Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action raised in the Sheriff Court of Perthshire by the Parish Council of Stirling against the Parish Council of Perth, concluding for payment of £16, 8s. 1 1 2d., being the cost of maintaining certain children in the poorhouse at Stirling, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. cap. 41), sec. 5 (4).

It appeared from the record that the children were detained in the poorhouse from 17th April till 1st July 1897—a period of seventy-five days—and were then discharged.

The defenders denied liability on the ground, inter alia, (5) that the children's father, who was dead, had at his death a residential settlement in the parish of Stirling, which enured to his widow and children. They also pleaded—“(2) No title to sue.”

On 21st January 1898 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Grahame) repelled the defender's plea to title, and allowed a proof.

On 3rd May 1898 the Sheriff ( Jameson) recalled the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute, found that, on a sound construction of the Act of Parliament, “a parish which receives a child or children into a poorhouse as a” place of safety “under the provisions of said Act has no right of recourse for the expenses attending and following on such reception against the parish to which such child or children may belong, and that no such right of recourse exists either under the Act 8 and 9 Vict. cap. 83, or at common law;” therefore sustained the defenders' second and fifth pleas-in-law, and assoilzied the defenders.

The pursuers having appealed, the defenders objected to the appeal as incompetent, and argued—The appeal was excluded by sec. 22 of the Sheriff Court Act 1853 (16 and 17 Vict. cap. 80), which made the Sheriff's judgment final in all causes not exceeding the value of £25. The sum at stake here was only £16, 8s., and no question of greater magnitude was involved. There must be a clear case of continuous liability to make appeal competent in a case where the sum concluded for was under £25— Macfarlane v. Friendly Society of Stornoway, January 27, 1870, 7 Macph. 438. There was no such case here; for the children had been discharged from the poorhouse. [The Lord President referred to Standard Ship-owners' Mutual Association v. Taylor, June 24, 1896, 23 R. 870.]

Argued for the pursuers—The appeal was competent. The true criterion of the value of a cause was not the sum concluded for in the summons, but what difference the decision would make to the pursuer. Here a very important question had been raised upon the statute of 1894, which deeply concerned all parochial authorities in Scotland. Moreover, the question of the father's settlement was in dispute, and its determination must necessarily be decisive, not only of the present case, but of any claim for parochial relief which these children might have in future against the pursuers, There was thus continuous liability, or at least a prospect of continuous liability, which was sufficient to take the case out of sec. 22 of the Act of 1853— Drummond v. Hunter, January 12, 1869, 7 Macph. 347.

At advising—