Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Isobel Dickson had her original settlement in the parish of Dunbar. In 1813 she took service with a farmer in the parish of Haddington, and continued in his employment for three years and a half, whereby she acquired a settlement in that parish. She afterwards returned to Dunbar for about eighteen months, and then went into farm-service in the neighbouring parish of Whitekirk; but in May, 1819, she returned to her mother's in the parish of Dunbar in a state of insanity. Her mother was an old infirm woman receiving parochial aid from the parish of Dunbar, and an unmarried daughter lived in the house with her. From the period of Isobel Dickson's return to Dunbar in 1819, although the violence of her original attack subsided, she was never, according to the evidence of her sister and neighbours, as given in a proof taken in the inferior court, in her sound mind, and was subject to occasional fits of great violence, and could not at any time be trusted with her own wages, nor, indeed, trusted out of sight. The same witnesses deponed that for the first five or six years after her return she used to do out-door farm-work during summer and harvest, but that she required her sister or a friend to work along with her, and that she never wrought a whole summer out, and that she occasionally spun in the house by fits and starts as her mind allowed her. In regard to the amount of her earnings, her sister deponed that though she could not specify how much Isobel made throughout the year, “she could safely say it was never so much as maintained her;” and another sister, who was married and lived at some distance, deponed, that she was in use to help the family with such savings as she could afford. On the other hand, the overseers of the farmer with whom Isabel wrought deponed, that she was a good worker, did outwork as regularly as the other outworkers, and received the same wages, and that she had been in use to work at outwork for several years after she came back to Dunbar. They did not specify for what period in all she was in use to work in the course of a year, but from an excerpt of a book kept by one of them for a particular year, it appeared that in the summer of that year she had wrought daily for nearly six weeks at one time, having only broken off in the middle of the second last day of the sixth week. No parochial aid was received for her till after 1828, when the mother died, and her allowance was continued to be paid by the parish of Dunbar, though, as alleged by the parish, in the mother's name, and in ignorance of her death.

In 1833 the parish of Dunbar, for the first time, made a demand on the parish of Haddington to be relieved of the burden of maintaining Dickson, who now required to be kept in confinement, and the latter parish having resisted the demand, on the ground that she had again acquired a settlement in Dunbar by her residence there subsequent to 1819, the heritors and kirk-session of Dunbar raised an action before the Sheriff of Haddingtonshire against the heritors and kirk-session of Haddington, concluding for payment of £33 as advances previously made towards Dickson's support, and to have the parish of Haddington ordained to relieve them of the burden of maintaining her in time to come. A proof having been allowed, which established the circumstances above-detailed, the Sheriff-substitute pronounced the following interlocutor, adding the subjoined note: ^*—“Having considered the parties' proof, together with their respective memorials, and resumed consideration of the whole process: Finds that Isobel Dickson, after having acquired a settlement in the parish of Dunbar, removed at Whitsunday, 1813, to that of Haddington, and having resided there in service for three years and a half consecutively, lost her former, and acquired a new settlement; that at the expiry of the said period, she returned to Dunbar parish at Martinmas, 1816, and remained there till she went to service in Whitekirk parish for about eighteen months: That thereafter in April or May, 1819, she again returned to Dunbar parish, where she has been ever since, with the exception of two years which were spent in the parish of Stenton, but not in service: Finds that for several years after her return to Dunbar parish, she was able to earn something by field labour and spinning at home, and was not admitted to the poors' roll of that parish till July, 1828: That the pursuers having since alimented her, have brought the present action against the defenders, on the allegation that, from the period when she returned to Dunbar from Whitekirk, she has not been in her right mind,

_________________ Footnote _________________

^* “The parish of Dunbar cannot well complain of hardship in the view that has been taken of this case. Isobel Dickson, with the exception of comparatively few years, seems to have spent a pretty long life in the parish, and afforded the labour of her best days. When she returned from Whitekirk in 1819, it is to be presumed that she brought with her some of the fruits of her services, on which to support herself for some time, in addition to her subsequent earnings. Had this not been the case, her family, who were too poor to give her much assistance, would have made her apply for parochial aid, or done so for her. The fact too, of the parish having for so many years given her support, is in favour of the defenders.”

and could not acquire a settlement, in order to compel the defenders to aliment her in future, and to repeat the sums already advanced, in consequence of Haddington being the last parish in which she could competently acquire a settlement: Finds, that it is sufficiently instructed that Isobel was, for the period in question, subject occasionally to fits apparently of mental aberration, though there is no evidence of these being sufficient to prevent her earning a livelihood, or of their amounting to permanent bodily or mental incapacity: Finds, that there is no medical evidence of her state of mind, and that no surgeon was called in to attend her, till of late years, when she came under the charge of the kirk-session: Finds, that the state of mind of Isobel Dickson, for three years at least, after her return from Whitekirk, was not such as to prevent her acquiring of new a settlement in Dunbar parish, and that she did not thereafter acquire any other settlement; therefore, finds, that the heritors of the said parish are liable to maintain her as long as she is a fit subject for parochial relief; assoilzies the defenders from the conclusions of the action; finds them entitled to their expenses, allows them to give in an account thereof.”

On appeal, the Sheriff altered this interlocutor, and found that Dickson had not acquired a settlement in Dunbar by her residence after her return in 1819, and consequently that the parish of Haddington was bound to relieve the parish of Dunbar of the burden of her support, and he decerned accordingly. The parish of Haddington thereupon brought an advocation and pleaded—

It is established by the proof that Dickson was perfectly capable of working, and that when she did work she earned the same wages with others; and although subject to occasional attacks of insanity, there is no sufficient proof of a constant state of derangement, or still less of an incapacity to maintain herself by her labour during several years after she returned to her mother's. On the contrary, although the sister in a vague way says that she did not earn enough to maintain her, the fact that no application was made to the parish for so long a period affords a presumption which, coupled with the evidence of her capacity to work, and of her having actually wrought as regularly as the other outworkers, afford sufficient ground for holding that, de facto, she did maintain herself by her labour, particularly considering the length of time which the parish of Dunbar has allowed to elapse without making any demand to be relieved. On the other hand it was pleaded for the parish of Dunbar—

No party, whose condition is such as that he would be entitled to be placed on the parochial roll, can acquire a new settlement by residence while in that condition, and it makes no difference that no claim to be placed on the roll have actually been made, and that he has been otherways supported for years. ¹ The pauper here, however, from the period

_________________ Footnote _________________

¹ Runciman, Jan. 24, 1784 (M. 10583).

of her return to Dunbar in 1819, was constantly in a condition that would have entitled her to be placed on the parochial roll had a claim to that effect been made. Ability to work to a certain extent does not disqualify parties from a right to parochial relief if they cannot earn by their labour sufficient to maintain them, provided always their disability fully to support themselves arises from a permanent cause. ¹ In the present case there can be no doubt that Dickson was permanently in a state of derangement, with occasional accesses of peculiar violence, and although during summer and harvest she wrought to a certain extent at outdoor farm-work, the infirmity of her mind prevented her from labouring during less cheerful seasons of the year, or even then with constancy; and that the direct testimony of her sister, with the real evidence arising from the assistance given by the other sister, afforded sufficient proof that de facto she did not earn sufficient for her subsistence. She was, therefore, from the time she came to Dunbar in 1819, a proper object of parochial relief, and entitled to have been placed on the roll of Haddington, the place of her then settlement, and was consequently incapable of acquiring by residence a new settlement in another parish.

The Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor, adding the subjoined note: ^*—“Advocates the cause, alters the interlocutors of the

_________________ Footnote _________________

¹ Procl. 1692. Monypenny, p. 26.

^* “There is some nicety in this case, owing to the want of any distinct evidence as to the period or amount, to which this crazy woman earned wages communibus annis for the five or six years after 1819. It is completely established, however, that she did work to a very considerable extent during these years, and received wages at the same rate as other workers. Looking to the testimony of the two successive overseers of Mr Begbie, who was her chief employer, it would appear that she worked pretty regularly, whenever out-of-door work was required; and it is not denied that she spun a good deal when not so engaged; that her mind was more or loss disordered all the time; and that in consequence of this, there were intervals (though bow frequent, or of what duration, does not appear), during which she could not work; and that, owing to this cause, her earnings for the whole year may never have been quite adequate to her yearly subsistence, do, none of them, appear to the Lord Ordinary to be circumstances which should prevent her acquiring a settlement. A labourer liable to attacks of rheumatism, and consequently disabled from working for many weeks in the year, would not be so prevented, even though he was reduced to the necessity of frequently applying for temporary relief to the parish during his fits of disability, which never was the case here; and it seems of no consequence whether the temporary disability was owing to the exacerbations of a chronic-disease of the body or of the mind. The only question is, whether the party could generally work, and did in fact earn a great part of his subsistence? Now; this seems sufficiently made out in the present case. The sister merely says that she did not earn enough to subsist her entirely; though whatever was deficient was made up by her own poor family, without requiring to apply either to public or private charity; and this at least for five or six years. The Lord Ordinary thinks this enough. Taking the evidence as it is, it appears to him to prove that she was generally in a condition to work, and did work, and in this way defrayed by far the greater part of her subsistence. If the proof is less precise than might have been desirable, this is to be ascribed chiefly to the long delay of the pursuers in bringing their action; and they, and not the defenders, should suffer from its consequent deficiency. It is painful to award expenses out of poors' funds; but it is only to replace what has been taken out of them. It is lamentable that such cases should be litigated. In almost all well-regulated parishes they are now systematically settled by reference.”

Sheriff complained of, and finds it sufficiently established that Isobel Dickson, the insane pauper in question, did acquire a settlement by an industrial residence for five or six years in the parish of Dunbar, subsequent to May 1819; and that having ever since had her residence in that parish, the heritors and kirk-session thereof, pursuers of the original action, have no claim against the parish of Haddington (in which the said Isobel appears to have acquired an intermediate settlement prior to 1819), either for her future aliment of for repetition of any sums they may have expended thereon; and therefore assoilzies the advocators from the conclusions of the said original action, and decerns. Finds expenses due both in this Court, and before the Sheriff.”

The heritors and kirk-session of Dunbar reclaimed.