Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The pursuer reclaimed, and argued—The facts must be carefully looked at. This pauper had no settlement, but she had received relief for three months from the City Parish of Glasgow. A pauper becoming chargeable to one parish, and being on the roll of that parish, does not while continuing to be a person requiring parochial relief relieve that parish of liability by going to another. The necessity of relief continuing the liability to relieve continues. The power of the pauper voluntarily to change the relieving parish was expressly reserved by Lord President M'Neill in Taylor v. Strachan and Brown, November 8, 1864, 3 Macph. 34. Here the pauper did not wish to change the liability. She went to Pitlochry under the impression that Glasgow would continue to relieve her— M'Caig v. Sinclair, March 4, 1887, 14 R. 539.

Counsel for the defender were not called upon.

At advising—

Lord Justice-Clerk—If a pauper having no settlement in Scotland obtains relief in any parish, and thereafter voluntarily leaves that parish and goes to another, the parish he has left is not liable for further support to him unless the pauper returns to it in the same destitute circumstances.

In this case there is no doubt upon the evidence that the pauper left Glasgow voluntarily with the intention of residing near her sister in Moulin, and in the hope of getting some work there. When she came to Pitlochry, in that parish, she required parochial relief, and she is still in receipt of relief. That is quite a different case from that of a pauper who leaves the parish in which he has been relieved, not of his own wish, but because he has been induced to do so by the parochial authorities who desire to get rid of him, and so to free their parish of the burden of his support. If a case of that sort were satisfactorily proved, so that it were made to appear that the cause of the pauper's leaving the parish was the inducement or trick of the inspector of poor, a different result might follow from that which I have indicated, but such a case not being proved here, I see no ground for interfering with the judgment of the Lord Ordinary.

Lord Young—I am of the same opinion, and I regret that this litigation should ever have taken place. I can quite understand the inspector at Pitlochry having some feeling of irritation if he was under the impression that the parochial authorities in Glasgow had induced the pauper to leave their parish, which was granting relief, and go to his, But if that impression ever existed, I cannot say, looking to the evidence before us, that it was well founded in fact.

This case is special, as every case of a person found destitute in a parish and having no settlement must necessarily be. She was found destitute in Glasgow, in consequence of the death of her husband, leaving her with two young children and expecting a third, and received an allowance of 3s. a-week, increased to 5s. upon her confinement. There was plainly destitution, but it was presumably temporary until she was strong enough to earn something for herself. She was absolutely entitled to remove to another parish, and nothing could be more natural than that she should remove to where her sister was. According to her evidence, which I in no way impugn, she was anxious to know whether her allowance would be continued from Glasgow. She seems to have preferred getting help from there rather than from Pitlochry parish, although it does not occur to me why she should wish the Glasgow ratepayers to pay for her support rather than those of Pitlochry. She removed under the erroneous impression that the allowance would be continued, but I cannot read clause 70 of the Poor Law Act as obliging the pauper to remain in the relieving parish, or obliging the relieving parish to continue relief after the pauper leaves. A destitute person not only has an absolute right to remove, as the Lord Ordinary has found, but is entitled to apply to the parochial authorities of the new parish and to get relief. The fact that the first few shillings here were given to the pauper by Glasgow did not put Glasgow under the obligation of sending relief after her. She had ceased to be any longer a destitute person in that parish. If the Pitlochry authorities had said to her, “You are wrong in thinking Glasgow will support you here; you had better return to Glasgow,” and she had gone, Pitlochry would still have had to give her relief while there, but Glasgow would have had to renew her allowance upon her return. But she was quite entitled to refuse to comply with their suggestion, and to insist upon staying where she was.

Lord Rutherfurd Clark concurred.

Lord Lee—I come to the same conclusion. The case touches certain questions of general importance.

The first of them is as to the case of a pauper leaving a parish in which he is getting relief as an admitted pauper, and going to another in consequence of some inducement held out to him by the officials of the parish from which he has been getting relief. I do not doubt that that is a matter of importance, and that an allegation to that effect must be carefully investigated. But this Court will not validly interfere with the administration of the poor law, or readily assume that an inspector who has no interest in the matter of a personal nature, and who is amenable for his conduct to a statutory board, would endeavour by a trick to affect the question of liability. But if there were clear proof of misconduct on his part in getting the pauper to leave his parish and go to another that his own might escape liability, I have no doubt of the materiality of that fact in the question whether the charge-ability to such parish is altered. I only say that there is no satisfactory proof of that fact here.

Page: 223↓