Francis Ross, Collector of the Poors Rates of the City of Glasgow, v. Robert Carrick
Date: 16 December 1800 Case No. No. 3.
Is a contributor for the support of the poor within a royal burgh, entitled to insist for inspection of the books of the assessors, for the purpose of investigating whether he is rated proportionally with the other inhabitants.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The mode of levying poors rates on the inhabitants of Glasgow, is explained in the case, No. 18. p. 10587, 2d December 1797, Laurie against Dreghorn.
It had, for at least ten or twelve years prior to 1799, been the practice for the committee of assessors to permit their collector to give to any contributor who demanded it, inspection of the book containing the amount of poors rates imposed on each individual. But the committee, alleging that this had led to unpleasant consequences, owing to the disclosure it occasioned of the opinion which they had formed of the wealth of individuals, gave orders to their collector not to exhibit to any contributor any part of the book, but the entry which related to his own assessment.
The assessors for 1799, rated Robert Carrick's share of the assessment for that year at L. 50:13:4.
When payment of this sum was demanded, Mr Carrick stated, that it amounted to an eightieth part of the whole poors rate levied on Glasgow for that year; and that, as it could not be maintained that he possessed an eightieth part of the whole property liable to assessment, it necessarily followed, that the wealth of many of the inhabitants must have been greatly underrated. He therefore demanded inspection of the assessors' books, agreeably to the former practice, in order that he might be able to point out to the assessors the mistakes of this sort into which they had fallen. He further stated, that being himself both a member of the Town-Council, and a director of the Town hospitals, he was entitled, in either of these capacities, as well as in that of a contributor, to the inspection which he required.
His demand was refused; and an action for payment was brought against him, in name of the collector, before the Magistrates, in which they pronounced the following judgment:
“Find, That the defender being assessed for poors rates, is entitled to inspection, in the pursuer's hands, of the book in which is entered his proportion of the assessment, and to know according to what rule or rate the assessment is proportioned upon him, and that the same has been adopted with regard to all the other persons assessed in payment of poors rates; and for that purpose, ordains the pursuer to give inspection of the said book in his the pursuer's custody; but finds, That although the defender is entitled to be satisfied, by inspection of the said book, of the sum in which he is assessed, and that the same rule or principle of assessment has been applied in fixing the proportion of others, according to the judgment of the assessors, of the extent of the means and wealth of the persons assessed, yet that the defender, in his character of one assessed for the maintenance of the poor, is not entitled to, such an inspection of the same, as to know the amount of the sum upon each person for the said purpose; because, if the defender, in that capacity, be allowed such inspection, every other, person would be entitled to demand the same thing, to comply with which demand would be inexpedient: Finds, That it is not necessary in this process to determine how far the defender, as a member of the Town Council, and as one of the directors of the Town's hospital, has a right to examine all the particulars in the said book; but reserves to consider the defender's claim upon that head, when he shall bring a proper action, in his character of a member of the Council, and director of the hospital, in the event that the directors of the hospital, who are the custodiers of the said book, shall, upon application to them, refuse the defender such inspection.”
Mr Carrick brought this judgment under review by advocation, in which the pursuers
Pleaded: The discretionary powers of the assessors, in fixing the assessment payable by individuals, have been fully sanctioned in former cases, and, from the respectability of those who hold the office of assessors, there is no chance that these powers will be abused. Even if the books were shewn to the defender, and he thought he discovered mistakes in them, his own opinion could not be taken against theirs; and he surely could not expect, in a case of this sort, to be allowed a proof of the extent of the fortune of any inhabitant whom he might choose to single out as underrated. To comply with his demand, therefore, would only gratify idle curiosity, while it would hurt the feelings of many individuals.
Answered: The proportion which the defender's share bears to the whole assessment, of itself affords strong evidence of mistake, if not of partiality. And if it be true, that it would be difficult in a court of law to correct injustice done by the assessors, there is the greater necessity for rendering their proceedings public; so that if they shall not be restrained from doing injustice, by the apprehension of their sentences being overturned by the decree of a superior tribunal, they may at least be deterred from it by the fear of public odium.
The Lord Ordinary took the case to report.
On advising memorials, the Court were unanimously of opinion, that unless a case of wilful and corrupt partiality were made out, they could not controul the rate of assessment imposed by the stentmasters. But they thought, that the inspection demanded by the defender should be granted. On this last point, however, several of the Judges seemed to be considerably in fluenced by the circumstance of the defender's being a member of the Town-Council, and a director of the hospitals.
“The Lords found, That the defender Mr Carrick had a right to demand from the Magistrates of Glasgow, and their collector of their poors rates, inspection of the books kept by them, relative to the assessments for the poor, and to examine the same; and therefore remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow, with these instructions, That they alter their interlocutor complained of, in so far as it refuses inspection of the said books; and that they appoint their collector to give inspection thereof to the defender; but, in the mean time, to decern against the defender for payment of the sum of L. 50: 13: 4 Sterling, as the assessment laid upon him for the year in question, and to allow the decreet to be extracted for the same, without prejudice to his being afterwards heard in any action of declarator for repetition, if he shall be advised to insist therein, and reserving all defences against such action, as accords.”
Lord Ordinary, Cullen.Act. Arch. Campbell sen.Alt. Hay.Clerk, Home.
Fac. Coll. (Appendix) No. 11. p. 20.
