Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Lord President, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said—The question is whether Penninghame or Glencairn is liable for the aliment of this pauper. It appears that the husband is a native of Penninghame. On 18th July 1854, he went to Glencairn, remained there, living in lodgings, till the 7th September, when he left for harvest work in a neighbouring parish, and was absent for five weeks or so. He then returned, resumed his work, and went into the same lodgings. He was there joined by his wife and family, and with them went into a house which had been taken before he went to harvest work in September, thus showing clearly an intention to return. He remained in Glencairn until November 1859, when he, with his wife and family, left the parish finally. The law applicable to such cases is correctly stated by the Lord Ordinary. He states that constructive residence is not enough to establish a settlement; and, further, that every casual interruption is not sufficient to prevent the acquisition of a settlement; and that the question here is a sort of jury question whether the interruptions in this case were sufficient to prevent the acquisition of a settlement. There was more than five years' residence in Glencairn. But difficulties have been raised as to the character of the residence in Glencairn at the beginning and the end of the period. At first when he came to Glencairn he left his wife behind him. I don't think that the personal presence of an individual in a particular place is the sole test in such cases. We must look to the circumstances connected with the residence, and not only to the personal presence of the individual. The very fact that casual absence does not interrupt the settlement is a proof that individual presence is not always necessary. An important fact is the permanent character of his residence, and I think it important that he became a householder in the parish of Glencairn. The important event founded on here as dislocating his residence in Glencairn is his absence as a railway worker, in the parish of Kirkmabreck, for a period of several months at the end of the five years. But I do not think this is sufficient. He did not go away to hire himself for a term, he only took work from day to day. Upon the whole, I think that this absence was a mere incident in the life of a day-labourer, and that there is not enough here to dislocate the residence at Glencairn.