than forty days: Held, that the pauper did not gain a settlement by apprenticeship in that parish, inasmuch as the binding was before he became of age. The King V. The Inhabitants of Queenborough, E. 1 W. 4. Page 219 4. By a parish indenture which purported to be made between the churchwarden and overseers of the parish of D., in the county of Northampton, of the one part, and A. B. of Countesthorpe, in the county of Leicester, of the other part, it was witnessed that the said churchwarden and overseers of the parish of D., with the consent of two of his majesty's justices of the peace for the said county, dwelling in or near the said parish, had bound, &c.

The justices in their written consent in the margin of the indenture, described themselves as justices of the county aforesaid: Held, that the words county aforesaid, had the same meaning as the words said county in the body of the indenture; and, that it sufficiently appeared by reference to the latter words, that the consenting justices were justices of the county of Northampton. The King v. The Inhabitants of Countesthorpe, T. 1 W. 4.

487 5. An unstamped assignment of a parish apprentice stated that D. E., the new master, in consideration of 3. 10s. paid him by H. the old master, agreed to accept the apprentice, &c.: Held, that parol evidence was admissible to shew that the money paid on the assignment of the apprentice was parish money; and, therefore, that the instrument did not require a stamp. The King v. The Inhabitants of Llangunnor, T. 1 W. 4. 616 6. An assignment of a parish apprentice is not subject to the regulations imposed by the statute

SETTLEMENT-by Estate. A. devised to his son, who had come into a parish with a certificate, an estate in these words: "My desire is, that my son Robert shall live in that part of my house as he now doth, and at the same yearly rent which he now gives, as long as my son John (to whom the testator devised the house in fee) shall enjoy and hold the same:" Held, that this was a devise of an estate pur auter vie, which discharged the certificate. Quære, Whether an estate conveyed to a certificated man on mere voluntary

con

consideration, will discharge the certificate. 1 The King v. The Inhabitants of Cassington, M.2 W. 4. Page 874

SETTLEMENT-by Hiring and

Service.

A pauper agreed with a sawyer for a twelvemonth to learn sawing, and was to have 7s. 6d. out of every 20s earned by his master and himself; he served out the year, in the parish of A., providing his own board and lodging; at the end of the year he made a new agreement for another year, at an increased allowance, and he lived out the second year with his 2. master in A.; Held, that he did not thereby gain a settlement in A., inasmuch as the principal object of the agreement between him and his master being that he should learn, and his master teach him to learn sawing, it was a defective contract of apprenticeship. The King v. The Inhabitants of Crediton, T. 1 WV.4.

4

493

SETTLEMENT-by Marriage.

1. The statute 3 G. 4. c. 75. s. 2. enacts, "that in all cases of marriage had by licence, before the passing of that act, without such consent as is required by the statute 26 G. 2. c. 33. s. 11., and where the parties shall have continued to live together as husband and wife, till the death of one of them or till the passing of that act (3 G. 4. c. 75.,) such marriage, if not otherwise invalid, shall be deemed to be good and valid to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

Sect. 3. provides, "that nothing in that act contained shall extend to render valid any marriage declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction before

the passing of that act, nor any marriage where either of the parties shall at any time afterwards, during the life of the other party, have lawfully intermarried with any other person:"

Held, that a marriage which would have been void by the 26 G. 2. c. 33., and had once been rendered valid by the second section of the 3 G. 4. c. 75., could not, subsequently, be rendered invalid by the marriage of either of the parties, during the life of the other, with a third person. The King v. The Inhabitants of St. John, Delpike, E. 1 W. 4.

Page 226 Upon a question as to the settlement of Elizabeth, the wife of C., the respondents proved, by the testimony of C., his marriage with the pauper in 1829. The appellants, in order to prove that that marriage was void on the ground that he had been married in 1826 to M. B., called the latter, who stated that she, in 1826, went with C. before a reputed clergyman of the established church in Ireland, who in his private house there read to them the marriage ceremony. A document was also produced, purporting to be W.'s letter of orders, signed in 1799 by the then Archbishop of Tuam, which was proved to have been among W.'s papers at the time of his death in July 1829:

Held, first, that M. B. was a competent witness to prove the first marriage, although her husband had been before examined, and proved the second marriage.

Secondly, that the certificate of the ordination of W. was properly received in evidence, having come from the proper custody, and being more than thirty years old; and that the certificate not being the act of any court, and not having any relation to the cor

porate

1. A tenement, consisting of a dwelling house and thirty-two acres of land, was, since the 6 G. 4. c. 57., hired and occupied for a year at an annual rent of 201., and a year's rent paid. Twenty-seven acres of the land were situate in the township of N., and five acres within that of P.. Held, that evidence was admissible to shew how much of the entire annual rent of 204. was paid in respect of the land in N. The King v. The Inhabitants of Pickering, E. 1 W. 4.

267

2. In 1818 the pauper took of one A. a field of potatoes, at the rent of 12. A. agreed to supply lime and manure, and to give the field three ploughings to prepare it for planting potatoes, without which the field would have been worth less than 10. a year. About a week after the agreement the pauper entered upon the land, it having then been only once ploughed, and no lime or manure having been supplied; but A. performed all he had agreed to do, before the pauper planted his

potatoes; and the field was then worth 121. a year: Held, that as, by contract, the land was to be. made of the value of 10l. a year at the landlord's expense, the tenement was of that value within the meaning of 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12., when the pauper came to settle, though the improvement was not completed until after he entered. The King v. The Inhabitants of Huntsham, T. 1 W. 4. Page 503 Pauper, on the 1st of November 1813, came to reside on a tenement of the yearly value of 10%. The bargain with the owner was, that the pauper should live a month in it for nothing on trial, and that if, on that trial, he liked it, he should take it at Martinmas at the yearly rent of 14. The pauper resided in it for a month on trial, and then took it at the rent agreed upon; and, without any interruption in the residence, continued on it for the following month: Held, that he thereby gained a settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Helsham, T. 1 W. 4.

620

The pauper took a house, consisting of a house-place, a chamber over it, and above that a garret, which extended over the lower rooms in the adjoining house, in addition to the rest of the premises, from the same landlord, for a year, at 10. rent. The whole was under the same roof, though there was no internal communication. He dwelt in that part which he first hired, and put a journeyman to work in the other: Held, that he gained a settlement under the 6 G. 4. c. 57., by renting a tenement consisting of a distinct building. The King v. The Inhabitants of Macclesfield, M. 2 W. 4.

870

SHERIFF.

Held, that such enrolment was not an admittance within the stamp act 55 G. 3. c. 184. which lays a duty on "customary estates passing by surrender and admittance, or by admittance only, and not by deed;" but that in case of alienation, the estates passed by the conveyance, licensed by the lord; and, where the lands descended, the heir became entitled as in case of freehold; and, consequently, that a person taking as heir was not bound, on enrolment, to receive a stamp admittance from the steward. Doe dem. The Earl of Carlisle v. Towns, T. 1 W. 4. Page 585 4. An unstamped assignment of a parish apprentice stated that D. E., the new master, in consideration of 37. 10s. paid him by H., the old master, agreed to accept the apprentice, &c.: Held, that parol evidence was admissible to shew that the money paid on the assignment of the apprentice was parish money; and, therefore, that the instrument did not require a stamp. The King v. The Inhabitants of Llangunnor, T. 1 W. 4. 616 5. By the stamp act 55 G. 3. c. 184. schedule, part 1., mortgages are subjected to a duty of 251. if the amount of the money secured thereby be uncertain and without limit; but if it be limited, then to an ad valorem duty:

Held, that the limit must be one expressed on the face of the deed.

And, therefore, that a mortgage for 1500l., with covenants for payment of the premium and interest, and the yearly costs and charges of insuring 1000l. upon a particular life for seven years, required a 251. stamp. Halse v. Peters, M. 2 W. 4. 807

6. An assignment of a parish apprentice is not subject to the

regulations imposed by the statute 8 Ann. c. 9. and need not, therefore, be stamped within two months, nor must the consideration paid for such assignment be set forth in it. The King v. The Inhabitants of Ide, M.2 W.4.

Page 8667. The 55 G.3. c. 184. sched. part 3., imposes an ad valorem duty on letters of administration where the estate is above 201., in value, exclusive of what the deceased shall have been possessed of or entitled to as a trustee, and not beneficially. An intestate had granted an annuity to A., and had afterwards by deed conveyed his property to B., who covenanted to indemnify him against the payment of the annuity. Default being subsequently made in the payments during the intestate's lifetime, the annuitant sued the grantor's administratrix, and recovered judgment for debt and costs exceeding 201. The administratrix paid this, and then sued B. on his covenant for the amount: Held, that the right to recover this sum was part of the intestate's estate, and rendered the letters of administration liable to stamp duty; and that the intestate, if he had lived, could not have been considered, in respect of this sum, as a mere trustee for the annuitant, having no beneficial interest. Carr, Administratrix, &c. of Walker, v. Roberts, M. 2 W. 4.

905