between the parish OF Mursley and Grandborough in come buck vide all the point  resolve in this case state burr SC and sir James note Sess can p No Cas Sett  and Rem p No fort Foley SC the husband of a administratrix who be entitle as a  beneficiary and trust to a lease for year be not removable from such a estate  and therefore by a residence of day gain a settlement by a order of two  justice John chapel be remove from Mursley to Grandborough upon appeal to the  quartersession they state the case special for the opinion of the court  strange that John chapel before his marriage with Susanna his wife be settle  in the parish of Grandborough that sir John Featherstone by indenture date  September do demise and grant to Robert Eddin his executor c one cottage with  the appurtenance of the yearly value of S in Mursley for ninetynine year at S  rend that d August Eddin assign to goddin in trust for mary his wife for life  and then to William Eddin his son for the residue of the term they Robert mary  and William die and Susanna the wife of William as administratrix become  entitle to the term and may in consideration of S demise to Nicholas Eynes the  same cottage except one bay of building be the south part thereof with a  leaftowe for a habitation for herself for twentyfour year at a peppercorn rend  that she live in that part of the premise so reserve and marry the say John  chapel and whether he be settle thereby in Mursley be the question and the  session adjudge it no settlement and confirm the order of the two justice for  his removal to Grandborough Denton now move to quash both the order John  chapel be legal settle in Mursley for where a man have a estate in any parish  he gain a settlement if he life there it have be often adjudge as to a  freehold mich W Bystwick el harrow salk and pasch annae harrow el Edgware Fol  it be resolve in the case of a copyhold of a man own for life though but S  yearly value Darnall sergeant he must be settle in that parish where the  estate of his wife lie and on which he inhabit for he come by marriage to that  estate do not come to inhabit under the circumstance mention in the Act liable  to become Chargeable and so not subject to be remove in that case of Bystwick  and harrow holt c I say the term not removable and settle be one and the same  thing because such a person be not within the authority of the justice he that  come to a estate by descent purchase or marriage be not a person that take a  tenement within the intent of the Act reeve contra the wife have but the trust  of a small part of a cottage for the legal interest of the estate be in  godding but if the estate on which the pauper reside be substantial his own it  be sufficient whatever form of conveyance there may be king v saint Michael  bath Doug this be but a estate for year and that have never be adjudge  sufficient to give a settlement a freehold have and so have a copyhold for  that be by the custom become a durable estate and the same argument may be use  if this hold where he take a lease for year not of l value at a rack rend  strange lee the wife take a term as administratrix so he be only entitle in  auter law and as it be under l per annum yearly value and he be likely to  become Chargeable and so may be remove curian this not a case within the  intent of the Act which be to prevent person run up and down from one parish  to another till they become vagabond but a man who come to settle upon his own  be not to be consider in that view a d be it for life or year the law be the  same this be not a take a tenement under per annum for the be be not reserve  as a rend but only a acknowledgement usual pay on long lease the case of a  copyhold be strong than this for that be but a estate at will the way to make  he Chargeable be to strip he of his own for he may not be able to let it the  order be quash strange report er p