former had for its object the increase of the revenue, the latter the interests of the bonâ fide tradesman. Upon that was founded the argument, that as the sale of tea by hawkers was prohibited altogether, the selling it without a licence could be no offence, because the general prohibition had done away the particular licence to sell. We are of opinion that such is not the legal effect of that statute. Where one law prohibits the sale of an article under certain circumstances, and imposes one penalty, and another prohibits the sale under other circumstances, and imposes another penalty, the latter does not impliedly repeal the former; it is cumulative upon it, and both remain in force, unless the first is repealed by express words. So in this case, the selling at all is an offence under one statute; the selling without a licence is an offence under another statute; the latter is cumulative, and therefore constitutes two offences, for either of which the party is punishable. Then, in the 25 Geo. 3. c.78, we first find the words "otherwise than shall be allowed by such licence" introduced, which were clearly intended to apply to hawkers selling those articles without a licence, the sale of which was previously prohibited in toto, and not protected even by a licence, and there the penalty of 107. is imposed. The 29 Geo. 3. c. 26, repeals the lastmentioned act, but continues the penalty of 10l. as before; it however constitutes another offence, on which it inflicts a penalty of 40l., and in providing for the levy of the first penalty of 107., it inadvertently says, "the said sum of 401." This is clearly an error, and is followed up in the later act of 50 Geo. 3. c. 41. From this historical view of the different statutes, it is perfectly clear that 107. is the penalty intended to be imposed upon the offence of which this defendant has been convicted; and that the words" without a licence" must refer to a man who has not taking out any licence, and who has no licence in his The KING V. JOHN MAYALL and others. IS was an appeal against the allowance of overaccounts for the township of Quick, in the parish ddleworth, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. At essions, it was objected for the respondents, that >tice of appeal was insufficient, because it did not and specify the particular causes or grounds of 1, pursuant to 41 Geo. 3. c. 23. s. 4, but merely ribed every payment in the overséers accounts, withuggesting any matter or cause of objection thereto. Sessions, however, over-ruled the objection, conng the mode in which the accounts had been kept, after hearing the appeal, disallowed the overseers nts, but reserved a case for the opinion of this Alderson, now appearing to support the order of ns, was directed to confine himself to the prelimiobjection as to the sufficiency of the notice of appeal, e contended, that this, like all other notices, must ken with reference to the subject-matter, and the objection here being, that there was no sufficient proof of the fact of payment of the items in the overseers accounts, the notice in question was insufficient. BAYLEY, J.-The notice of appeal being merely ge-. neral, that the different items, enumerating all of them, will be objected to, without stating for what reason any one of them will be objected to, is clearly insufficient, and therefore I think the order of Sessions must be quashed. HOLROYD and BEST, Js. concurred. 1823. The KING v. MAYALL, Order of Sessions quashed. Littledale and J. Williams were to have argued for the defendants. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of SHIPDHAM. owner of a TWO Justices, by their order, removed John Hall, his Where the wife, and four children, from Shipdham to Thursford, mansion-house both in the county of Norfolk, which order, on appeal, the Sessions quashed, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following case: In March, 1818, Sir Charles Chadd, leaving his mansion-house and estate at Thursford, agreed with the pauper to take care of his garden, hot-houses, vines, walltrees, pleasure grounds, &c., and for his so doing, the pauper was allowed to take the issues and profits of part of the garden, and to live in a cottage contiguous to the and gardens, the panper to take care of tiguous there- to his master, and he was to continue in the premises for a year, unless some other person before that time should occupy the mansion, in which case the gardens were to be delivered up; and the pauper continued in the occupation of the garden on these terms for more than a year, the produce being worth to him 70l. per annum :-Held, that the pauper being only a servant, and the residence not being his own, he did not come to settle within the meaning of 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. garden belonging to Sir Charles Chadd, of the yearly. value of 47., to which a small common right was attached. The pauper was to continue in the premises for a year, before any further agreement was to take place between him and Sir Charles Chadd, unless some other person should, before that time, occupy the mansion, &c.; in which case the gardens, &c. were to be delivered up by the pauper. The pauper continued in the occupation of the garden under the above terms for a year and a quarter. On the hearing of the appeal, it appeared that the produce of the garden was worth 70l. a year to the pauper, and that the expence of keeping up the pleasure grounds, &c. together with the value of the pauper's labour, would amount to as much as the issues and profits which the pauper was allowed to take. Two points arose for the decision of the Court, first, whether, under the above circumstances, there was a coming to settle on a tenement, or whether the pauper was not a mere servant, to take care of the gardens; and second, if a tenement, whether the keeping up the gardens, &c. could be deducted from the value of the produce of the garden, and thereby reduce it under the value of 10l. a year. E. Alderson in support of the order of Sessions, was stopped by the Court. Denman, C. S., contrà, contended, that the pauper, under the circumstances stated in the case, must be considered as the tenant, paying rent in the shape of labour, and consequently that he thereby gained a settlement. BAYLEY, J.-Where did he reside? Not upon a tenement of his own. He resided in a cottage of Sir Charles Chadd, and we were of opinion yesterday (a), that (a) See Rex v. Bardwell, ante, p. 53. 1823. The KING บ. in order to confer a settlement by renting a tenement, the HOLROYD and BEST, Js. concurred. Order of Sessions confirmed. The INHABITANTS SHIPDHAM. The KING v. Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, Bart. By a rate made under the authority of the 32 Geo. 3. Y c. 69, " An act for cleansing, lighting, watching, and regulating the towns of Manchester and Salford," the defendant was assessed "in respect of his occupation of the market scites, streets, lands, and tenements, at the market place, Shude Hill, Smithy Door, and at various other streets in Manchester, and the tolls, dues, rates, profits in respect thereof." Upon appeal, the Sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following case : and By the Manford Paving and Lighting chester and Sal Act, 32 Geo. 3. the tenants and all messuages, occupiers of houses, &c. and other tenements within the same towns, are liable to be rated. The lord of the manor of Manchester, being market in that spect of his The act of 32 Geo. 3. c. 69, authorises the commis- owner of the sioners appointed thereby, to raise money by rates or as- town, is not sessments, ❝ upon all and liable, under the several tenants or oc- this act, to be every cupiers of all messuages, houses, warehouses, shops, rated in recellars, vaults, stables, coach-houses, brew-houses, and occupation other buildings, gardens, or garden grounds, and other tenements, situate, standing, lying, and being within the said town of Manchester." The rate upon the appellant was duly made and allowed according to the requisites of the act. The appellant is lord of the manor of Man the tolls arising therefrom, as the occupier of a tenement. thereof, and |