BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Campbell (Inspector of Bothkennar) v. Hislop (Inspector of Mid-Calder) and Alston (Inspector of New Monkland) [1894] ScotLR 31_919 (5 June 1894) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0919.html Cite as: [1894] ScotLR 31_919, [1894] SLR 31_919 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 919↓
[
The settlement of a pupil lunatic derived from her father is not affected by her mother's second marriage and consequent change of settlement.
Jane Innes, a congenital idiot, was secured in Larbert Institution for Imbeciles in April 1890, and remained there till February 1891. She was in pupillarity, having been born in 1880. Her father died in 1884, possessed of a residential settlement in the parish of Mid-Calder. Her mother left Mid-Calder in 1885 and married again, her second husband's birth settlement being New Monkland. From the time of her father's death till her admission to the Larbert Institution, Jane Innes had resided with her step-father, who at the date of her admission was resident in the parish of Bothkennar, but had not acquired a residential settlement there.
The pursuer, the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Bothkennar, sought in the present action to recover from one or other of the defenders the expenses incurred by him on account, of the girl's maintenance during her year's residence in the Larbert Institution. The defenders were respectively the Inspectors of Poor for the Parish of Mid-Calder, the residential settlement of the lunatic's father, and the Inspector of Poor for New Monkland, the settlement of her step-father. Both defenders admitted that the girl was a proper object of parochial relief, and that her step-father was not bound to support her.
The Lord Ordinary (
“ Note.—[ After narrating the facts as above]— At her father's death the pupil had a settlement in Mid-Calder derived from her father; but the Inspector of Mid-Calder maintains that that settlement was lost on the second marriage of the mother, the child's settlement following that of the mother.
On a review of the authorities, I am of of opinion that this contention is not well founded in the circumstances of the case. The settlement of a pupil derived from her father not affected by the second marriage of her mother. In particular, Hendry v. Mackinson & Christie, 7 R. 458, is an authority directly in point.
Mid-Calder relied on the older cases of Gibson v. Murray, 16 D. 926, and Greig v. Adamson & Craig, 3 Macph. 575; and certainly these cases, taken by themselves and unexplained, go far to support the proposition contended for. Butas explained in Beattie v. M'Kenna & Wallace, 5 R. 737, they can only be supported as proceeding on the ground that the mother was the pauper, not the child. Greig's case was the judgment of the whole Court, but it was decided by a majority of one against a formidable minority. Lord Deas, who gave the leading opinion among the majority, afterwards emphatically disclaimed in Beattie's case the construction which is now sought to be put on Greig's case, and indeed the opinions of the majority in Greig's case sufficiently show the limited scope of that judgment, be it sound or not. Here the child is the pauper; the mother is not pauperised by the support given to her imbecile child in an asylum. And as a pupil or a lunatic placed in an asylum cannot lose a settlement, the girl's settlement remains in Mid-Calder. What I have stated shortly can be so clearly demonstrated by an examination of the cases, and especially of the opinions in the cases of Greig and Beattie, that I think it unnecessary to say more.”
Counsel for the Pursuer— Crole. Agent— Wm. B. Rainnie, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender Hislop— C. S. Dickson— W. Gray. Agents— J. & A. Hastie, Solicitors.
Counsel for Defender Alston— Orr Deas. Agents— Drummond & Reid, S.S.C.
