1827.

The KING

v.

COTTINGHAM.

question is, whether this was a purchase of an estate, the consideration for which amounted to the sum of 301., bonâ 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 307., 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 (b), speaking on this subject, says, "it is sufficient if a consideration of 307. 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 307., gives a settlement." And he cites St. Paul's, Walden, v. Kimpton (c), 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-
son shall be deemed to acquire a
settlement in any parish or place,
by virtue of any purchase of any
estate or interest in such parish or
place, whereof the consideration
for such purchase does not amount
to the sum of 30l., bona fide paid,
for any longer time than such per-
son shall inhabit in such estate,
and shall then be liable to be re-
moved to such parish or place,
where such person was last legally
settled, before the said purchase
and inhabitancy therein."

(b) Vol. ii. 95, 3rd edit.
(c) Foley, 138. "A person pur-

chased a copyhold tenement in St
Paul's, Walden, which, with the
fine, and fees paid to the Court,
amounted to 30%.; and it appeared
that the officers of Kimpton had
given him 40s. towards paying his
fine and fees. Therefore it was
insisted that this was fraudulent,
and not a good purchase within
the statute, sufficient to gain a set-
tlement. But by the whole Court:
We cannot take notice of its being
fraudulent, unless the Justices had
adjudged it so. And the order
was confirmed."
(d) 1 East, 632.

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. Rex v. Scammonden (a). There the pauper claimed a settlement under a deed of conveyance, which stated the consideration to be 287.; but parol evidence was offered to prove that 307. 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. Gott (b), 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 Rex 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), 307. 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. (c) Foley, 138; supra, 470.

(b) 7 Bro. P. C. 20, pl. 70.

1827.

The KING

v.

COTTINGHAM.

1827.

The KING

v.

COTTINGHAM.

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 other Judges concurred.

Order of Sessions confirmed.

purporting to

The KING v. The Inhabitants of WHITCHURCH.

A certificate UPON an appeal against the order of two justices, for 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 family, by four Hants, to the parish of St. Mary's Bourne, in the same county; the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case:

per and his

persons, as churchwardens and

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

nominated at Easter, and sworn in in September,

Phillpott, churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Mary's Bourne, in the county of Southampton, do hereby own and acknowledge William Bray, junr., and Elizabeth his wife, William aged about five the usual time for swearing years, Mary aged about three years, and Elizabeth, aged churchwarabout 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 certificate by a churchwarden who had not been sworn, would be good, Quare.

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

1827.

The KING

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.

The KING

บ.

WHITCHURCH.

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 Win-
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 churchwardens 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 nomi-
nated as churchwarden. That in the year 1757, Thomas
Cowdey, and Edmund Maltin, were nominated churchwar-
dens, 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 certifi-
cate, 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
Bourne, 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 objec-
tion was made upon his application to the overseers of