Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Wright v. Kerr [1890] ScotLR 27_408 (22 February 1890)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1890/27SLR0408.html
Cite as: [1890] SLR 27_408, [1890] ScotLR 27_408

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 408↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Saturday, February 22. 1890.

27 SLR 408

Wright

v.

Kerr.

Subject_1Poor's Roll
Subject_2Admission Refused where Action should have been brought in Small Debt Court.

Facts:

With a view to the reduction of a certain trust-disposition and settlement, a person obtained a precognition from one of the trustees, and deeming the statements therein to be slanderous, he applied for admission to the poor's roll in order to raise an action for damages. Held that the action should have been brought in the Small Debt Court and the application refused.

Headnote:

In 1886 the pursuer Wright wished to reduce the trust-disposition and settlement of the late James M'Ewan. The agents for the pursuer wrote to a Mr Kerr, one of the trustees under that trust-disposition and settlement, asking for a precognition, which was given. Wright considered that some of the statements made in the precognition were slanderous. He accordingly presented a petition to the Second Division for admission to the poor's roll. He stated that he was married and had seven children, none of whom however were dependent upon him. His wife did not live with him and it did not appear that he paid her aliment. He was a working engineer and could earn 30s. a-week, and could obtain employment at any time. He left his occupation about three months ago in order to superintend this case.

Cases cited— Patersonv. Linlithgow Police Commissioners, July 4, 1888, 15 R. 826; Peter Robertson, Applicant, July 8, 1880, 7 R. 1092; Stevens v. Stevens, January 23, 1885, 12 R. 548.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord Justice-Clerk—This is the case of a person seeking admission to the poor's roll who is earning fair wages and who has no serious burden upon him in the shape of persons whom he is bound to maintain. He has raised an action for damages for a slander, alleged to have been uttered upon a precognition of the trustee taken at his own desire. I think the case is a hopeless one, but what I proceed upon is the fact that there is no reason why the action should have been brought in this Court. It might quite well have been brought in the Small Debt Court, which is the only Court I think he would have had a chance of recovering anything if he has a case at all. I think that we should not remit this case to the reporter on the probabilis causa litigandi.

Lord Rutherfurd Clark and Lord Lee concurred.

The Court pronounced this judgment:—

“The Lords having heard counsel for the parties on the note for the applicant W. L. Wright, craving a remit to the lawyers and agents for the poor to report on his application for admission to the benefit of the poor's roll, Refuse the note.”

Counsel:

Counsel for Applicant— Cosens.

Counsel for the Respondent— Guthrie. Agents— Dalmahoy & Cowan, W.S.
1890

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