The King against The Inhabitants of Bardwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 343
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against the inhabitants of bardwell. 1823. The pauper was hired for a year as a shepherd : he was to have a house and garden rent-free, 7s. a week, and the going of thirty sheep with his master's flock, as wages. He served for two years at those wages in the parish of I., during all which time the sheep went on his master's farm, the whole of which was situated in that parish. The feed of the sheep was worth 161. per annum: Held, that this did not confer a settlement, it not being any part of the bargain that the sheep should be pasture-fed. Semble, that in order to gain a settlement by renting a tenement, the pauper must reside upon some part of it. Upon an appeal against an order of two justices, for the removal of Peter Firman -from the parish of Bard well, in the county of Suffolk, to the parish of Ixworth, in the same county, the order was quashed by the sessions, subject to the opinion of this Court, upon the following case. About twenty-four years ago, the pauper, a married man, was hired for a year, by Mr. S., of Ixworth, as his shepherd; he was to have a house and garden rent free, seven shillings a week, and the going of thirty sheep with his master's flock as wages. [162] The pauper lived for two years with Mr. S., in the parish of Ixworth, at these wages, during all which time the thirty sheep went with his master's flock on the farm, the whole of which was situated in that parish. The feed of the thirty sheep was worth 161. a year, exclusive of the house -and garden. If the pauper had not been allowed to keep the sheep he must have had more wages. Storks, in support of the order of sessions, was stopped by the Court. Dover, contra. The pauper gained a settlement in Ixworth, by the going of the thirty sheep with his master's flock. It has been frequently decided that the liberty (a) Holroyd J. was sitting at the Old Bailey. 344 THE KING V. BARD WELL 2 B. & 0.163. to take the profits of land by the mouths of cattle is a tenement within the 13 & 14 Charles 2, c. 12, and in the present case that right is found to have been worth 161. per annum. Hex v. Melkridge (1 T. E. 598), shews that payment by service is equivalent to payment in money. The pauper therefore may be said to have rented a tenement of more than 10L annual value, Rex v. Minster (3 M. & S. 276). [Bayley J. Is there any case, except Bex v. Minster, where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hughes v Overseers of the Parish of Chatham
...no personal occupation by the master; E. v. Minster (3 M. & S. 276), E. v. The Inhabitants of Kelstern (5 M. & S. 136), R. v. Bardwell (2 B. & C. 161, 3 D. & E. 369), R. v. Cheshunt (1 B. & A. 473). In the latter case, Bayley J. observed, "The case of The King v. Minster only decided that t......
-
Browne v Marquis of Sligo
...MARQUIS OF SLIGO. Bertie v. BeaumanENR 16 East, 33. Rex v. Kelstern 5 M. & Sel. 136. Rex v. ThursterENR 3 M. & S. 276. Rex v. BardwellENR 2 B. & C. 161. Hughes v. Overseers of ChathamUNK 5 M. & G. 54. Rex v. Snape 6 A. & E. 278. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Parker v. TaswellENR 2 De......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Benneworth
...to lodge and feed, and keep his cows upon his land, the servant is not therefore an occupier of any part of the land. In Eex v. Bardwell (2 B. & C. 161), it was held that the party must reside on some part of the tenement in respect of which the settlement is claimed; and also, that in orde......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Thornham
...in regard to the option, because in the present case there was an alternative, and the feeding was had for a year. In Bex v. Bardwell (2 B. & C. 161), the point now in question was not brought before the Court, for it was not necessary in that ease to consider what the express meaning of th......