William Hughes v Overseers of the Parish of Chatham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1843 |
| Date | 06 December 1843 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 134 E.R. 479
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 7 Scott, N. R. 581; 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 51; 13 L. J. C. P. 44; 7 Jur. 1136. Discussed, Fox v. Dalby, 1870, L. R. 10 C. P. 291. Followed, Smith v. Seghill Overseers, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422.
bokough of chatham. [54] william hughes, Appellants; overseers of the parish of - chatham, Respondents. Dec. 6, 1843. [S. C. 7 Scott, N. K. 581; 1 Lutw. Beg. Cas. 51; 13 L. J. C. P. 44; 7 Jur. 1136, -Discussed, Fox v. Dolby, 1874, L..E. 10 C. P. 291. Followed, Smith v.Seghill Overseers, 1875, L. E, 10 Q. B. 422.] . A., the master rope-maker in a royal dock-yard, had, as such, a house in the dock-yard for his residence, of which he had the exclusive use, without paying rent, as part * remuneration for his services, no part of it being used for public purposes. The house .was stated in the case to belong to the lords of the admiralty (a). If A. had not had it, he would have -had an allowance for a house in addition to his salary.- Held, that A. occupied the house as tenant, within 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 27.-A. was rated to the poor-rate as .occupier. The rates were paid by the paymaster general, also in part-remuneration for A.'s services. If he had paid the rates the admiralty would have repaid him :-Held, that as the payment was of a rate for which A. was liable, and as it was made on his account, and he gave value for it, there was a sufficient payment of rates by him within the same section. William Hughes duly objected to the name of James Burton (and several others), being retained on the list of voters for the parish of Chatham, within the said borough. The facts of the case of James Burton were as follows :- The party objected to occupied a house in the dock-yard at Chatham, of the value of 401. per annum from July 1836, to September 1842, when he removed to a house in Milton Terrace, Chatham, about a mile from the dockyard, where he now resides. The house in Milton Terrace he hires of the landlord in the usual manner, and pays a rent of 501. per annum. He is rated for it, and pays such rates in the ordinary way ; and no question arises in respect of that house. With regard to the house in the dockyard, it belongs to the lords commissioners of the admiralty (a). The person objected to was master ropemaker in the dockyard, and as such he had the house as his residence. He paid no rent in money for it, but had it as part remuneration for [55] his services. He had the exclusive use and occupation of the house for himself and family, and no part of it was used for public purposes; the office in which he performs his public sendees being away from it. He had the keys of all the doors, and no person but himself had any control over the house. He was rated to all the poor-rates and assessed taxes in respect of the house, in his own name as the occupier. Such rates and taxes were paid by the paymaster-general's clerk, at the pay-office at Chatham. They were so paid as part remuneration for his services. If he had not been allowed the house, he would have had an allowance for a house in addition to his salary; and now that he has not a house in the dockyard, he is allowed one guinea per week by the admiralty in lieu of rent and rates, under the name of "lodging-money." If he had paid the poor-rates himself in respect of the house in the dockyard, instead of their being paid for him as above, the admiralty would have repaid him. The case then stated that the revising barrister had disallowed the objection, and retained the name upon the list of voters, deciding that J. Burton occupied within (a) Queere, if not to the Queen 480 HUGHES V. THE OVEBSEERS OF CHATHAM 5 MAN. & G. 56. the borough of Chatham, as tenant, a house of the clear yearly value of not less than 101., and had duly paid all the poor-rates and assessed taxes which had become payable from him in respect of such premises previously to the 6th day of April then next preceding. And the seven other cases were consolidated with the principal case. (Signed) J. D. C , Revising Barrister. The case was argued in last Michaelmas term (Monday, Nov. 13, and Thursday, Nov. 16), by Kinglake, for the appellant. The question here is, whether officers or servants of the government occu-[56]-pying government premises, are entitled to vote in respect of such occupation. It will depend upon the construction of the twenty-seventh section of the reform act, which requires the party, entitled to vote, to be the occupier of premises "as owner or tenant." In this case the party is clearly not the owner; neither can it be said that he was tenant to the lords of the Admiralty; the occupation of the house being merely ancillary to the performance of the services of the party as master ropemaker to the dockyard. Possibly the revising barrister may have imagined, that as no part of the public services was carried on in the house in question, the occupation would be sufficient; but if the party occupied the house merely in the character of servant, it would not be sufficient, though such occupation were of a separate building, and beneficial to the occupier. There is a numerous class of cases where servants, occupying, in respect of their services, houses which belonged to their master, have been held not to gain a settlement under the poor-law, although there was 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 the occupation of a tenement, which was wholly unconnected with the service, would confer a settlement, but that the occupation of one connected with the service would not." These cases, it is submitted, are not distinguishable from the present. Ferrar's case (Ale. Eeg. Ca. 248. And see the Irish reform act, 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 88) is still stronger. There, it appeared that the claimant, who was book-keeper to a distillery, exclusively occupied an entire house, the property of his [57] employers, which communicated through a door, by a private passage outside, but not in front, into the distillery yard, besides having a hall door to the street. The claimant exclusively kept the keys of both these doors ; his employers kept the house in repair and paid the taxes; and it appeared that if the claimant ceased to be book-keeper he would have to give up the possession of the house : and eleven judges held unanimously that the claimant was not entitled to be registered as a householder, under the Irish reform act. E. v. The Inhabitants of South Kilvington (3 G. & D. 157), E. v. The Inhabitants of Snape (6 A. & E. 278) are also in point. In Bertie v. Beaumont (16 East, 33), it was held that a servant, occupying a cottage, with less wages on that account, did not occupy as tenant, but that the master might properly declare on such occupation as his own, in an action on^ the case for disturbance of a right of way over the defendant's close to such cottage. All these cases establish the principle that such an occupation as the present is not an occupation as tenant. E. v. Lady Emily Ponsonby and Others (1 G. & D. 713) may be relied upon by the other side. The court of Queen's Bench there held that the occupiers of apartments in Hampton Court Palace, under the circumstances there stated, had such an exclusive occupation as to render them liable to be rated to the poor-rate, upon the ground that they had a beneficial occupation; but no question was raised as to their occupation " as tenants." Upon that subject the law is clear. A servant is not ratable where his occupation is strictly for the benefit of his master; but where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheat v E. Lacon & Company Ltd
...statement of principle by Tindal C.J. in Dobson v. Jones (1844) 5 Man. & Gr. 112, 120 who referred to an earlier and similar case, Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843) 5 Man. & Gr. 54 where he said—"In Hughes' case we drew the distinction between those cases where officers or servants in the ......
-
Langley v Appleby
... ... Essex and Southend-on-Sea Joint Constabulary; by William Davis, assistant solicitor in the employ of the County ... The first case is Hughes v. Overseers of Chatham (1843) 5 Man & G 54. The master ... ...
- Nadchatiram Realties (1960) Ltd v Raman and Others
- Reed v Cattermole
-
Preliminary Sections
...4 W.A.C.A. 18. 238 Howatson v. Webb (1907) 1 Ch. D. 537; (1908) 1 Ch. D. 1. (C.A.) 62 Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843) (5 Man. & Gr.54), 134 E.R. 479,488. 46 Hughes v. Justin (1894) 1 Q.B. 667. 20 Hutton v. Harper (1875-76) 1 App. Cas. 474, 474. 220 In re Bank of Syria (1901) 1 Ch D 115 1......
-
THE APPRAISER V. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION
...E.R. 541. 3. Thompsons (Funeral Furnishers) Ltd v. Phillips (1945) 2 All E.R. 49. 4. Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843) (5 Man. & Gr.54), 134 E.R. 479,488. 15 5. Smith v .Seghill Overseers (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B 422. 6. Dobson v. Jones (1844) (5 Man.& Gr.112), 134 E.R. 502. 7. Cory v. Bristow (......