Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This case related to a claim for relief from the Barony Parish, Glasgow, by John M'Culloch, a boy aged sixteen. The inspector stated “that he refused relief because the applicant is a young and strong able-bodied man, and has for some time been supporting and is now able to support himself, and is therefore not a proper object of parochial relief.” M'Culloch denied that he was “able to support himself. Admitted he is young, being sixteen years of age. Explained that he has a mother and a sister deriving relief from the poorhouse. Admitted he worked in a bottling-store for three months.”

The following was the proof in the case:—“John M'Culloch, the pauper, aged sixteen, sworn—I do not know the day when I was born. I am older than my sister, who is fifteen years of age and two months. I was working in a bottle-house a good while since—six months since. I was there for three months. I was getting 6s. a-week. The bottle-blowers came out on strike, and we all were put away. I have been looking for a situation of late, and there is no place to go to. I have been at two or three bottle-houses for work, and they do not need any just now. I could not get work. (Q) Are you in good health just now?—(A) I cannot complain.

Dr M'Ewan, sworn—I do not know whether I have examined the pauper boy or not. I do not remember anything at all about the boy. I have a copy of a certificate that I gave, and I find the name is John M'Culloch, but I cannot say whether the pauper is the boy or not. Although the boy is in good health he requires attention, and he ought to be sent to the parochial board to inquire into the circumstances, as he is not in a condition to look after himself. He has no parents, and the parochial authorities would look

Page: 646↓

after him as a parent would do under the circumstances. Cross-examined—(Q) From his appearance what would you judge his age to be?—(A) If I am wanted to give medical evidence on the point I would have to examine him more closely, but I would say that he is very likely to be about sixteen or seventeen years of age.

It is admitted that the younger sister of the applicant was born on the 15th July 1865, and that M'Culloch is in good health.”

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Spens) found “that the inspector of poor has failed to prove that the applicant John M'Culloch is an able-bodied person, but, on the contrary, finds that the said applicant is not able-bodied, and therefore finds him entitled to relief.” He added this note:—

“ Note.—The inspector of poor has not proved the age of the pauper. He is, however, a lad of apparently about sixteen. I know of no authority for holding that a lad of this age is an able-bodied man; indeed, a lad of sixteen is not a man in the eye of the law; and the law which has established that no able-bodied man is entitled to relief, either for himself or family, is, I take it, wholly inapplicable to the present case. The rule of law as to able-bodied poor proceeds, I understand, upon the assumption that a man with no physical or mental disability is always able to get some kind of work. If the particular trade which he is working at becomes slack, he can always go elsewhere, it is presumed, and get work of some kind or other; but this presumption is based upon his having come to his full size and strength, i.e., that he is a man. It is perfectly clear that an apprentice lad whose particular trade has come to a standstill has not equal power of getting work elsewhere that a full-grown man has. The definition of an able-bodied man, namely, as a man even in bad health, but yet able to earn wages, as given effect to in Jack v. Thom, December 14, 1860, 23 D. 173, and other cases, is not, as I have said, a definition applicable to a lad who is not a man. In this case the lad explains that he has tried to get work of some kind and failed; and as there is no evidence to rebut this his statement must be assumed to be true.”

The defender appealed to the First Division of the Court of Session, and argued—After fourteen years of age the test for deciding who were and who were not able-bodied workmen was not age, as the Sheriff had laid down, but ability to work. Here the applicant was able to work, and had been in work, which he had given up owing to slackness in trade, not because he himself was physically unfit.

Authorities— Petrie v. Meek and Hunter, March 4, 1859, 21 D. 614; Jack v. Thom, December 14, 1860, 23 D. 173; Craig v. Greig and Macdonald, July 18, 1863, 1 Macph. 1172; Act 1424, c. 25; 8 and 9 Vict. c. 83, sec. 68.

The respondent was not called on.

At advising—