Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an application for the benefit of the Poors' Roll. The applicant had been pursuer of an action of filiation and aliment, which the sheriff-substitute and also the sheriff had decided in her favour. In the Sheriff-Court the applicant had been admitted to the benefit of the Poors' Roll. The defender advocated, and the pursuer now desired admission to the Poors' Roll in order to enable her to defend the judgments in her favour which she had obtained.

Rhind, for the advocator, objected to the application. The applicant was earning nothing when on the Poors' Roll in the Sheriff-Court, but she had since then got a situation as a domestic servant, in which was earning £15 a-year.

Melville was heard for the applicant. He admitted that she was now earning &15 a-year.

The Court repelled the objection, and remitted the application to the reporters. It was observed that the right of a party to get on the Poors' Boll did not depend on the position which he or she occupied in society, and it would never do to admit every servant girl who happened to become the mother of an illegitimate child. But this case was a very special one. The child was born in December 1866, and had been since that time supported entirely by its mother because the paternity was denied. But the sheriff-substitute as well as the sheriff had found the paternity proved; and if they were right, the child should have been alimented to the extent of one-half by the defender. Besides, even if the applicant ultimately succeeds, all she can recover is a sum to defray one-half of the aliment, the other half being payable by herself. Further, the applicant was on the Poors' Roll in the Sheriff-Court, and it was not to be assumed that she was improperly placed upon it; and the result of now refusing her application was to prevent her defending the judgments which had been enabled to obtain.