the time being appropriated to the use of the said company, but will repair, with all convenient speed, such accidental defects or interruptions.

17. Notwithstanding the stipulations herein before contained, the Postmaster-General shall not be liable to make good any damage to any of the said special wires which any of the officers of the Postmaster-General for the time being in charge of their maintenance respectively shall certify to have been occasioned by the act, neglect, or default of the Paris and New York Company, or their servants or agents, and if the Postmaster - General shall make good any such damage as aforesaid, the said company shall on demand pay to him the costs of so doing and the certificate of any such officer as aforesaid shall be conclusive as to the amount of such costs.

18. The Paris and New York Company shall not use any of the said special wires for the transmission of any messages except American messages and service messages of the said company.

19. In consideration of the appropriation and maintenance by the Postmaster-General for the use of the Paris and New York Company of the special wires, the said company shall, during the continuance of this agreement, pay to the Postmaster-General in respect of each special wire a yearly rent or sum calculated at the rate of five pounds for every mile of the length of such special wire and at the like rate for any fraction of a mile of such length.

20. In consideration of the appropriation and maintenance by the Postmaster-General for the use of the Paris and New York Company of the said pneumatic tube, the said company shall, during the continuance of this agreement, pay to the Postmaster-General in respect thereof the yearly rent or sum of 3501.

21. In consideration of the appropriation, mainten ance, and working by the Postmaster-General to the use and on the behalf of the Paris and New York Company of the said translators and batteries, the said company shall, during the continuance of this agreement, pay to the Postmaster-General the yearly rent of or sum of 3501.

24. The special wires, the Déolin cable, and the American cable, shall, whilst worked by the Paris and New York Company, be open for the messages of all persons alike, without favour or preference.

34. The Paris and New York Company shall not part with the possession of the special wires, or any of them, without the consent of the Postmaster-General under his seal, and the said company shall not, without the like consent, assign, dispose of, or underlet the benefit of the agreements and stipulations between the PostmasterGeneral and the said company contained in hese presents, or any of them or any part thereof.

41. Provided also that, in case the Paris and New York Company shall, without the consent of the Postmaster-General and the submarine companies under their respective seals, part with the possession of the Déolin cable, or of the special wires or any of them, or shall, without such consent as aforesaid, assign, dispose of, or underlet the benefit of the agreements and stipulations herein contained, or any of them, or any part thereof; or, in case any sum of money which shall be payable by the Paris and New York Company to the PostmasterGeneral or to the submarine companies under or by virtue of these presents, shall be in arrear and unpaid for two calendar months after the same ought to have been paid, or in case the Paris and New York Company shall use the Déolin cable or the special wires, or any of them, for the transmission of any message not being s service message or a message which has been, or is intended to be, transmitted from or to America by means of the American cable; or in case the Paris and New York Company shall not commence the business of

Q.B. Div.]

COMPAGNIE FRANÇAISE DU TÉLÉGRAPHE, &C., v. PENZANCE UNION.

transmitting messages between France and America within six calendar months after the date of these presents, or, having commenced such business, shall afterwards cease for a period of twelve calendar months to carry on the same, then, and in any such case, it shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General and the submarine companies at any time thereafter, by notice in writing under their respective seals, to determine these presents and the rights and obligations hereby created as from the date of the service of such notice at the office or last known office of the Paris and New York Company in London.

43. Upon the expiration or determination by any means of these presents and the rights and obligations hereby created. it shall be lawful for the PostmasterGeneral to resume the possession of the said special wires and each of them, and for the submarine companies to take possession of the Déolin cable free from any right or interest of the Paris and New York Com pany therein respectively, but subject, as to the said cable, to the provisions of any agreement or agreements that may be then subsisting between the Postmaster-General and the submarine companies in relation

thereto.

The following addenda were by consent added on to the special case:

The special wires kept appropriated and maintained for the exclusive use of the appellants under the said agreements are supported on poles, or otherwise fixed, in precisely the same manner as other telegraphic wires. During the whole of their course between Penzance and London, the special wires above referred to are supported on the same poles as other wires belonging to the Postmaster-General, and used by him for general telegraphic purposes. The Postmaster-General has not, up to the present time, established any telegraphic station at the landing-place of the Déolin cable (a distance of nine miles from Penzance), nor at any such station along this route of the separate wires between those two places.

All the wires of the Postmaster-General from Penzance which go in the same direction as the special wires to Déolin are supported on the same poles as such special wires for about a quarter of a mile. They then (with the exception of two which go to Newlyn) branch off in directions differing from that of the special wires. The two wires to Newlyn continue to be supported upon the same posts as the said special wires for a further distance of a mile and a quarter, and then branch off.

F. Meadows White, Q.C. (with him Moulton) for the appellants. The appellants are not rateable in respect of these wires. The facts set out in the special case show that, the poles being wholly the property of the Postmaster-General, and in no wise in the possession or occupation of the appellants, there is no occupation on their part of the soil. All that the Postmaster-General agrees to do is to give the use of two wires, and he may vary them and assign wires going by a different route through different parishes. The use of the words "rent" and "possession" in the agreement are not material, "rent being also used with respect to things which are obviously chattels, and the provisions with respect to repairs showing that the Postmaster-General was really in possession of the wires. The contention of the appellants is that the agreement confers on them no occupation within the meaning of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. It is true that telegraph wires and poles are within the statute (The Electric Telegraph Company v. The Overseers of Salford, 11 Ex. 181), but that is on the obvious ground

66

[Q.B. DIV.

that the poles occupied the ground. Here the poles are obviously in the possession of the Postmaster-General, and the arguments which prevailed in the case cited do not apply to the wires, on the occupation of which alone the respondents must rely here. The appellants have the right to use the wires, which is a mere easement as distinct from the exclusive occupation of them, the duty of maintaining them being with the Postmaster-General, and the company only having the right to use them, not for any messages they please, but only for certain specified purposes. The case resembles that of Allen v. The Overseers of Liverpool (30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 93; L. Rep. 9 Q. B. 180), in which the words "appropriate for the use" and "rent," being very similar to the words in the present agreement, were used, and it was held notwithstanding, that the quay-space appropriated by the Mersey Docks Board to a steamship company at a certain "rent" was not in the exclusive occupation of the steamship company so as to render them liable to be rated in respect thereof. There Blackburn, J. says: 'As to the words 'appropriated for the exclusive accommodation and use,' I do not know whether it was done purposely, but just such words are used as would be applicable to the case of an inmate of an inn or a lodger who has a room or lodgings set aside for his use and occupation," and "The poor rate is a rate imposed by the statute on the occupier, and that occupier must be the exclusive occupier, a person who, if there was a trespass committed on the premises, would be the person to bring an action for trespass for it. A lodger in a house, although he has the exclusive use of rooms in the house in the sense that nobody else is to be there, and though his goods are stowed there, yet he is not in exclusive occupation in that sense, because the landlord is there for the purpose of being able, as landlords commonly do in the case of lodgings, to have his own servants to look after the house and the furniture, and has retained to himself the occupation, though he has agreed to give the exclusive enjoyment of the occupation to the lodger. Such a lodger could not bring ejectment or trespass quare clausum fregit, the maintenance of the action depending upon the possession." These words apply exactly to the present case, the appellants having merely the exclusive enjoyment of the occupation, and not being in a position to support an action for trespass. So in Smith v. The Churchwardens and Overseers of St. Michael, Cambridge (3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 687; 3 E. & E. 383) A. let to the Inland Revenue Department five rooms of a house in his occupation, it being stipulated that the rent was to be 907, to include rent, rates, taxes, &c., and it was held that the premises were not exempt. The word "rent" in the agreement in the present case is not material. The case of Willing v. The Assessment Committee of St. Pancras (37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 126; 2 Q. B. Div. 581) is stronger than the present case. There, in consideration of a yearly payment, a person had affixed to the land hoardings for advertising purposes, but it was held that he was not rateable as an occupier of an advertising station," Mellor, J. saying (2 Q. B. Div. 585): "We must, in accordance with the principle laid down in Smith v. The Overseers of St. Michael, Cambridge, look to what was the substance of the relation between the parties, and not to isolated ex

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »