The King against The Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, Colchester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1835 |
| Date | 24 January 1835 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 231
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, Smith v. Lancaster, 1869, L. r. 5 C. P. 250.
2 AD. ft B. 600. THE KING V. ST. NICHOLAS, COLCHESTER 231 the king against the inhabitants of st. nicholas, colchester. Saturday, January 24th, 1835. If a tenement has been hired, and the occupation of it has commenced, less than a year before the passing of st. 1 W. 4, c. 18 (30th March 1831), the occupation, to give a settlement, must be such as will satisfy the requisites of that Act. If a person, hiring a tenement, underlet any part of it, he has not the actual occupation, of the tenement within the terms of stat. 1 W. 4, c. 18, sect. 1, if there be any exclusive occupation given by such underletting. And the smallness of the part underlet, and of the rent paid for it, and the shortness of the term for which it is underlet, make no difference. [Distinguished, Smith v. Laticaster, 1869, L. R. 5 C. P. 250.] On appeal against an order of two justices, removing Sanders Sparrow from the parish of St. James to the parish of St. Nicholas, both in the borough of Colchester, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case:- By agreement in writing, dated in March 1831, the pauper hired a freehold messuage, comprising two tenements, in St. Nicholas, for the term of two years, at the rent of 601., payable half-yearly. On the 25th of March, the keys were delivered to the pauper. On the 7th of November, a distress was put in for the half year's [600] rent due at Michaelmas 1831, and the goods were sold under the distress by the bailiff employed by the landlady, who paid her the half year's rent out of the produce, and paid over the surplus (deducting costs) to the pauper. At Lady-Day 1832, the pauper gave up possession in pursuance of an agreement made with one Hutchinson, under which the latter took exclusively upon himself the liability to pay the arrear of rent due from the pauper. During the year commencing at Lady-Day 1831, and expiring at Lady-Day 1832, three rooms in the said messuage were underlet by the pauper to Mr. D. W. Harvey, who had the exclusive occupation of them for three weeks, for which he paid 81. : and the front shop was underlet for a week during the same period, to another person, who also had the exclusive occupation. The settlement was impeached on two grounds: first, that the levying of the rent by distress was not a payment by the pauper within the statute 1 W. 4, c. 18, s. 1 ; and, secondly, that the pauper did not actually occupy the house so as to gain a settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Melsonby
...been questioned, but not decided ; Rex v. Garshalton (6 B. & C. 93), Rex \. Ramsgate (6 B. & C. 712), Rex v. St. Nicholas, Colchester (2 A. & E. 599) : but here the outgoing tenant sells the goods to his successor, who agrees to pay over the proceeds to the landlord in discharge of the rent......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Stoke Damerel
...from being acquired by yearly hiring of the tenement; Rex v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (5 B. & Ad. 219), Rex v. Si. Nicholas, Colchester {2 A. & E. 599). This last Act, however, does not affect settlement by payment of rates, as appears by both the enacting part and the title, "as far as rega......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Great and Little Usworth and North Biddick
...dwelling-house within the statute. [Patteson J. Bex v. St. Nicholas, Rochester (' B. & Ad. 219), and Rex v. St. Nicholas, Colchester (2 A. & E. 599), shew only that a man must occupy the whole of that which he rents.] Supposing that an indictment for burglary would lie for breaking and ente......
-
The Queen against The Mayor of the Borough of Eye. Neobard
...but (a)1 It was stated, in the course of argument, that Mr. Manning had died. (a)3 5 B. & Atl. 219. See Rex v. St. Nicholas, Colchester, 2 A. & E. 599; Rex v. St. Giles-iiirthe-Fields, 4 A. & E. 495. 1368 THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF EYE 9 AD-* E. 675. inmates of the house, more or lesg, under......