Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This Special Case was presented by the Inspectors of Poor for the Parishes of New Deer, Aberdeen-shire, and Nigg, Ross-shire, for the opinion and judgment of the Court whether a pauper named George Ross or Pirie was chargeable on the parish of Nigg as the parish of his birth, or on the parish of New Deer, as the parish of his mother's settlement. The Case stated that the pauper was the illegitimate child of Alexandrina Ross or Robertson, and was born in the parish of Nigg on 5th May 1860. He received out-door relief from the parish of Rosskeen on 24th December 1874, being then upwards of fourteen years and seven months old, and statutory notice was given by the said parish of Rosskeen to the parishes of New Deer and Nigg. When the pauper so received out-door relief the said Alexandrina Ross or Robertson was the widow of George Robertson, to whom she had been married two years after the birth of the said George Ross or Pirie. The said George Robertson was born in the parish of New Deer, and his settlement at the time of his death in November 1872 was in his said birth parish. The settlement of Alexandrina Ross or Robertson in December 1874, following that of her said husband, was in the said parish of New Deer.

The pauper George Ross or Pirie remained in the house of his maternal grandmother, in the parish of Nigg, where he was born, till October 1868. A year after his birth his mother went away into service, but till her marriage she contributed to his support. After her marriage she removed him to Aberdeen, where he resided with her and her husband, was sent by them to school, and was for about three months with a shoemaker as message boy, at 2s. 6d. per week. In 1869 he removed with them to Edinburgh, and resided with them in Leith Walk, supported by his stepfather, the said George Robertson. For two months in 1871 he worked in a lead work at 4s. a-week. In September 1871 the pauper, being then eleven years and four months old, and residing in family with his mother and her said husband, fell over the bannister of the stairs and received a compound fracture of the thigh bone. He spent six months in the Edinburgh Infirmary, and was then discharged, but being of a scrofulous constitution he never fully recovered from the effects of the injury. On leaving the Infirmary the pauper resided with his mother and the said George Robertson until the latter's death in November 1872, and thereafter with his mother till February 1873. In that month the grandmother (who then lived in Invergordon, in the parish of Rosskeen, but had come to see her daughter in Leith Walk on the death of the said George Robertson) returned to Rosskeen, taking the pauper with her, the doctor having urgently recommended that he should try country air. Immediately on their arrival in Rosskeen she applied on his behalf for parochial relief. The ‘Record of Applications’ of that parish bore that formal application was made by the pauper on 6th March 1873; that he had no occupation, and was wholly disabled; that the inspector, ordered his admission to the poor-house, and that the order was confirmed by the Parochial Board of Rosskeen on 26th April 1873. The grandmother, however, refused to allow the boy to enter the poorhouse, and with occasional charitable assistance she supported him in her house till 24th December 1874, when he was allowed outdoor relief, which was continued at the date of this case. Since the said accident the pauper had never worked for or supported himself, and had been unable to do so.

In these circumstances, Greig, the Inspector of New Deer, contended that the pauper, as an illegitimate minor pubes, was chargeable on the parish of Nigg, his birth-parish; and Ross, Inspector of Nigg, contended that the pauper, having always been unable to earn a livelihood, was still chargeable on the parish of New Deer, the derivative settlement of his mother.

Argued for Greig—It was settled by the whole Court in Craig v. Greig & Macdonald, 18th July 1873, 1 Macph. 1172, that the birth settlement of

Page: 347↓

a legitimate son, whose father was dead, revived on his reaching minority. When a child attains puberty all legal authority of the mother is at an end. Lawson v. Gunn, 22d Nov. 1876 ( supra p. 118) was the case of an adult imbecile retaining the birth-settlement of her father. We do not dispute the law of Hay v. Thomson, 6th Feb. 1856, 18 D. p. 510, that the settlement of an illegitimate pupil child is the settlement of the mother, however that may have been acquired; or of Carmichael v. Adamson, 28th Feb. 1863, 1 Macph. 452, where a legitimate pupil child was held to be chargeable on the parish of the mother's birth, the husband, who had no settlement, having deserted.

Argued for Ross—The Case of Craig shows that puberty without emancipation is not sufficient to destroy the derivative settlement of a legitimate child (Lord Ormidale's opinion). The cases of a widowed mother and of the mother of a bastard are also put by Lord Deas. In Fraser v. Robertson, 5th June 1867, 5 Macph. 819, Lord Cowan held that a daughter aged 23, supported by her father, had her father's residential settlement. In M'Lennan v. Waite, 28th June 1872, 10 Macph. 908, Lord Kinloch said that after a father's death a mother may acquire a residential settlement for herself and the children residing with her, which they retain after pupillarity and till they leave the family. See also Lord Deas' opinion in Ferrier v. Kennedy, 8th Feb. 1873, 11 Macph. 402. In the Lasswade case, 6th March 1844, 6 D. 956, Lord Moncreiff laid it down as a fixed rule that an illegitimate child follows the settlement of its mother. See also Hay, ubi supra, pp. 530–534; Gibson v. Murray, 10th June 1854, 16 D. 926; Hopkins v. Ironside § Wallace, 27th January 1865, 3 Macph. 424; Walker v. Russell, 24th June 1870, 8 Macph. 893. Here the pauper was totally helpless, and was in the same position as an imbecile.

At advising—