Gambar halaman


The King


question is, whether this was a purchase of an estate, the consideration for which amounted to the sum of 301., bona fide paid, within the meaning of the statute 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, s. 5 (a). It is confidently submitted that it was not. A consideration of 301., bona fide paid,” must mean 301. paid to the vendor, and actually finding its way into his pocket; here the sum paid to the vendor was only 221. Here the Court stopped him, and called upon

Coltman and Patteson, contrà. This was a purchase of an estate, the consideration for which amounted to 301., and was bona fide paid, within the fair meaning of the statute. The statute does not say that the 301. shall be paid to the vendor, or shall find its way into his pocket; it only requires that sum to be paid by the purchaser. Mr. Nolan, in his treatise (6), speaking on this subject, says, “ it is sufficient if a consideration of 301. is paid by the purchaser, without reference to the subsequent distribution of the purchase money. A copyhold tenement, the price of which, with the fines and fees paid to the Court, amounted to 301., gives a settlement.” And he cites St. Paul's, Walden, v. Kimpton (e), as an authority for the position. That is directly in point. So, in Graham v. Sime (d), it was held, that a covenant to surrender

(a) Which enacts," that no per- chased a copyhold tenement in St son shall be deemed to acquire Paul's, Walden, which, with the settlement in any parish or place, fine, and fees paid to the Court, by virtue of any purchase of any amounted to 30l.; and it appeared estate or interest in such parish or that the officers of Kimpton had place, whereof the consideration given him 40s. towards paying his for such purchase does not amount fine and fees. Therefore it was to the sum of 301., bona fide paid, insisted that this was fraudulent, for any longer time than such per- and not a good purchase within son shall inhabit in such estate, the statute, sufficient to gain a setand shall then be liable to be re- tlement. But by the whole Court: moved to such parish or place, We cannot take notice of its being where such person was last legally fraudulent, unless the Justices had settled, before the said purchase adjudged it so. And the order and inhabitancy therein."

was confirmed." (6) Vol. ii. 95, 3rd edit.

(d) 1 East, 632. (c) Foley, 138. “ A person pur





a copyhold to a purchaser, and to make and do all acts, deeds, &c., for the perfect surrendering and assuring the premises at the costs and charges of the seller, was not broken by non-payment of the fine to the lord on the admission of the purchaser. [Littledale, J. That case does not bear at all upon the present. Even if the fine to the lord, and the fee to the steward, can be taken into account as part of the purchase money, you have not sufficient value here, without including the expenses of the surrender; and it is impossible to say, that money paid for the expenses of the surrender is part of the consideration for the purchase.] It is clear, that if the consideration mentioned in a deed be less than 301, other considerations may be given in evidence. Rer v. Scammonden (a). There the pauper claimed a settlement under a deed of conveyance, which stated the consideration to be 281.; but parol evidence was offered to prove that 301. was the real consideration, which evidence the sessions refused to receive. Lord Kenyon said, it was clear that the party might prove other considerations than those mentioned in the deed; and cited Filmer v. Golt (6), as an authority in point.

Bayley, J.-I think this is a very clear case against the settlement, and perfectly distinguishable from those cited. In Rer v. Scammonden, the purchaser paid the full amount of 301., for he paid the expenses of levying a fine, which properly fell upon the vendor, but which the vendor had omitted to pay. In St. Paul's, Walden, v. Kimpton (c), 301. was paid, including the fine to the lord, and the fee to the steward, which were properly considered as forming part of the consideration ; for I take the consideration to consist of the sums paid by the purchaser to the vendor, to the lord, and to the steward, and of no

(a) 3 T. R. 474.
(6) 7 Bro. P. C. 20, pl. 70.

(c) Foley, 138; supra, 470.


other. Here the amount, including all those, is less than 301. ; and the expenses of the surrender, paid by the purchaser to his own attorney, cannot be taken into account to cure the deficiency.

The King


The other Judges concurred.

Order of Sessions confirmed.

The KING v. The Inhabitants of WHITCHURCH. A certificate UPON an appeal against the order of two justices, for purporting to be granted in the removal of William Bray, his wife, and their ten 1758 to a pau- children, from the parish of Whitchurch, in the county of рег

and his family, by four Hants, to the parish of St. Mary's Bourne, in the same persons, as churchwar- county; the sessions quashed the order, subject to the dens and opinion of this Court upon the following case : overseers, was signed by

A certificate was produced by the respondents in words. both overseers, and form as follows: “Southampton to wit. We, John and by one churchwarden. Harbutt, William Piper, William Arundel, and William The churchwarden was

Phillpott, churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the nominated at parish of St. Mary's Bourne, in the county of SouthampEaster, and sworn in in

ton, do hereby own and acknowledge William Bray, September, junr., and Elizabeth his wife, William aged about five

the usual time į for swearing

years, Mary aged about three years, and Elizabeth, aged churchwar

about two years, their children, to be our inhabitants dens, and there was no legally settled in the said parish of St. Mary's Bourne. In proof of his having been sworn when he signed the certificate. The parish relieved the pauper and his family in another parish, at various times, from 1758 to 1827 :—Held, first, that the execution by two overseers and one churchwarden, was an execution by the major part of the churchwardens and overseers, within 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30; and secondly, that after such a lapse of time, the Court would presume that the churchwarden was sworn before he signed the certificate ; and therefore that the certificate was valid. Whether the execution of a certificale by a churchwarden who had not been sworn, would be good, Quære, Fa 2 harga goj5.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and 1827. seals, this 7th day of September, 1758.

The King
L. S.

William Piper, L. S.
William Arundel, L. S.
The Mark of

William Phillpott, L. S.
Attested by us

Thomas May.

Alexander Neave. To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Whitchurch, in the county aforesaid.

We whose names are hereunto subscribed, two of his majesty's justices of the peace, of and for the county of Southampton aforesaid, do allow of the above-written certificate, and do certify, that Alexander Neave, one of the witnesses who attended the execution of the said certificate, hath made oath before us, that he did see the churchwardens and overseers of the said parish, whose hands and seals are subscribed and set to the said certificate, severally sign and seal the same, and the names of the said Alexander Neave and Thomas May, whose hands are above subscribed as witnesses to the execution of the said certificate, are of their own proper hand writing respectively. Dated the 12th day of September, 1758.

William Russell.
James Plowden."

Richard Loft produced the certificate from the parish chest of Whitchurch; which was admitted as coming from the proper place. It was proved that William Bray, jun., the grandfather of the pauper, resided in Whitchurch till the time of his death, in 1799; that William Bray, his son, also named in the certificate, had resided there ever since the certificate was granted ; and that the pauper had resided there from the time of his birth, till the time of



1827. his removal under the order. It appeared by the visita

tion books produced by the registrar of the bishop's

court, that St. Mary's Bourne, is in the diocese of WinWHITCHURCH.

chester, and is a peculiar within the jurisdiction of the Chancellor's visitation. That John Harbutt and William Piper, were not sworn churchwardens for St. Mary's Bourne in the year 1758, till the 15th September in that year. That no church wardens appeared by the books to have been sworn at the visitation, from the year 1751, to 1758. That the visitation book for the year 1750 was lost. It also appeared from the evidence of the registrar, that it was the course of office to make an entry in the visitation books of the swearing of churchwardens, at the time of swearing, whether the swearing takes place at the visitation, or afterwards. That if it took place afterwards, the registrars always entered it, but he had not looked over the books before his time to see whether there was any entry of such subsequent swearings. It appeared, that at Easter 1750, James Longman was nominated as churchwarden. That in the year 1757, Thomas Cowdey, and Edmund Maltin, were nominated churchwardens, and that John Harbutt signed the nomination. That at Easter, in the year 1758, Thomas Harbutt and William Piper, were nominated as churchwardens. It appeared also, that William Bray, the pauper, was on the 7th day of December 1790, bound by indenture to his grandfather William Bray, jun., named in the certificate, for the term of seven years, which time he served in Whitchurch, and that the pauper had done no act, since the service under the apprenticeship, to gain a settlement. It appeared, that William Bray, son of William Bray, jun., and the father of the pauper, sixteen or seventeen years ago, received relief from the overseers of St. Mary's Boume, he at that time residing in Whitchurch. That he has also constantly for these last two years, received relief from the last mentioned parish, and that no objection was made upon his application to the overseers of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »