benefit  of  his  exemption  by  devoting  bad  in  common  with  the  other  tenants  of
some,  even  the  most  valuable,  portion  of  the  house,  which  was  wholly  let  out  on
the  building  to  another  use  than  a  mere  similar  tenancies,  the  use  of  the  passages,
residence  of  his  family.  Phelps  v,  Rooney,  staircase,  street  door,  and  usual  conveni-
9  Wis.  71.  ences  of  the  house.  The  landlord  and
Where  a  warrant  commands  an  officer  not  the  tenant  was  rated,  and  the  landlord
to  search  for  liquors  in  a  ''dwelling-  did  all  repairs  inside  and  out;  but  he  did
house,"  he  is  not  thereby  authorized  to  not  reside  in  the  house,  nor  did  he,  save
search  in  a  **bam."  Jones  v,  Fletcher,  as  aforesaid,  retain  the  control  and  do-
41  Me.  254.  minion  of  the  house,  or  render  any  ser-
in an  act  allowing  a  water  company  to  vices  to  any  of  the  tenants.  Held,  that
charge  for  water  supplied  to  "  dwelling-  such  tenant  could  acquire  the  dwelling-
houses"  on   the    ratable   value    of    the  house  franchise  in  respect  of  such  occu-


premises,  the  word  '*  dwelling-house"  was
held  to  include  every  building  so  far
adapted  to  use  as  a  dwelling-house  as  to
require  water  for  domestic  purposes.  It
might  be  that  only  a  part  of  the  house
required  a  supply  for  domestic  purposes,
and  that  the  value  of  that  part  alone
would  be  the  basis  of  the  rate.  It  was
not  decided  whether  the  plaintiff's  ware-
house was  a  *'  dwelling-house"  within  the
act,  but  for  other  reasons  be  was  held
excluded  from  the  benefit  of  the  act.
Cooke  V.  New  River  Co.,  32  Solic.  Jour.
255.
