1826. SHAW against DARTNALL. thought that would not have been sufficient to entitle the assignees to debit him with that sum, because it seems to me that it was necessary to show his specific assent to that entry and to the debit thus made to him. But there is abundant evidence in this case to show, that the greater part of that sum was placed to his debit with his assent, because we find that on the 17th of July 1821, when he must have known that this sum had been placed to his debit, he files his bill in chancery against the Marquis Wellesley, and exhibits an affidavit in support of it, in which he states that the Marquis Wellesley was indebted to him for four of these five quarterly payments. I think that that does show his acquiescence in that entry pro tanto, but it applies to four quarterly payments only, and they amount to 1517. As to the sum of 1007. in respect of the Duke of Marlborough's annuity, I think that the defendant would be entitled to retain that sum, for the same reason that he is entitled to retain the sums in respect of Goold's annuity, unless there was evidence of his assent to its being replaced to his debit. The entry is "half a year's annuity, due the 10th of July, returned 100l." The evidence of his assent to that entry is this, that on the 13th of November 1818 the account is made up, and a balance of 487. 15s. 9d. struck. In March 1819 another account is made up and a balance struck, and the sum of 100%. continuing debited to him. I do not rely upon the ultimate balance struck on the 4th of May 1820, because there was no distinct evidence of the defendant's assent generally to the whole contents of the entry of that date. But, on the ground that there was a previous assent by him to that entry when the two settlements of accounts accounts took place, I am of opinion that that sum was properly placed to his debit, and must be allowed. It has been argued, that looking to the whole transaction, we must see that the bankrupts became guarantees for the payment of all these annuities; but looking at all these entries, I cannot draw that conclusion from them, because, on the supposition that they had become guarantees, I cannot account for the defendant's consenting to the entry of the return of that 100l., nor can I account for the affidavit made by him, in which he states that the Marquis Wellesley was indebted to him for these annuities, nor can I account upon that principle for another act done, not indeed by the defendant, but by the bankrupts, viz. their entering the last sum respecting Goold's annuity as money not yet received. Looking to the whole of these entries, the conclusion which I draw from them is, not that the bankrupts had guaranteed the payment of all the annuities, but that they were willing from time to time to make the defendant believe that the annuities had been paid into their hands to induce him to continue his dealings with them. I think, for these reasons, the plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw from the credits given by them the sum of 1441. in respect of Goold's annuity, and the sum of 1517. on account of the Marquis Wellesley's annuity, and the sum of 1007. in respect of the Duke of Marlborough's annuity. Postea to the plaintiffs. 1826. SHAW against DARTNALL. 1826. Wednesday, A house of the annual value of 101. was hired by mas 1824, and he died three days be The KING against The Inhabitants of CRAYFORD. UPON appeal against an order of two justices, bearing date the 22d of November 1826, whereby A. at Michael S. Stone, widow of T. Stone, and their six children, were removed from the parish of Bexley, in the county of Kent, to the parish of Crayford, in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: fore the year expired, but his corpse continued in the house after the expiration of the year, and after his death his widow re rent: Held, that A.'s widow and children did not gain any settlement. In the month of September 1824, Thomas Stone, the husband of the pauper, was settled in the parish of sided there, and Crayford. At Michaelmas, in the same year, he hired a paid the year's house situated in the parish of Bexley for a year, at the rent and of the annual value of 12. He took possession of the house on Michaelmas-day, the 29th September, 1824, and continued to live in the same till the 26th day of September 1825, when he died. His body remained in the house till the 30th of the same month, when it was buried. The rent for the first three quarters of the year was paid by him, and for the last quarter, ending on the 29th day of September 1825, by his widow, the pauper. The pauper continued in the house till she was removed under the order, and paid the rent thereof up to the 25th December 1825. The question was, whether the pauper and her children, under the above circumstances, were entitled to settlements in the parish of Bexley. D. Pollock, in support of the order of sessions, contended that no settlement was gained in the parish of Bexley, Bexley, because there was neither a payment of rent nor a holding of the house for the term of one whole year by the person hiring the same, as required by the statute 59 G. 3. c. 50. Bolland contrà. In this case a year's rent has been actually paid, and the house has been held for one whole year by the persons who claim a settlement. The provisions, therefore, of the act of parliament have been substantially complied with. It is true that the statute requires that the rent shall be paid, and that the house shall be held by the person hiring the same. Those words are not to be construed strictly; and, giving them a liberal interpretation, there was a sufficient holding or occupation of the house by the husband for one whole year; for although he died three days before the year expired, yet decency required that his corpse should continue beyond the expiration of the year in the house. During that period, therefore, there was an occupation or holding by him within the meaning of this act of parliament. BAYLEY J. The safest rule to adopt in these cases is to adhere to the words of the act of parliament. Those words are, "that no person shall acquire a settlement by reason of his dwelling for forty days in any tenement rented by such person, unless such tenement shall consist of a house or building, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, bona fide hired by such person at and for the sum of 10l. a year at the least for the term of one whole year; nor unless such house or building shall be held, and such land occupied, and the rent for the same actually paid for the term of one whole year at the 1826. The KING against The Inhabit ants of CRAYFORD. 1826. The KING against The Iuhabitants of CRAYFORD. least by the person hiring the same." In order to gain a settlement, therefore, the house must be held for one whole year by the person hiring the same. Now here the husband was the person who hired the house, and he died three days before the year expired; and consequently he did not hold it for one whole year; he, therefore, gained no settlement by the renting of this tenement. Assuming that the widow might be considered to have held this house for a year, she was not the person who hired it, and therefore gained no settlement. Order of sessions confirmed. Wednesday, It is not necessary to the gaining a set tlement by upon a tene ment, that the The KING against The Churchwardens and UPON ON an appeal against an order of two justices for the removal of William Knight, and Sarah his wife, coming to settle and their eight children, from the parish of Kenardington to the parish of Ulcomb, both in the county of Kent; pauper should the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case: reside upon any part of it. The pauper, William Knight, when about sixteen years of age, hired himself for a year to T. Knight at the wages of four guineas; he served the year in the parish of Ulcomb, dwelling in his master's house there, and received his wages. He afterwards, and about twenty-two years ago, married Sarah his wife, and having about four years after his marriage removed to Kenardington, he entered into a contract with Joseph Stead, |