case the parish OF south SIDENHAM against the parish OF Lamerton if a person  rend a farm in two parish of less than ten pound a year in each but above that  value in both be shall be settle in the parish where the house be modern  report er p situate S c Sett Rem S c Sess case S c stram S c Foley S c Bott  will and his wife be remove by a order of justice from the parish of Lamerton  to the parish of south Sidenham this order be remove into the court of king  bench the case stand thus will take a lease of a entire tenement for the term  of sixty year if he and his wife and the lessor shall live so long at the rend  of thirteen pound and ten shilling a year so much of this tenement as amount  to four pound a year be situate in the parish of south Sidenham and so much as  amount to nine pound ten shilling a year with the house in the parish of  Lamerton the question be whether this be a settlement within the statute of  car c the court be clear of opinion that it be for the word of the statute be  a tenement of the value of ten pound a year so that the rend be not at all  material and the statute do not say that all the tenement must be in the  parish where he life so that this be a settlement within the word and letter  of the Act and as it be within the letter so it be within the intention and  reason of the Act too for the plain reason of the law be this that it be not  probable that a person shall become Chargeable who have so much credit as to  be entrust with the management of a farm of the value of ten pound a year  modern report indeed if a man take several distinct tenement in several parish  and both or all of they amount to ten pound a year this will not make a  settlement but here the tenement be one entire and distinct tenement Eyre  justice compare this to the case where a man serve half a year then be hire  for a year and serve only half that year which be a settlement within the word  and meaning of the Act for the word be satisfy by the hire for a year and  service for a year and the meaning be also satisfy because a person of that  strength as to be hire for a year service be not esteem by the Act a person  likely to become Chargeable but able to maintain himself by his bodily labour  the court the settlement be at Lamerton and therefore the order of removal to  south Sidenham must be quash a second question in this case be whether the  pauper have not gain a settlement in the parish of south Sidenham the case as  to this point state that the mother of will wife be possess of a small cottage  in the parish of south Sidenham for a term of year determinable on the death  of her daughter that on the death of the mother will enter upon the cottage in  right of his wife but do not take out letter of administration to his  motherinlaw but continue to live therein with his wife and family for  twentyfive year and until he remove into the parish of Lamerton and take the  tenement as above mention the question therefore be whether will have by law a  right to take out administration and a right to the surplus of the estate debt  and funeral expense pay of the person possess of the term as will in law  entitle a man to a settlement within the statute of car c have before  administration actual take out such a equitable interest as will in law amount  to a settlement it be resolve that if a man have two settlement he be to be  esteem as settle in the place where he life and although it be in the election  of will to settle himself in each place yet it be not in the power of the  justice to remove he from the place where he live and be settle to another  place where he have likewise a right of settlement so that admit there be a  settlement at south Sidenham yet if there be a settlement in Lamerton the  place where he reside the order of justice to remove he must be quash the  question therefore whether he have a settlement in south Sidenham be  immaterial the court give no opinion on it a it be say S c Sett Rem that it be  hold that he have not a settlement in south Sydenham for that he have only a  right which be not vest in he until he have take out administration S c Bott p  l pl and this be confirm by king v Wedworthy burr S c king v low swell burr S  c king v north curry call but the defect of not take out administration seem  cure by his have reside upon the cottage for twenty year see Ashbrittle v  Wyley stram king v Garway burr S c king v Bitton burr S c a modern report er p