The King against The Inhabitants of Tonbridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1826 |
| Date | 22 November 1826 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 385
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against the inhabitants of tonbridge. Wednesday, November 22d, 1826. A pauper held a house at the annual rent of 81., from Lady-Day to Michaelmas, 1821, and a different house from Michaelmas 1821 to Lady-Day 1822, at the annual rent of 91., and during the whole of that period he was the tenant of a garden at an annual rent of two guineas; but he had agreed with another person that they should share the expence and the profits arising from the cultivation of the garden, and that person paid him half of the rent, but he paid the whole to the landlord: it was held that he did not gain a settlement, because he did not during the whole year, as required by the 59 G. 3, c. 50, hold a house and occupy land which together were of the annual value of 101. Upon an appeal against an order of two justices, whereby John Hazell and Mary bis wife were removed from the parish of Tonbridge, in the county of [89] Kent, to the parish of Lamberhurst, in the same county, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following ease: Upon the hearing of the appeal, it was proved, on the part of the parish of Tonbridge, that the pauper, John Hazell, and Mary his wife, had been removed in 1812 from the parish of Frant to the parish of Lamberhurst, under an order of removal, against which no appeal had been prosecuted. On the part of the appellant parish it was proved, that the pauper, J. Hazell, about Michaelmas 1816, took a cottage, situate in the parish of Tonbridge, of one Doueh, for a year, at the yearly rent and of the value of 81. 10s.; at Michaelmas 1817 he made a fresh agreement for the cottage for one year, at the annual rent of 81., and K. B. xxxvii.-13 386 THE KING t . TONBRIDGE 6 B. & C. 90. continued to hold and occupy it from that time until Michaelmas 1821, paying a rent of 81. per annum only for it from Michaelmas 1817; at Lady-Day 1821 he took a garden, also situate in the parish of Tonbridge for a year, at the yearly rent and of the value of 21. 2s.; he agreed with one William Maynard, that they should share the expense and the profits arising from the cultivation of the garden. Maynard paid to Hazell half of the rent, but the latter paid the whole rent to the landlord, who was not (to the knowledge of Hazell) aware of the partnership; the garden was thus occupied for a year, until Lady-Day 1822, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Ditcheat
...properly so called, should not be thereby prevented from [179] gaining a settlement." The same principle was adopted in Bex v. Tonbridge (6 B. & C. 88). There Bayley J. says, " It is not in terms found that there was a joint occupation; but as Maynard was to participate in the occupation, w......
-
The king against The Inhabitants of Great Bentley
...as land, and not land upon the footing upon which houses stood with respect to this point, under the 59 G-. 3, e. 50, Rex v. Tonbridge (6 B. & C. 88), Rex v. North Collingham (1 B. & C. 578). These statutes were passed principally for the twofold purpose of diminishing litigation under this......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Stow Bardolph
...Court. Bayley J. This is a plain case. The distinction between land and houses under 59 G. 3, c. 50, was laid down in Bex v. Tonbridge (6 B. & C. 88). Land was to be occupied ; a house might be held only. In the latter case, " So as the tenure subsisted, it was sufficient" (b). Can it then ......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Great Bolton
...tenant of the whole house. The house or building was held by her for one whole year, and the rent paid for that time. Bex v. Tonbridge (6 B. & C. 88), is an -[74] authority to shew, that, as to houses and buildings, before the statute 6 G. 4, c. 57, it was sufficient if the tenure subsisted......