Poor Law-continued, Maintenance of Pauper Lunatic-Payments by Receiver in Lunacy-Death of Lunatic-Arrears of Maintenance-Payments on Account-Appropriation-Limitation Act, 1623, s. 3. A lunatic pauper was maintained in an asylum by the guardians from 1876 until her death in 1904 at an annual cost of about £21. The lunatic was entitled to property producing about £9 per annum. By an order in lunacy a receiver was appointed and was directed to apply the income in and for the maintenance and benefit of the lunatic. Pursuant to this order the receiver paid the income to the guardians from 1887 to 1903 for the maintenance of the lunatic, and the guardians in their books appropriated each payment of the receiver as a payment on account of the arrears of maintenance due to them at the date of each payment. At the death of the lunatic considerable arrears of maintenance were due to the guardians, and in an action by them against the administratrix of the lunatic for these arrears the administratrix contended that the guardians were only entitled to 6 years arrears prior to the date of the writ. Held that under the circumstances the payment by the receiver took the case out of the Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jas. 1, c. 15), and that the guardians were entitled to payment of all the arrears due to them. RE NEWBIGIN'S ESTATE, (1887) (36 Ch.D. 477) and RE WATSON1 ([1899] 1 Ch. 72) distinguished. Wandsworth Guardians v. Worthington (K.B.D., 8 Feb., 1906), [1906] 1 K.B. 420; 75 L.J.K.B. 285; 95 L.T. 331; 54 W.R. 422; 70 J.P. 191; 4 L.G.R. 320; 22 T.L.R. 284. Relief-Recovery of Expenses at Common Law-Six Years Where a pauper of full capacity becomes possessed of property, he will be liable at common law to repay the guardians for expenses necessarily incurred for his benefit to the full extent of 6 years arrears; and the guardians' right to recover such expenses is not affected by section 16 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict., c. 103) under which they are entitled to appropriate or recover out of the property of a pauper the expense incurred by them in his relief during the previous 12 months. RE CLABBON 2 ([1904] 2 Ch., 465) followed. Birkenhead Guardians v. Brookes (K.B.D., 25 April, 1906), 95 L.T. 359 ; 70 J.P. 406; 4 L.G.R. 988; 22 T.L.R. 583. Removability-Break of Residence-Exclusion of Period of Relief Section of the Poor Removal Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66) provides that in determining whether a pauper is irremovable certain 1 See Law and Legislation, 1899, p. 143. 2 See Law and Legislation, 1904, p. 134. periods of time, including any period during which the pauper is in receipt of relief, are to be excluded for all purposes, and the effect is that a pauper cannot break his residence so as to destroy his status of irremovability by anything he does during one of the excluded. periods. HARTFIELD OVERSEERS V. ROTHERFIELD OVERSEERS (1852) (17 Q. B. 746; 21 L. J. M. C. 65) followed. Poplar Guar dians v. West Ham Guardians (K. B. D., 3 April, 1906), 94 L. T. 769; 70 J. P. 255; 4 L. G. R. 512. Saving for Settlements- Validity-Alteration of Parish by Order of County Council--Local Government Acts, 1888, ss. 57, 59; 1894, ss. 36, 42. An order made by a county council or by a joint committee under section 36 of the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict, c. 73), and duly confirmed by the Local Government Board under section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, c. 41), with regard to a parish may properly contain a provision that a person who has before the operation of the order acquired a settlement in an existing parish, shall be deemed to have acquired a settlement in the parish comprising the place in which the acts or circumstances conferring such settlement shall have been done or occurred. In any case, the legality of such a provision cannot in view of section 42 of the Act of 1894, be questioned after the expiration of 6 months from the date of the confirmation of the Order. Rex v. Middlesex Justices . ex parte Walsall Guardians (K.B.D., 14 May, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B; 365; 75 L. J. K. B. 784 ; 95 L. T. 419; 70 J. P. 385; 4 L. G. R 873. Settlement and Removal-Absence on Military Service-Break of Residence-Poor Removal Act, 1846, s. 1; Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, s. 34. A reservist who is compulsorily absent from his house on military service abroad, and who intends to and does in fact after his service return to his house, breaks by his absence the residence necessary to acquire a settlement under section 34 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61). The three years residence under the section must be continuous, and the residence in each year must be such that it would have conferred a status of irremovability. DORCHESTER GUARDIANS v. WEYMOUTH GUARDIANS (1885) (16 Q.B.D., 31; 55 L. J.M.C. 44) and ST. OLAVE'S GUARDIANS V. CANTERBURY GUARDIANS ([1897] 1 Q. B. 684; 66 I.. J. Q. B. 684) followed. Newark Guardians v. Maidstone Guardians (K. B. D., 8 Aug., 1905), 93 L. T. 602; 69 J. P. 413; 3 L. G. R. 1005. Poor Law-continued. Settlement and Removal--Drunken Wife sent away by Husband A married woman gave way to habits of intemperance, and frequently spent on drink money given her by her husband to pay the rent. He at last told her, in October, 1895, that he would not put up with that state of things any longer and that he and she must part for a time, and that she would have to find some other lodgings and he would allow her 8s. a week as long as she kept straight, and that she must do her best to get rid of her drinking habits and that if she reformed he and she could live together again, and she could take enough furniture to furnish a room. Within a year finding that she committed adultery, the husband stopped the allowance and never saw her afterwards or contributed to her maintenance. She lived with a man in appellants' union from September, 1896, to 1903, and in July of the latter year was found a wandering lunatic in the respondents' union. An order of justices under section 294 of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5) adjudicating that she was irremovable by reason of her residence in the appellants' union as she had been "deserted by her husband" within the meaning of section 3 of the Poor Removal Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 55) was upheld on appeal to quarter sessions. Held on the authority of REC. v. MAIDSTONE GUARDIANS (1879) (5 Q. B. D. 31; 49 L. J. M. C. 25) that the decision of quarter sessions was right that she had been deserted by her husband. Decision of King's Bench Division1 (1905) (93 L.T. 134) affirmed. Southwark Guardians v. City of London Guardians (C.A., 17 May, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 112; 75 L.J.K.B. 559; 94 L.T. 763; 70 J.P. 449; 4 L.G.R. 730; 22 T.L.R. 568. Settlement and Removal-Illegitimate Child Under 16-Residence with Mother-Poor Removal Act, 1846, s. 1; Poor Removal Act, 1848; Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, ss. 34, 35. An illegitimate child under 16 can, whilst residing with its mother, acquire for itself an independent settlement in pursuance of sections 34 and 35 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61). The proviso to section 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66), as amended by the Poor Removal Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 101), applies only to legitimate children. Lord Watson's dictum in CROYDON GUARDIANS V. REIGATE GUARDIANS (1889) (14 A.C. 464) explained. Decision 1 See Law and Legislation, 1905, p. 121. of Divisional Court1 ([1905] 2 K.B. 203) reversed. Woolwich Guardians v. Fulham Guardians (C.A., 25 May, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 240; 75 L.J.K.B. 675; 95 L.T. 337; 70 J.P. 321; 4 L.G.R. 1021; 22 T.L.R. 579. Settlement and Removal-Illegitimate Children under 16- -Residence with reputed Father-Poor Removal Act, 1846, s. 3. A woman and her 3 illegitimate children under 16 lived with their reputed father in a parish from which he, but not she, was irremovable. After the mother's death the children for 2 days lived with their reputed father, and then, with him, were admitted into the workhouse of the union. The reputed father shortly died. Held that under section 3 of the Poor Removal Act, 1876 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66), the children were irremovable from the union, as, in any case, each child was "residing with his or her reputed father." Maidstone Guardians v. Wandsworth Guardians (K. B. D., 10 May, 1906), 95 L. T. 125; 70 J. P. 403; 4 L. G. R., 1052. 66 Private Streets Works -see Streets:-(2) Paving, &c." Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893--see "Highways (1).” Rates and Rating:-(1) Appeals. County Rate and Basis-Next Practicable Sessions-Parish Aggrieved-Knowledge of Parish Council-Correction of Basis cannot be Retrospective-County Rates Act, 1852, ss. 17, 22. An appeal against the county rate under section 22 of the County Rates Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 81), must be made to the next practicable quarter sessions after the parish is in fact aggrieved by the rate. If not so brought it cannot be made to the next practicable quarter sessions held after the parish council finds out the parish is aggrieved. Hence where on appeal against an assessment to the poor rate, a considerable reduction in rateable value was made of which the parish council did not become aware until some weeks after and were then too late to give proper notice of appeal against the county rate to the ensuing April quarter sessions, the council were not in time to bring such appeal at the following June sessions. Quarter sessions in correcting the basis or standard on appeal under section 17 of the Act cannot give the correction any retrospective effect. West Riding of Yorkshire County Council v. Middleton Parish Council (K. B. D., 27 April, 1906), [1906] 2 K. B. 157; 75 L. J. K. B. 485; 94 L. T. 785; 70 J. P. 326; 4 L. G. R. 624; 22 T. L. R. 493. 1 See Law and Legislation, 1905, p. 120. Rates and Rating:--(1) Appeals—continued. Poor Rate- Value of Particular Hereditament--Grounds of Appeal to Quarter Sessions-Inequality, Unfairness, and Incorrectness-Comparison-Admissibility of Evidence as to other Hereditaments-Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, s. 18. An appeal was made to quarter sessions against a poor rate on the grounds that (1) appellant was overrated in respect of her house and (2) there was inequality, unfairness and incorrectness in the valuation of the house in comparison with certain other specified properties. Held that evidence as to the value of other hereditaments by way of comparison with appellant's house was inadmissible as the ground of appeal contemplated by section 18 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 103), was unfairness or incorrectness in the value of the hereditament itself and not in comparison with others. Anderson v. Plomesgate Union Assessment Committee (K. B. D., 10 March, 1906), 120 Law Times newspaper (Note). p. 500; [1906] Local Government Chronicle (Note), p. 261. Rates and Rating :--(2) Liability—see also" Rates and Rating :(4) Valuation. Consolidated Rate-Exemption of Crown Property-Fixed Sum By a private Act (52 Geo. 3, c. xlix) it was provided that certain fixed sums should be "yearly and every year for ever hereafter be paid out of consolidated customs to the respective collectors" of rates and assessments and be considered as parts of the produce of the rates and assessments in respect of premises belonging to His Majesty's Custom House and further that the premises should "be and be deemed and considered to be to all intents and purposes, free and exempt from the payment of all and all manner of rates and assessments although the same and each and every of the said premises may become private property by the sale or assignment thereof to individuals, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” The premises were subsequently sold and by a subsequent Act (2 & 3 Will 4, c. lxvi) the provision as to payment out of the consolidated customs was repealed and in lieu thereof it was provided that the collectors of the certain fixed sums should "collect, ask for, demand and receive the same and no more from the occupier or occupiers of the said premises for the time being." Held that the arrangement contemplated by the private Acts was intended to extend to the future and that occupiers of the premises were liable to pay only the fixed sums and were not liable to be assessed to the consolidated rate and sewer rate under the City of London Sewers Act, |