Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Isabella Lyell presented a petition to the Sheriff of Forfar, craving for an order upon the respondent for relief, and for the expenses of her application. Kinnell is the birth settlement of Lyell, and it, admittedly, is the parish on which she is chargeable. For some time past she had obtained relief, first from the parish of St Vigeans, and latterly from the parish of Arbroath, but the payments made by

Page: 426↓

them were only in behalf of Kinnell. In September she removed to Forfar, and on the 15th she went to Kinnell and applied for relief. The respondent was at the time in Edinburgh on duty, but his wife saw Lyell, and learned from her that she was going into service. The respondent's wife took a slate to write her address on, but “the slate,” she said, “was preoccupied.” On her husband's return on the 20th she informed him of Lyell's application, but could not recollect her address, and on 16th October the petition was served upon him. He stated in his defence that the minister acted for him in his absence; but his wife said she had not understood any one was acting for her husband.

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Robertson) pronounced the following interlocutor:—

“ Forfar, 25th November, 1869.—The Sheriff-substitute having made avizandum with the petition, answers thereto, proof, and whole process, Finds, in point of fact, that at the date when the petitioner applied for parochial relief from the respondent, she was admittedly a proper object of parochial relief, and that her parish of settlement was admittedly that of Kinnell: Finds that at the date when she applied for relief she was not residing in the parish of Kinnell, but in the parish of Forfar: Finds that the application to the respondent was uncalled for, and that the petitioner might have applied for relief in the parish of Forfar, where she was residing: Finds that the petitioner has failed to prove that she was refused relief by the respondent: Finds that the circumstances under which her application to the respondent received no response do not warrant the raising of the present action: Therefore dismisses the petition; finds no expenses due to or by either party; and decerns.

“ Note.—The petitioner, when resident in Forfar, instead of applying to the inspector there, takes an unnecessary journey to the parish of Kinnell. She happens to find the Inspector from home, and, unfortunately, his wife forgets the address left by the petitioner, who returns to Forfar. Then, instead of writing to the respondent, or instead of applying to the Forfar inspector, she appears to have done nothing for a month, and then to have raised this action.

“All this might have been obviated by the petitioner doing what she was quite accustomed to do before,—namely, by applying to the inspector of the parish she resided in.

“The Sheriff-Substitute thinks that it would be straining the equitable reading of the statute to say there was a refusal of relief in this case, and he is not inclined to allow the petitioner her expenses.”

The petitioner appealed.

Burnet for her.

Fraser in answer.

The Court adhered.

The law recognised no right in a pauper to enforce relief in this manner. It provided a way. And it was the duty of the Court to discourage the incurring of expense. There had been an irregularity no doubt; the inspector should not have been absent without appointing a substitute to act for him. But it was doubtful whether the respondent really needed relief as she was in service, and had waited a month before renewing her application.