The King against The Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, Rochester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 773
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 21; 3 L. J. M. C. 45. Referred to, Smith v. Lancaster, 1869, L. R. 5 C. P. 250.
[219] the king against the inhabitants as st. nicholas, rochester (a). 1833. To give a settlement by renting a tenement, since the stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, there must be an occupation in fact of the whole dwelling-house or building of which the tenement consists, by the party hiring the same; and, therefore, where A. took a lease for a year of a house consisting of three floors, at the rent of 401. per annum, and after he had been in possession three months, underlet two floors by the quarter, at the rate of 221. per annum, to another person, who occupied them for two quarters, the ground-floor only, during that time, being occupied by A., and in all other respects the provisions of 6 Gr. 4, e. 57, and 1 W. 4, c. 18, were complied with, it was held, that A. did not gain a settlement. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 21; 3 L. J. M. C. 45. Referred to, Smith v. Lancaster, 1869, L. E. 5 C. P. 250.] On appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Cooper Tress and his wife and children were removed from the parish of St. Margaret, in the City of Eoehester, to the parish of St. Nicholas, in the same city, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The pauper, Cooper Tress, on the 3d of October, 1831, took a lease for a year of a house in the appellant parish, at the rent of 401. per annum. Under this lease he entered into possession of the house, and remained there with his family until the 3d day of October in the following year; he paid the rent for half the year, and fulfilled all the conditions of the statutes 6 Gr. 4, c. 57, and 1 W. 4, c. 18, unless the Court should be of opinion that, under the following circumstances, the house was not occupied by the pauper within the meaning of the 1 W. 4, c. 18. The house in question was a separate and distinct dwelling-house, consisting of three floors. When the pauper had been in possession of the premises about three months, viz. on the 4th of January, 1832, he underlet the two upper floors, unfurnished, to one Boucher; and during all the time Boucher staid in the house, the pauper occupied the ground-floor only, by [220] himself and his family. Boucher's agreement with the pauper was, that he should take these two floors of the pauper by the quarter, at the yearly rent of 221.; that Boucher should have the use of a wash-house on the ground-floor in common with the pauper, and that the pauper should have a sleeping-room in the upper floor for one of his children, whenever Boucher did not want it for his own family. Boucher entered into possession of the two floors on the 4th of January; furnished the rooms himself, staid in them upwards of two quarters, and paid the rent agreed on. During Boucher's residence there, he had the joint use of the washhouse, and the pauper's child, by the permission of Boucher, occupied the sleeping-room in the upper floor about a fortnight or three weeks according to the agreement. The ground-floor was not separated from the upper floors by any door or partition, and both the pauper and Boucher, during Boucher's residence in the (ft) This case, (which was determined in Hilary term 1834,) being of great practical importance, it has been deemed advisable to insert it here. 774 THE -KING V. ST, NICHOLAS, ROCHESTER SB.&AD. 221. house, had common access to it by the front and back doors, and each took the key of the front door whenever he had need of it, without asking permission of the other. Walsh and Espinasse in support of the order of sessions. The question in this case is, whether there was an occupation of the house by the pauper sufficient to satisfy the stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18. Bex v. North Collingham (1 B. & C. 578), and Bex v. Toribridge (6 B. & C. 88), shew that a party who rented a dwelling-bouse at the annual rent of 101., and resided in it, but underlet part, would have gained a settlement under 59 G. 3, c. 50; but that statute required that the house should be held, and the land [221] occupied, by the person hiring the same. The statute 6 G. 4, c. 57, omits the word "held," and the words, "by the person hiring the same," and requires that the house, building, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fortescue Metals Group v Warrie on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People
...HCA 45; 147 CLR 589 Quall v Northern Territory of Australia [2009] FCA 18 R v Inhabitants of St Nicholas, Rochester (1833) 5 B & Ad 219; 110 ER 773 Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] HCA 66; 184 CLR 19 Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 404 Rozenblit v Vainer [2018] HCA 23; 262 CLR ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of St. Mary Kalendar
...took its rise from the introduction of tbe word "actually" in atat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1, as appears from Bex v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (5 B. & Ad. 219). Here, the pauper did occupy the premises, according to the intent of stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, s. 2, from October 5th, 1835, till September 26......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of South Kilvington
...or "actually," as in stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1 ; the effect of which word is pointed out by the Court in Rex v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (5 B. & Ad. 219). The present case is the same as if the pauper had not paid an increased rent, and had allowed a yearly sum to a friend, to discharge the ......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, Colchester
...decide that the statute must govern this case, it will certainly be difficult to distinguish it from Rex v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (5 B. & Ad. 219). There, however, the part underlet consisted of two floors, out of three : the rent at which the underletting took place was 221., the rent of......