Lees v Kemp
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 1891 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 17 October 1891 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Rutherfurd Clark, Lord Trayner.
PoorDerivative settlementForisfamiliationImbecile.
A young man, twenty-two years of age, who had all his life been so weak in mind as to be unable for any work, except of the most simple kind, and that under supervision, and who had never earned anything for his own support, was, on the application of his father, a farm-servant, removed by the inspector of poor to the district asylum. At the date of his removal he was suffering from an acute attack of mania. He continued to live in the asylum, and the relieving parish raised an action to fix liability for his support on the parish of his own birth. Held (following the case of Fraser v. Robertson, 5 Macph. 819) that at the date of his removal he had not been forisfamiliated, and that he was still a member of his father's family, and therefore chargeable to his father's residential settlement.
Michael Buchan was born on 26th August 1867, and was a son of Peter Buchan, a farm-labourer. Michael went with his father to reside at Balgone Barns, in the parish of North Berwick, at Whitsunday 1887, and on 18th June 1889 application was made by the father to the inspector of poor of the parish of North Berwick for parochial relief for Michael, and for his admission to the Haddington District Lunatic Asylum, on account of his being in a state of mental derangement, and after the usual procedure Michael was admitted as an inmate of the said asylum.
The inspector of North Berwick, having thus relieved the pauper, raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Haddington against the inspector of Haddington, Michael's birth parish, for reimbursement of the sums disbursed on Michael's account, or that should in the future be disbursed. At the date of the action Michael was still in the asylum.
The defender pleaded;(1) The said Michael Buchan, being incapable of acquiring a settlement, follows the settlement of his father. (2) In the circumstances stated, the defender should be assoilzied, with expenses.
It was admitted that Michael had never earned wages and had lived with his father from his birth to June 1889, except from November 1885 to February 1886, when he was in the asylum on account of an acute attack of mania; that neither Michael nor his father had a residential settlement in Haddingtonshire; and that on the occasion of his admission to the asylum in 1889 he was again suffering from mania.
A proof was led as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
...that any remand (including under s. 5 of the 1997 Act) would be accompanied by a warrant of committal. That conclusion is reinforced by O. 19 r. 6 (inserted by the 1998 rules) which provides that remands under s. 5 of the 1997 Act will be in the same form. Erroneously, r. 6 set out in the 1......
-
Lambert (plaintiff) v Lyons
...[2009] IEHC 405 (Unrep, Laffoy J,24/8/2009) and Hegarty v King 5 LR Ir 249 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 19, r 6 - Relief refused, Will and Codicil admitted to probate (2007/3007P - Murphy J - 26/1/2010) [2010] IEHC 29 Lambert v Lyons 2007/2007P - Murphy - H......
-
Ulster Bank Irl Ltd v Sheehan & Howley t/a Aaron Kelly & Company Solicitors
...be withdrawn or departed from by succeeding affidavits. · A plaintiff cannot raise new claims in pleadings except by amendment (citing Ord. 19 R.6 and Re Caines (deceased) [1978] 2 All E.R. 1). · A point of claim must be evidenced, or else may be advanced only with the liberty of the Court ......
-
Thomas v Commissoner of an Garda Síochána
...defence, counter claim, reply, petition or answer?. 26 In Cooney v. Browne [1985] I.R. 185 Hamilton J. (as he then was), referred to O. 19, r. 6(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts which state:- ?A further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better ......