1826. BIEGOOD against DAVIES. good ground for contending that this Court ought to decide the question of privilege on motion; but it appears that the defendant is not in custody. He was informed at the time when the writ was executed, that he would not be arrested if he would put in common bail. That being so, he is entitled only to his strict right, which is to enforce his privilege in the specific mode pointed out by law, viz. by a writ of supersedeas. Assuming, therefore, that he has the privilege for which he contends, we think that we shall best exercise our discretion by leaving him to enforce it by a writ of supersedeas. Rule refused. Monday, November 20th. FEARNE against WILSON. A charge in an E. LAWES had obtained a rule for referring to the attorney's bill for attending at a lock-up-house Master, for taxation, the bill of costs of the de and obtaining fendant's attorney in this cause. All the items of the defendant's release, and fill ing up the bail bond, is a charge at law within the sta tute 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23., bill except one were agreed to be out of the statute 2 G. 2. c. 23. That one was as follows: Yourself ats. Fearne, Same ats. Burwash, 13th December 1825. Attending you and your bail at Radford's and renders the Lock-up-house in Carey Street, and obtaining your rebill subject to taxation. lease, on guaranteeing the responsibility of your bail and filling up the bonds. Engaged one hour and a half, 17. 1s. The item in question R. Bayly now showed cause. is not a charge for any thing done at law or in equity within the meaning of the statute. In Burton v. Chatter ton ton (a) a charge for preparing an affidavit of a petitioning creditor's debt, and bond to the Chancellor, in order to obtain a commission of bankruptcy, was held not to be a taxable item in an attorney's bill within the 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23., as a charge at law or in equity, the affidavit not having been sworn nor a commission issued. It is true that in Sandom v. Bourn (b) it was held at Nisi Prius that a bill was taxable which contained a charge for preparing a warrant of attorney with a view to business to be done in court, but Bayley and Best Js., in Burton v. Chatterton, expressed doubts as to the propriety of that decision. Besides, here it was no part of the duty of the attorney to fill up the bail bond, and consequently the charge made for so doing is not for any thing done in the course of his business as an attorney. E. Lawes contrà. The statute 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23. being beneficial to the subject, ought to be construed liberally. In Winter v. Payne (c) drawing and engrossing an affidavit of debt, in order to hold a party to bail, and attending to get the deponent sworn thereto, were held to make a bill subject to taxation. So a dedimus potestatem charged in an attorney's bill was held to be a sufficient item to enable the Court to refer a bill for taxation, though with this exception it consisted entirely of charges for conveyancing, Ex parte Prickett. (d) So where a bill consisted merely of a charge for drawing a warrant of attorney, and attending a defendant respecting it, the Court referred it to taxation, and said that (a) 3 B. & A. 486. G 4 (b) 4 Camp. 68. they 1826. FEARNE against WILSON. 1826. FEARNE against WILSON. they had a paramount jurisdiction, independently of the statute, to refer an attorney's bill for taxation, Wilson v. Gutteridge. (a) ABBOTT C.J. The question is, whether the item in this bill be a charge at law or in equity within the meaning of the statute 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23. It is certainly a charge for something done by the attorney in the progress of a suit, for he fills up the bail bond in the progress of the suit. It is said that filling up a bail-bond is no part of an attorney's duty; but if an attorney choose to fill it up, and make a charge for so doing, that must be considered as a charge made by him for something done by him as an attorney. I am of opinion that this is a charge at law within the meaning of the statute, and consequently this bill is subject to taxation. The rule must therefore be made absolute. Rule absolute. (a) 3 B. & C. 157. Wednesday, a house at the annual rent of The KING against The Inhabitants of TONBRIDGE. A pauper held UPON an appeal against an order of two justices, whereby John Hazell and Mary his wife were reday to Michael- moved from the parish of Tonbridge, in the county of 8l., from Lady mas, 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 10%. Kent, 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 case: 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 Douch, for a year, at the yearly rent and of the value of 8l. 10s.; at Michaelmas 1817 he made a fresh agreement for the cottage for one year, at the annual rent of 8l., and continued to hold and occupy it from that time until Michaelmas 1821, paying a rent of 87. 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 rent paid for the whole year. At Michaelmas 1821, Hazell having quitted Douch's house, took a house situate in the parish of Tonbridge, of one Laurence, for a year, at the yearly rent of 9., and he occupied it from that time, until his removal in 1825, and paid the rent for it during the whole 1826. The KING against The Inhabitants of TONBRIDGE. 1826. The KING against The Inhabitants of TONBRIDGE. whole time. The case was argued at the sittings after Trinity term by Bolland and D. Pollock in support of the order of sessions. Rex v. North Collingham (a) is an authority to show that different holdings will confer a settlement, under the statute 59 G. 3. c. 50., provided the holdings be at the same time. In that case there was an underletting as well as in the present case. Here the pauper was the tenant of the whole garden; he therefore rented a tenement consisting of a house or building, and of land, of the annual value of 107. 2s. from Lady-day 1821 to Michaelmas 1821, and of the annual value of 117. 2s. from Michaelmas 1821 to Lady-day 1822. Marsham contrà. In order to gain a settlement by the renting of a tenement the statute 59 G. 3. c. 50. requires that the tenement shall consist of a house or building held for a year, or of land occupied for a year, or of both; but if it consist of both, the house must then be held for a year, and the land must be occupied for a year. Now during the year, when the land was occupied, the tenant did not hold any one house. That distinguishes this case from Rex v. North Collingham, for there the tenant held one house for the year, and occupied the garden during the same period. Besides, if the tenement in respect of which the settlement is claimed consist of a house and land, it is necessary that the house held and the land occupied for a year should be together of the annual value of 10l. Now, from Lady-day to Michaelmas 1821, the pauper held a house (a) 1 B. & C. 578. of |