The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-09-16 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS, WEDNESDAY, Sam 13.

This morning the London Sessions commenced at Guildhall, be.'
fore the Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, the RECORDER.
thenstrrio, Aklwnwea 8& R. Cana GLYNN. Si4C. FLOWII4
and Cox. The usual routine of business beingeoanze through, the
prunes of the gentlemen summoned for the Grand iy were called
over, and some were fined 101. for non-au A sufficient
number being obtained and sworn In, the Rzcoaben then
charged the Grand Jury, and alluded particularly to a singular
I charge of bigamy, which is expected to come before the Court.
Some account of this case transpired at Guildhall Office a short
time ago, in which the name of a respectable police Magistrate war
nnoclueed.
The Calendar at these Sessions is much heavier than has been
known fur sonic years.

NEW LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
ST. PANCRAS U. ST. °ILI, WITHOUT, CRIPPLEOSTI.
This was an appeal, on the part of the former parish, against an
order for removal of a pauper named Mary Perch, and ler three
children.
Mr. BOLLAND, IS support of the order of removal, observed,
thai by the Statute 5.9 th taco. 111. cap. 12, which passed in July,
1019, the object of which was to restrict the interpretation of the
word " tenement," it was requisite, for the purpose of gaining a
settlement by renting ses, that there should be an actual
hiring at a separate dwelling-house or building, for the term of a
year at least, at an annual rent of 101., and an actual occupation 1
and payment of rent for the full term of one year. In the present
'case he should only be able to establish an occupation for eleven
months; but, whatever might have been the intention of the Legis-
lature in forming this statute, It had been decided, on solemn ar-
gument, by the Court of King's Bench, in the case of
• the King v. St. Duostan's parish,' that the Act did
not alter the law as It formerly stood with respect to a settlement
gained by a residence of forty days, and the payment of the public
taxes. The ease and decision were reported 2d Bamewall, No. 123.
Ile should therefore prove that the husband of the pauper had
resided in a louse in St. Pancras forty days, and that he had
paid half a year's taxes, which, according to the decision he
had alluded to, would establish a settlement in that parish. Upon
the examination of the pauper, however, it appeared that her bus.
band was arrested for debt fourteen days after occupying the house,
taken to prison, and although the wife and family remained in the
house eleven months, he himself never returned to it. The prison
to which he was taken not being within the parish of St. Pancras,
the cuy broke down, from there not being an occupation of forty
days, and the order of removal was consequently quashed.
There was no question but that the pauper had paid half a year's
rent; and had he been arrested at the end of forty instead of four-
teen days, the settlement in St. Pancras would 'have been estab.
lished, notwithstanding the late Statute, which expressly enacts,
not only that there shall be an actual occupation, but that a whole
yeses rent shall actually be paid, in order to establish a settlement.