Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a special case presented by (1) John Reid, and (2) Allan A. Edmiston, Inspectors of Poor, and representing the Parochial Boards of the parishes of Kilmarnock and Rutherglen respectively, under the following circumstances:—Mrs Theresa Convery or Lawrie was born in the year 1856 in the parish of Kilmarnock, where her father and mother resided. In the year 1874 she became a teacher in the Roman Catholic School at Rutherglen, and resided in the parish for ten years thereafter, and up to the date of her marriage after mentioned supporting herself by teaching in said school. By said residence she acquired for herself a residential settlement in the parish of Rutherglen. In February 1884 she married at Kilmarnock John Lawrie, a native of Ireland, whose birth settlement in that country was capable of being ascertained, but who did not then possess, nor did he afterwards acquire, any settlement in Scotland. After the marriage Lawrie and his wife resided for ten months in Glasgow, after which they removed to Kilmarnock. In August 1886 Lawrie deserted his wife, and in April 1887, being burdened with two children, aged at that date, the elder—a boy—one year and four months, and the younger—a girl—two weeks, she became chargeable in the parish of Kilmarnock on 1st April 1887, and has since then continued to receive relief. On 15th July 1887 Lawrie was apprehended and charged with deserting his wife and children. He was convicted of said charge, and sentenced by the Sheriff at Kilmarnock to thirty days' Imprisonment. On the expiry of the sentence he left the district and had not since been heard of.

The question for the consideration of the Court was as follows:—“Does the burden of supporting the pauper fall upon the parish of her birth, or upon the parish in which at the date of her said marriage she possessed a residential settlement?”

Page: 4↓

The first party argued—The pauper with a Scottish domicile, when deserted by her husband, who was a foreigner, without a settlement in Scotland, reverted to her own domicile— Hay v. Skene, June 13, 1850, 12 D. 1019; Carmichael v. Adamson, February 28, 1863, 1 Macph. 452; Kirkwood v. Manson, March 14, 1871, 9 Macph. 693. Had the husband acquired a residential settlement, that would have been his wife's settlement— Greig v. Simpson and Craig, May 16, 1876, 3 R. 642. A settlement of birth might be excluded for the time and a residential settlement acquired, and till that was lost the birth settlement could not revive. Applying these principles, it was plain that the parish of Rutherglen was liable for the support of the pauper. She had acquired a residential settlement there, and she had not lost it by absence from the parish for the requisite time. The only question in the case was whether she had lost it by her marriage, and it never had been held that because a Scotswoman married a foreigner who never acquired a settlement in Scotland she thereby lost her residential settlement. All authority was the other way—Bell's Prin. pp. 2197, 2202. It was true that in the last edition of Bell's Prin. the editor had taken the view that marriage did deprive a wife of her settlement, but that was opposed to the text. The only authority adduced in support of the statement was Kirkwood v. Manson, cited supra, but in that case the question was expressly reserved. A widow with a settlement derived from the residence of her deceased husband, on a second marriage would lose the derivative settlement. That in no way touched the present case. The principle contended for had been assumed in all the cases, and indeed had been expressly decided in an English case— St John's, Wapping; Johnstone v. Wallace, June 13, 1873, 11 Macph. 699; Thomson v. Knox, June 28, 1850, 12 D. 1112; Hay v. Carse, February 24, 1860, 22 D. 872

The second party argued—A married woman acquired her husband's domicile, and any domicile she might have acquired herself previous to her marriage was extinguished— Kirkwood v. Manson, supra. In this case the wife acquired her husband's domicile, which was Irish; if she could not be relieved there, then she reverted to her birth settlement— M'Ronie v. Cowan, March 7, 1862, 24 D. 723.

At advising—