1803 – THE KING versus the Inhabitants of Hooe

Preamble

The earliest record of a "crime" in Hooe is this extract from a book, published in 1806, by John Prince Smith, Esq., and entitled –

"Reports of cases argued and determined by the Court of King′s Bench together with some cases in the High Court of Chancery" (the title, actually, goes on for quite a bit more but I thought I′d stop there!).

This is not an exciting, criminal case, having no skeletons in anyone′s cupboard (!) but it is very interesting from many points of view. It, also, has no real interest for family historians – unless their names are Pocock, Porter, Erskine, Newland, Garrow, Courthope, D′Oylley, Grose, Buller, Le Blanc, Lawrence, or Ellenborough (!) – or even, perhaps, King George – you never know!

In the printed book, the sums of money are, actually, written in the old way, by using a lowercase "L" instead of the more recent (in the past couple of hundred years, that is – but, then, what′s recent?) "£" sign. I have used the latter as it′s easier to recognise and understand, to modern eyes.

The layout of the text is as close as I could get, using HTML,to that in the orginal book, with all words shown in capitals, bold or emphasised, also, as per the original.

A PAUPER hired a tenement of £11 a year value, and resided upon it for a year and upwards; before he hired it, he agreed with another person to be his under–tenement of a part at £5 per annum, who became guarantee to the landlord for the whole of the rent: Held, that the settlement was gained by the pauper; notwithstanding the sessions found that CREDIT was only given to the pauper for £6 per annum, and he had continued to receive relief from his former parish for six months.

This was an appeal to the quarter sessions for the county of Sussex, July 15, 1803, against an order of two Justices, for the removal of John Akehurst, his wife and children, from the parish of Pevensey, in that county, to the parish of Hooe.

The court confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court of King′s bench, upon the following case:

The pauper was originally settled in Hooe; and immediately previous to the hiring in question of the premises hereinafter mentioned, occupied a house in Hooe, belonging to John Pococke, and the rent of £4. of which the parish, from the inability of the pauper, paid 40s. at Lady Day, 1803, the pauper took of Pococke a house in Pevensey, with certain rights of common annexed to it, and the rent of £1l per annum; but what the extent of those rights were, the pauper, when examined, did not happen to know. Pocockebeing at that time overseer of the poor for the parish of Hooe, the pauper took possession of Pococke′s house in Pevensey, a few days after Lady Day, and continued to occupy it till the time of the removal. The period of Lady Day, 1801, was that time of scarcity; and the parish of Hooe continued to give relief as a poor person for six months after he went to reside at Pevensey.

The pauper was unable to purchase cattle to turn out on the common. The cause of the pauper′s taking Pococke′s house was, that he had an opportunity of engaging in a contract with one Porter, in carrying chalk coastwise, by which he earned above from £60 for himself, a man, and a boy, employed in navigating the vessel, in the course of year. Previous to the pauper′s contracting with Pococke, Porter had agreed with the pauper to take part of the premises under him, and pay him for it £5 per annum. Porter was desirous of having the pauper in his employed, and was the first person who made application to Pococke for his house. Previous to its being let, Pococke said he would not let the house, except Porter would guarantee the rent. Porter therefore consented to guarantee to Pococke the payment of the pauper′s rent; but at the time the pauper made his contract with Pococke, Porter was not present, and Pococke then said expressly, that he made his agreement with the pauper only, and considered none but him as his tenant. The pauper paid the whole of the rent for the first year, by instalments at different times, and part of the rent for the following year, the rest remaining unpaid. It appeared that the pauper would not have hired the premises at Pevensey, unless Porter agreed to take part of them under him, at the rent above mentioned; and Pococke did not to consider the pauper of sufficient credit and ability to hire the premises in question, if Porter had not guaranteed the payment of the rent. The court (of quarter sessions) were distinctively of the opinion, that none of the parties to the contract acted with any fraudulent intention; but that, upon the whole of the facts, credit was given by the landlord to the pauper for £6 only of the rent, and that for the residue therefore the credit was given solely to the said Porter.

Erskine and Newland, for the respondents, cited the King v. Fillongley as one which would be relied upon by the other side, and therefore endeavoured to draw several distinctions between them. They said, "the statute of 13 and 14 Car. IIc. 12, did not apply to this case, so as to give the party the settlement by residing in the house at Pevensey. Though the whole rent was £11, this was not an intire tenement of £10 a year and upwards, because the landlord required guarantee from another person besides the pauper. But the intent of the statute was, that no one should come into a parish to settle, who could not shew himself of ability, by rent in the tenement of £10 year. A person allowing another out of charity to occupy such a house, has indeed been held to give a settlement to charge the parish. But notwithstanding what was said by Buller, J. in the case of the King v Fillongley, that the question of inability did not apply, yet he considers residence on a house of £10 per annum as an evidence of credit, and a presumption that the person will not become chargeable; but that reason does not occur here, for he has only credit for £6 per annum.

They also contended that the case itself was imperfect, that although it stated there was no fraudulent intention, yet it contained rather the evidence of facts, then the facts themselves, leaving the court of King′s Bench to decide both the fact and the law; and therefore they requested it might be sent down to be amended.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "The sessions have found one thing rather extraordinary, namely, that none of the parties acted with a fraudulent intention, and yet that one of them said one thing, and meant another."

GARROW, COURTHORPE, and D′OYLEY, for the appellants. "A great part of the case may be rejected as impertinent, or even inconsistent; and yet there are some few facts stated with sufficient clearness for the court to decide upon. It is stated that the pauper took the house of Pococke at Pevensey; and though the case afterwards stated the reason for his taking it, that cannot affect the settlement. The statute requires only residence on a tenant of a certain value; but he would be adding new terms to require that the tenant should be able to pay out on his own immediate funds. What is stated here happens every day in London. For, upon the same principle, an objection might be made to the gaining of a settlement to where a person takes a large house in London for the purpose of letting lodgings, and which he would not take, unless by that means he could be enabled to pay the rent. Here there is an express exclusion of all fraud, and the rent of £11 was the actual worth of the house. The pauper was the person who took the house, the under–tenant, Porter, not been present. He and the pauper afterwards made a contract apart from the landlord. The rent was not only agreed to be paid, but, in point of fact, was paid by the pauper."

LORD ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "Notwithstanding all it has been done in the court below to render this case obscure, by the introduction of unnecessary circumstances, enough appears upon the face of it for as to form a judgment, without sending it back to be amended. The first thing to be done in this, as in all other cases, is to refer to the act of Parliament itself, upon the terms of which the question is raised. The words are ′after any person shall come to settle (concerning which there is here no question), in any tenement under the yearly value of £10′. Here all fraud is expressly excluded. Then what is the interest of the pauper, and what is the value of the tenement. This is clearly above the value of £10, and he has the intire legal interest in the tenement, in so much so, that it would be subject to common law executions in his hands. However it is stated that the landlord, Pococke, upon being applied to by Porter, said, in the absence of the pauper, that he should not let to him, unless he could have security; but when a demise is made to the pauper only, shall it be said that he has not an interest in the thing demised, because he has given security. Is he not still the tenant? It is true, that the having a security may be an inducement to the landlord to let the tenement; but still it is a letting to the pauper, just the same as when money is advanced upon a bill of exchange, the name of an indorser of credit may induce me to discount it; but it is, notwithstanding, an advancement of money, and a credit given by me to the holder, who transfers it immediately to me. Still less is there any reason to say this is not a letting to the pauper, because the person who is to answer as guarantee for him, has a part of the tenement underlet to him, in order to enable him to repay himself, or lessen his risk.

It appears then, notwithstanding these circumstances, that this is a person having the tenement of £11 a year, he is therefore not removable under the act; to say otherwise, I must deprive the act of its fair meaning."

GROSE, J. "it does not seem to me that it is necessary to send this case down to be amended, or that there is any difficulty in it. The question comes shortly to this, whether, upon removal to Pevensey, the pauper came to settle upon the tenement of the yearly value of more than £10? The case of the King versus Fillongley is decisive upon this point; and I am satisfied that the words of Chief Justice Parker, decided in that case by Buller, J. ′ if a man and hire a house at a small rent, and pay a fine, yet if the house is worth £10 per annum, it makes a settlement; for the settlement depends on the value of the tenement, and not on the rent. The pauper took possession of the house, and lived in it unremovable 40 days; and if in this case it were necessary that he should be able to pay for it, the fact is, that he actually does pay for it: but that is not necessary. Supposing a pauper, coming out of a poor–house, were immediately afterwards to get a furnished house, by the letting out of which he may get money, he takes a house of £100 per annum and gets a friend to become security for him, that would be sufficient for him to gain the settlement. For the true question is, has the person credit to rent the house? And it is immaterial whether there are other persons connected with him who support that credit, by enabling him to pay his way."

LAWRENCE, J. "It does not seem to be argued, that the pauper was not in possession of the tenement beyond the yearly value of £10; but it is intended, that we must suppose some facts to exist in the case that will deprive the pauper of the settlement gained by that tenancy under the statute, because it is stated, in the end of the case, that the credit was given for part of the rent to Porter, who was the under–tenant to the pauper. It is no matter what induced the landlord to let the tenement to him."

LE BLANC, J. "the whole argument has been upon what the case has stated, with respect to the credit given on account of Porter. At the first, I thought the latter parts of the case had thrown an ambiguity over the whole; but the sessions have stated clearly, that the tenement was let to the pauper. It is added, that Porter was to be guarantee, and that he was to take part of the tenement at £5 a year. It seems that this circumstance has led the court of sessions into the error; for it is from this that they drew the conclusion, that credit was only given to the pauper for £6 a year, although the whole was let to him. They considered this to have relieved him, if I may so say, from paying more than £6 a year; but referring to the statute, it seems perfectly immaterial by what means he is enabled to play the rent, or from what sources he looks to be supplied with means accountability, if he actually rent at tenement of more than £10 a year. The sessions have therefore done wrong in considering this is not a rented to the amount of more than £10."

RULE ABSOLUTE – ORDER QUASHED.