Beattie v Adamson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1866 |
| Date | 23 November 1866 |
| Docket Number | No. 15 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Lord Barcaple. I.
Poor—Settlement—Pupil—Notice.—
ELIZABETH CLARK was born in the parish of St Cuthberts, Edinburgh, in 1845. In that year her father removed with his family to the City Parish of Glasgow, where he acquired a settlement by residence. In May 1854 he removed with his family from the City Parish to Barony Parish. In September 1856 Clark left his daughter Elizabeth and other three children, all pupils, in the Barony Parish, Glasgow, and went to England.
The woman with whom the children had been left applied for and obtained parochial relief for them from the Barony Parish. Three of the children received out-door relief, and the fourth, Elizabeth, who was subject to fits, and required much care, was in November 1856 taken to the Barony poor-house.
On 20th August 1857 Barony Parish sent a notice to the City Parish intimating that ‘Alexander Clark's three children, residing at 36 Clyde Street,’ had become chargeable, and that the City Parish would be held liable for advances. A question was raised as to the import of this notice, but it was ultimately admitted to apply only to the three children receiving outdoor relief.
In the autumn of 1857 Alexander Clark, the father, returned from England, and repaid the sums advanced for his other children, but he refused either to pay those advanced for Elizabeth, or to remove her from the poor-house.
Alexander Clark subsequently, in 1858 or 1859, lost his residential settlement in the City Parish,
On 12th June 1860 Barony Parish sent the following notice to the City Parish ‘Case of Elizabeth Clark. Sir,—I hereby give you notice, in terms of the statute 8 and 9 Victoria, cap, 83, s. 71, that the above named poor person has become chargeable as a pauper to the parish of Barony, and that the parish of Glasgow, where the settlement appears to be, is held liable for all advances, charges, and expenses which shall he expended to or incurred in respect of said poor person,’ &c.
The City Parish having denied liability, the Barony raised this action of repayment for board already supplied to Elizabeth Clark, and for future relief from liability.
With reference to the health of Elizabeth Clark the pursuer averred;—‘The said Elizabeth Clark was, during the period embraced in said account, in delicate health, having scrofulous swellings, and being subject to falling sickness and other disease, rendering her unable to earn her own livelihood, and she was then, and still continues to be, a proper object of parochial relief.’
The defender's answer was,—‘Admitted that Elizabeth Clark was, during the period mentioned, in delicate health, but denied that she was and is a proper object of parochial relief.’
The defender, in a minute, subsequently admitted ‘that Elizabeth Clark was, at the date of the action, and during the whole period embraced in the account sued for, and still is, in respect of the state of her health, a proper object of parochial relief.’
The defender pleaded (1) Alexander Clark having ceased to reside within the City Parish of Glasgow, in or about the month of May 1854, and not having resided thereafter within said parish for one year during the period of five years subsequent to said date, he lost the settlement he had acquired within said parish for himself and children. (2) The said Alexander Clark being an able-bodied man, neither he nor his children were proper objects of parochial relief, and any relief given by Barony to the children was therefore illegal, and can have no effect as against the defender in the present question.’
The Sheriff-substitute (Smith) assoilzied the defender.
The Sheriff (Alison) adhered.
The pursuer advocated.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor:—‘As matter of fact finds that the pauper, Elizabeth Clark, was, at the date of the action, and during the whole period embraced in the account sued for, and still is, in respect of the state of her health, a proper object of parochial relief: Finds that the parochial board of the parish of Barony supplied to her the board, aliment, and relief specified in said account, and still continue to supply her with parochial relief: Finds that the said Elizabeth Clark is the lawful daughter of Alexander Clark, sometime strapper in Glasgow, and was born in the parish of Saint Cuthberts, Edinburgh, in September 1845: Finds that in the year 1845 the said Alexander Clark came to the City Parish of Glasgow, and resided in said parish continuously, along with his family, including his daughter Elizabeth, till the month of May 1854: Finds that in the said month of May 1854 the said Alexander Clark removed from the City Parish of Glasgow, and went with his family to reside in the parish of Barony, where he resided till about 26th October 1856: Finds that since the said Alexander Clark removed from the City Parish of Glasgow in May 1854, he has never resided in that parish continuously for a year: Finds that on or about 26th October 1856 the said Alexander Clark...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Kilpatrick Parish Council v Kilmarnock Parish Council
...an interesting and important question of poor law left (so he argued) open by the well-known cases of Beattie v. AdamsonUNK, (1866) 5 Macph. 47; Hay v. PatersonUNK, (1857) 19 D. 332; Paisley Parish Council v. Row Parish Council, 1908 S. C. 731; Leith Parish Council v. Aberdeen Parish Counci......
-
Glasgow Parish Council v Old Kilpatrick Parish Council
...settlement in that parish and was an able-bodied man. On this branch of the case the pursuers founded on the cases of BeattieUNK, 5 Macph. 47; Paisley, 1908 S. C. 731; and Leith, 1910 S. C. 404, as showing that no change in chargeability takes place while pauperism continues. On the other h......
-
Kincardine County Council v Aberdeen County Council
...21 R. 583. 8 Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913 (3 and 4 Geo. V, cap. 38), secs. 14 and 50; Beattie v. Adamson, (1866) 5 Macph. 47; School Board of Glasgow v. Parish Council of Glasgow, 1916 S. C. 26; Rothes Parish Council v. Elgin Parish Council, 1928 S. C. 918. 9 Graham on ......
-
Glasgow Parish Council v Cromdale Parish Council
...to the mere giving of a notice an effect upon the law of settlement which has repeatedly been denied to itBeattie v. AdamsonUNK, (1866) 5 Macph. 47, at p. Accordingly, I am of opinion that the giving of the notice in 1911 effected no interruption of the prescription of the pauper's Dundee s......