Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ingram v. Hastie [1872] ScotLR 9_375 (14 March 1872)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1872/09SLR0375.html
Cite as: [1872] SLR 9_375, [1872] ScotLR 9_375

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 375↓

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Thursday, March 14. 1872.

9 SLR 375

Ingram

v.

Hastie.

Subject_1Poors-Roll.

Facts:

A man, earning 20s. a-week as a clerk, without incumbrances, refused admission to the poors-roll.

Headnote:

Kirkpatrick moved the Court to remit the case to the Reporters. The applicant was in such a position of life that he required the whole of the 20s. a-week, which he earned as a clerk, for his maintenance. If he were obliged to spend money in litigation, he would not be able to live as he had done. He would then not be able to continue in his situation, and would have no means to litigate with. Thus the refusal of the poors-roll would be a practical denial of justice.

Trayner, for the respondent, opposed the remit, and quoted cases in which persons who were earning much less than the applicant were refused admission to the poors-roll. The object of the appellant was to obtain reduction of a decree of divorce which was obtained more than two years ago, and was not reducible.

Judgment:

Lord Cowan—I do not think that a case has been stated sufficient for admission to the poors-roll. We have nothing to do with the nature of the action. It is the Reporter who must be satisfied that the applicant has a probabilis causa. What we have now to decide is, whether the circumstances are such as to permit of our putting the applicant on the roll. It is contrary to our practice to admit a man who is earning 20s. a-week, in good employment, and with no one dependent on him. In one of the cases referred to, a man with 15s. a-week, and with children, was refused the benefit of the poors-roll. I doubted if he should not have been admitted, but the other Judges thought otherwise.

1872

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010