Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ing the principle, of granting new trials, merely for the purpose of letting in evidence which might and ought to have been produced at the former trial. We do not say that the questions now submitted to the Court are not material and worthy of consideration; we only say that they do not furnish grounds for granting a new trial; and, in order to prevent a change of possession, and the hardship which would follow therefrom to the defendant, we shall impose certain terms upon the lessor of the plaintiff. This rule for a new trial will be discharged; the plaintiff to be at liberty to sue out a writ of fieri facias for the costs, but to be restrained from suing out a writ of possession until the first day of next Michaelmas term, in order to give the defendant in the mean time opportunity to bring an ejectment; and, in that action, the judgment in the present action not to be given in evidence.

1828.

DOE

v.

PRICE.

Rule discharged accordingly.

The KING v. The INHABITANTS of ROLVENDEN.

ON appeal to the court of quarter sessions for the county A pauper

of Kent, against an order of two justices, for the removal of John Field, from the parish of Lynsted to the parish of Rolvenden, both in the said county; the order was confirmed, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case:-

sum

In the month of June, 1820, the pauper agreed with William Masters, an innkeeper, living in the parish of Rolvenden, to serve him as an ostler. The pauper and his master bargained by the week, at 2s. per week in the mer, and 1s. 6d. per week in the winter. The pauper into the service on the 22d of June, 1820. He received 2s. per week till the following Michaelmas; from Michaelmas to Lady-day, 1821, 1s. 6d. per week; and from Lady

[blocks in formation]

agreed with an innkeeper to serve him as ostler, at 2s. a week in the summer,

and 1s. 6d. a week in the

winter: Held,

that this was a

weekly hiring only, and that a year's service under it con

ferred no setentered tlement.

1828.

The KING

v.

day to Michaelmas, 2s. per week. On the evening of the 23d of February, 1823, the pauper left his master's service, in consequence of a disagreement that took place between ROLVENDEN. his master and him on the morning of that day. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether by the above contract and the service under it, the pauper gained a settlement in the parish of Rolvenden.

D. Pollock, in support of the order of sessions. Unless this case can be distinguished from that of Rex v. Warminster (a), it must be admitted that there was no yearly hiring here, and therefore that the order of sessions was wrong; because it was there decided, that a hiring for an indefinite period, at 6s. a week for the winter, and 9s. a week for the summer, was not a yearly hiring, and that a year's service under it would not confer a settlement. But it is submitted that the two cases are distinguishable. In Rex v. Warminster, the pauper asked 20l. a-year wages, which the master refused to give, and they afterwards agreed for weekly wages; so that there was an express proposal for a yearly hiring on the one side, and an express repudiation of it on the other. But in the present case nothing occurred to rebut the presumption that the hiring was intended to be for a year; and the agreement for a different rate of wages at different seasons of the year, leads strongly to the inference that both parties contemplated a continuance of the service for a year. If so, no time being mentioned, the hiring was a general one, a year's service under which converts it by operation of law into a yearly hiring, and confers a settlement.

Law, contrà, was stopped by the Court.

BAYLEY, J.-I cannot distinguish this case from that of Rex v. Warminster. The argument last advanced to-day was relied upon there, but was not acted upon by the Court. (a) 9 D. & R. 70; 6 B. & C. 77; 4 D. & R. M. C. 197.

There is no weight in that argument. The hiring here is for an indefinite period, at weekly wages, which is a weekly hiring. The mere arrangement that the wages shall be at one rate in the summer, and at another in the winter, does not shew that the parties contemplated a service to endure through the summer and the winter, and, therefore, that they intended a hiring for a year; but shews, only, that they intended that if the servant, being hired at weekly wages, should remain till the summer, he should then have so much per week, and if he should remain till the winter, he should then have so much per week. The true meaning of such an arrangement is merely this: that the servant's wages, as a weekly servant, are to be regulated by the season. Looking at the terms of this contract altogether, they seem to me, clearly, to constitute only a weekly hiring, no service under which could confer a settlement. The order of sessions, therefore, must be quashed.

The other Judges concurring,

1828.

The KING

บ.

ROLVENDEN.

Order of Sessions quashed.

The KING V. The INHABITANTS of KIBWORTH

HARCOURT.

ON
appeal made to the court of quarter sessions for the
county of Leicester, against an order of two justices, for the
removal of James Asker, Elizabeth his wife, and their five
children, from the parish or township of Kibworth Beau-
champ, to the parish or township of Kibworth Harcourt,
both in the said county; the order was confirmed, subject
to the opinion of this Court upon the following case :—
After proof, primâ facie, of a settlement in the appel-
lants' township, it appeared, that about Lady-day, 1825,

To acquire a settlement by renting a tene

ment under 6 Geo. 4, c. 57, the renting

need be bonâ

fide only as

between the

landlord and

tenant; and the whole rent

need not be paid by the person renting the tenement, it is enough if it be actually paid.

1828.

The KING

v.

KIBWORTH
HARCOURT.

the pauper took of one Thomas Bradshaw a house and garden, situate in the township of Kibworth Beauchamp, at the rent of 107. for a year, to commence at the ensuing Michaelmas. The house and garden were then in the occupation of one Cooper, whose term in them expired at Michaelmas; but Bradshaw said he should expect Cooper to stand as tenant till Michaelmas, and should expect the rent when one Matthew Waterfield, who was tenant of other premises to Bradshaw, paid his; and it should all be put in one receipt. The pauper was let into possession immediately by Cooper, and paid rent up to Michaelmas to Cooper; after which time he continued to occupy the premises, and paid rent, as after-mentioned, up to Michaelmas, 1826. Early in the pauper's tenancy, Matthew Waterfield, then being churchwarden of the township of Kibworth Beauchamp, called upon the pauper, and represented to him that Bradshaw had let the pauper's premises, together with other premises, to him, Waterfield; and that the pauper was thenceforth to pay the rent quarterly to him. At the same time, Waterfield told the pauper that he should make a reduction in his rent of 8s. a year, to which reduction the pauper assented, and a rent of 97. 12s. was accordingly paid by the pauper to Waterfield, in the course of that year, by four quarterly payments; namely, the first two payments to Matthew Waterfield, and the last two, after the death of Matthew, to John Waterfield, his brother and successor in the premises. At the end of the year, a sum of 551. was carried by John Waterfield to Bradshaw, the landlord, which sum included 107. for the pauper's rent of the house and garden, for the year just completed, and the residue was composed of rent for the other premises occupied by Waterfield. Bradshaw returned 5l. to Waterfield, and gave him one receipt for the whole rent. It further appeared, that John Waterfield was reimbursed out of the parish funds the sum of 8s., paid by him to the landlord, over and above the 97. 12s. The court of quarter sessions found that there was fraud in this case, on the part of the

township of Kibworth Beauchamp, but that neither the landlord, nor the pauper, was a party to the fraud.

Reader and Homfrey, in support of the order of sessions. The sessions were right. The pauper did not acquire a settlement by renting a tenement in Kibworth Beauchamp, either under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 57, which was in force when the contract was made, or under the 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, which was in force when the rent was paid. The former act requires that the rent of 107. for the tenement shall be actually paid, for one whole year, by the person hiring the same; whereas here the pauper, who was the person hiring the tenement, himself paid only 97. 12s., the residue, 8s., being paid by Waterfield, the churchwarden. The latter act does not require that the whole rent shall be paid by the person hiring the tenement, but it does require that the tenement shall be bonâ fide rented by such person, at and for the sum of 10l. a year. Now that requisition has not been complied with here, because the sessions have found that there was fraud in the case; and though they have also found that neither the landlord nor the pauper was a party to the fraud, still the tenement cannot be said to have been bonâ fide rented, because fraud, wherever it arises, vitiates the whole

contract.

1828.

The KING

v.

KIBWORTH
HARCOURT.

Marryat, Dwarris, and Hildyard, contrà, were stopped by the Court.

BAYLEY, J.-I am of opinion that the pauper did acquire a settlement by renting a tenement in the township of Kibworth Beauchamp, under the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57. The renting, upon which the question in this case depends, did not commence till Michaelmas, 1825, after that act came into operation; therefore, the former act of 59 Geo. 3, c. 50, does not appear to me to bear upon the case. The new act does not require that the whole rent shall be paid by the person hiring the tenement, but only that it shall be

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »