Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Fairbairn (Clerk of Galashiels School Board) v. Sanderson (Inspector of Poor for Galashiels) [1885] ScotLR 23_56 (27 October 1885)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/23SLR0056.html
Cite as: [1885] ScotLR 23_56, [1885] SLR 23_56
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 56↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
A Sheriff having ordained a parochial board to pay the school fees of certain children in respect of whom the school board had made application for such payment, the parochial board took a Case for the opinion of the Court on the question whether in the circumstances they were bound to pay the fees. The Court dismissed the Case as not truly involving a question of law.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. cap. 75), sec. 22, provides that “If a parent is unable from poverty to pay for the elementary education … of his children between five and thirteen years of age, and if upon application the parochial board of the parish or burgh in which he resides refuses to pay out of the poor fund the ordinary and reasonable fees of such children, it shall be the duty of the School Board to apply to the Sheriff, who, after inquiry, may, if he shall think fit, grant an order on such parochial board to pay the said fees.”…
The School Board of Galashiels applied to the Parochial Board of Galashiels under sec. 22 of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1878, as amended by sec. 5 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1883, to pay out of the poor funds fees for the elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic of Charles Graham and Henry Graham, the children of and residing with Mrs Margaret Graham, 266 Gala Park Road, Galashiels.
The Parochial Board refused to pay, and the Sheriff-Substitute ( Spittal) after hearing parties ordained the Parochial Board to pay the fees.
The Parochial Board thereupon asked a Case for the opinion of the Court, which Case was stated by the Sheriff.
The facts of the case were—“Mrs Graham, aged 32, was deserted by her husband, who is a sailor, several years ago, and since his desertion has received nothing from him for her support. She has three children, who live in family with her, viz., James Walter, aged fifteen, Charles, aged eight, and Henry aged six years. The eldest is an apprentice moulder, and earns 6s. per week, which he pays to his mother. The two younger boys are at school. Mrs Graham is a mill-worker. Her earnings since October 1883 gives a weekly average of 12s. 3d., and for the half-year ended 7th July current her earnings amounted to a weekly average of 15s. She pays a house rent of £6 per annum. She is also obliged to pay a neighbour 2s. per week for looking after the children while she is absent at her work during the day. The mother and the children are obliged to take their meals at different hours It was further admitted that the ordinary wages of a labourer when fully employed are from 18s. to 19s. a-week, but that after allowing for broken time the average weekly earnings do not exceed 15s. or 16s., out of which he pays poor and school rates as well as the school fees of any children he may have.”
The questions of law were—“(1st) Whether the earnings of the eldest boy, who lives in family with his mother, are in the present question to be taken into account as part of the income of the parent? and (2d) Whether, in the circumstances above set forth, the Parochial Board of the parish of Galashiels is bound to pay out of the poor funds the ordinary and reasonable fees for the elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic of the said Charles Graham and Henry Graham?”
Argued for the appellant—This was not a case for the interference of the Parochial Board. Mrs Graham was quite able to pay the necessary school fees. If a demand of this kind was admitted, innumerable applications would be received from those earning a similar wage.
Cases cited— Beattie v. Grozier, June 7, 1881, 8 R. 787; Ferrier v. New Monkland School Board, October 25, 1884, 9 R. 30; Education (Scotland) Act 1872; Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act 1875 (38 and 39 Vict. c. 62).
Counsel for the respondent were not called upon.
At advising—
The parties to the case are the Parochial Board and the School Board of Galashiels. Under the Education Act the School Board could apply to the Parochial Board to make payment of the school fees of those children whose parents are from poverty unable to pay, but if the Parochial Board refused to pay there was no procedure to compel them. By the Act of 1878 a provision was enacted enabling the parties to go before the Sheriff, but it was declared that his decision should be final. But the Education Act of 1883 altered, by its 14th section, the provisions of the Act of 1878, and provided therefor as follows—“Every prosecution for penalties. .. under this Act may take place before a court of summary jurisdiction (whose decision shall be final, but subject to the provisions of the Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act 1875) under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.”. .. Now, that refers us to the Act of 1875, which provides for appeals in summary prosecutions, and what it enacts is, by section 3—“On an inferior judge hearing and determining any cause, either party to the cause may, if dissatisfied with the judge's determination as erroneous in point of law, appeal thereagainst,”. .. and then follow a number of provisions as to the mode in which such appeals are to be stated, but it is always assumed that it is to be a question of law which is to be brought under review, and this appears very clearly from the terms of Schedule A annexed to the Act, which, after setting forth the form of the appeal, goes on to state, “The question of law for the opinion of the Court is.” This shows that it is a question of law, and nothing but a question of law, which can by this statute be brought under review. The questions of law which it was intended should be raised by these appeals were
Page: 57↓
The Court dismissed the case as one not involving a question of law.
Counsel for Parochial Board— Guthrie. Agents— Bruce & Ker, W.S.
Counsel for School Board— Asher, Q.C.— Dickson. Agent— T. Dalgleish, S.S.C.