Scottish Court of Session Decisions

William Leckie Graham Wright, designed as engineer, residing in Glasgow, made application for admission to the benefit of the poor's roll in the Court of Session to enable him to carry on an action of damages against the testamentary trustees of the deceased William Brown. Brown's trustees opposed the application, and the Court remitted to the reporters on the probabilis causa litigandi, who reported that it appeared that the applicant when in employment was engaged as an engineer on board sea-going vessels at an average wage of 18s. per week; that he was then unable to seek employment in consequence of the present application, which, in the applicant's opinion, required his own personal guidance and assistance, without which his interests would not be sufficiently secured during any absence from this country in his employment as a marine engineer; that the applicant stated that his present support was derived from private sources, from which he drew 5s. weekly; that they, having respect to the nature of the applicant's claim, considered that his personal superintendence of the intended proceedings would be, if not essential, at least very desirable to the furtherance of the applicant's interest, and that such personal superintendence was not compatible with the pursuit of his calling as a marine engineer.

A certificate of poverty procured by the applicant from the minister and elders of the parish of Kinning Park, Glasgow, bore that the applicant stated to them that he was forty-five years of age; that he had eight of a family living, four being married, and the other four living in family with him, aged respectively, seventeen, fourteen, ten, and nine years.

Argued for the objectors—The applicant had stated to the reporters that he could earn £3 a-week while at sea, and 18s. if he lived on shore; and they had taken no notice of this in their report. There was no precedent for admitting a litigant to the poor's roll who was not admissible on the ground of poverty merely because his occupation prevented him giving personal attention to his case.

Replied for the applicant—The applicant might have stated to the reporters that he had on exceptional voyages earned more than 18s., but they had after inquiry reported that sum as his usual earnings, and the Court must take it on their report. In Stevens v. Stevens, January 23, 1885, 12 R. 548, the Court had found a man, who had a salary of £1 a-week, entitled to the benefit of the poor's roll, to enable him to carry on an action in the Court of Session. The circumstances of the applicant's case were more favourable for the application, in respect that his earnings were less than those of Stevens, and that the applicant, in order to gain them, would have to withdraw himself from the personal superintendence of his case.

At advising—