The King against The Inhabitants of Great Wakering
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1834 |
| Date | 18 January 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1050
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 47; 3 L. J. M. C. 51.
[971] the king against the inhabitants of great wakering. Saturday, Jan. 18tb, 1834. A. by lease demised a house and land to B. and C. for a term of years, at 161. per annum. There was a covenant by them jointly and severally to pay taxes and rates, &c. but none to pay rent. B. occupied the whole premises, and paid the rent for five years: Held, that, the demise being joint, the rent was payable by the two jointly, and that each could only be considered as having rented a tenement at 81. a year, and consequently that B. did not gain a settlement, either by renting the tenement, or by being raised and paying rates in respect of it. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 47 ; 3 L. J. M. C. 51.] On appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Samuel Bullock, his wife and children, were removed from the parish of Great Wakering to the parish of Great Wigborough, both in the county of Essex, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :- The respondents having proved a derivative settlement in the appellant parish, the appellants endeavoured to establish a subsequent settlement acquired by the pauper, either by renting a tenement in the respondent parish, or by paying rates in respect thereof, under the following circumstances :- By lease bearing date the 27th February 1827, made between Catherine Summer, widow, of the one part, and Samuel Bullock (the pauper), and John Clay of the other part, Mrs. Summer, in consideration of the rents and covenants on the behalf of Bullock and Clay to be paid and performed, leased to Bullock and Clay certain freehold premises (therein particularly described), situate in the respondent parish, to hold from the 25th of March then next, for fourteen years, if Mrs. Summer should so long live, at the yearly rent of 161. The lease contained a covenant by Bullock and Clay for themselves jointly and severally, and their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, for payment of the taxes, rates, and assessments to be charged on the premises (but there was no covenant for payment of the rent); and, previous to the [972] 29th (a) In Rex v. The Parish or Precinct of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, Hilary term 1831, the sessions confirmed an order for the removal of Alexander Sharp from Knaresborough to St. Katharine's, subject to the following case :-In the register of christenings for St. Katharine's was an entry, "1775, Alexander Sharp, of John and Ann." The pauper, on his examination, stated that he was about fifty-five years old, and came to Knaresborough to reside thirty-four years ago. He spelt his name...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...1 Atk. 89. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. (N. S.) 709. Hellier v. Gasbard Siderfin, 266. The King v. The Inhabitants of Great WakeringENR 5 B. & Ad. 971. Eccleston v. Clipsham See also 3 Rol. Abr. 64. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Webb v. PlummerENR 2 B. & Ald. 746. The Earl of Shrewsbury v.......
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Ripon
...and distinctness is now essential, as to both the hiring and the occupation; Regiiia v. Caverswall (10 A. & E. 270), Bex v. Watering (5 B. & Ad. 971), Rex v. Henley-upon-Thames (6 A. & E. 294), Rex v. Great and Little Uswm-th and North Biddick (5 A. & E. 261). It is true tbat some doubts ha......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Stoke Damerel
...so that the head of settlement in question would never be resorted to. But it was not abolished; therefore in Rex v. Great IVakering (5 B. & Ad. 971), where the facts prevented a settlement from being gained, either by payment of rates or by renting, under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, s. 2, it was ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of The Parish of Aberdaron
...gained at Llanystymdwy. Greaves, in support of the order of sessions. If this case had turned on 6 G. 4, c. 57, Rex v. Great Wakering (5 B. & Ad. 971), would have been in point. The question is, whether, under the old statute 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, a joint tenancy by two of a tenement of le......