Page: 38↓
Held that an illegitimate pupil child has a derivative settlement in the parish where its mother has acquired a residential settlement, and that this settlement is not lost by the child on attaining the age of puberty, but continues until lost by non-residence, under section 76 of the Poor Law Act 1845.
This was a special case presented by (1) Andrew Wallace, Inspector of Poor for the Parochial Board of the Govan Combination, and (2) David Caldwell, Inspector of Poor for the Parochial Board of the Parish of Ayr.
The statements made in the case were as follows:—“Alexander Sandilands was born in the parish of ayr on 8th September 1874, and owing to debility became chargeable as a pauper to Govan Combination on 13th april 1893. He is still an inmate of the Govan Poorhouse. (2) The Pauper Is The Illegitimate Son Of Jessie Sandilands And John Owens, Baker, Whose Residence Is Unknown. After His Birth His Mother Was Married
Page: 39↓
three Times, But Not To The Pauper's Father. Her Last Husband Died In January 1880. Since The Death Of Her Last Husband She Has Resided Continuously In The Parish Of Govan Combination, And The Pauper Resided With Her Till He Reached The Age Of Puberty On 8th September 1888. She Had Then A Residential Settlement In That Parish, Acquired During Viduity. (3) The Pauper After Arriving At Puberty Was Employed In Several Situations, And Continued To Reside With His Mother In Govan Till He Became Chargeable, With The Exception Of Five Periods Which He Passed In Prison, The Longest Being Six Months For Theft.” The parties submitted the following question for the opinion of the Court:— “Whether the parochial settlement of the pauper Alexander Sandilands at the date of chargeability was in Ayr, the parish of his birth, or in Govan Combination, the parish in which his mother had a residential settlement at the date of his reaching puberty, and in which he continued to reside down to the date of his charge—ability?”
The first party argued—A legitimate child took its own birth settlement upon its father's death— Craig v. Greig and Macdonald, July 18, 1863, 1 Macph. 1172. In like manner a bastard child tooks its own birth settlement on attaining puberty— Greig v. Ross, February 10, 1877, 4 R. 465. In the case of a bastard child there was no reason why it should follow its mother's settlement after puberty. It was a filius nullius, and in the eye of the law no relationship existed between it and its mother— Gray v. Carphin Coal Company, July 27, 1891, 18 R. (H. of L.) 63. Prior to puberty no doubt a bastard child followed its mother's settlement, but the reason of that was that the mother and not the child was the pauper.
Argued for the second party—A legitimate pupil child had a derivative settlement in the parish where his father had acquired a residential settlement, and this settlement was not lost when the child attained puberty, but could only be lost by nonresidence— Inspector of Poor of St Cuthberts v. Inspector of Poor of Cramond, November 12, 1873, 1 R. 174; Hume v. Pringle, December 22, 1849, 12 D. 411; Allan v. Higgins and Others, December 23, 1864, 3 Macph. 309. In the case of an illegitimate child the same rules applied, only that the parish of the mother was substituted for that of the father— Heritors and Kirk-Session of Lassuade v. Heritors and Kirk-Session of Newlands, March 6, 1844, 6 D. 956. The mother's settlement was the settlement of the child, because she was liable for its support. That liability continued after puberty. A mother might even in certain cases give a settlement to legitimate children — Heritors and Kirk—Session of Crieff v. Heritors and Kirk—Session of Fowlis, July 19, 1842, 4 D. 1539; Gibson v. Murray, June 10, 1854, 16 D. 926, The case of Gray v. Carphin Coal Company had no application to the poor law. The only case which seemed to support the first party's contention was Greig v. Ross, but it appeared from the report of that case in the Scottish Law Reporter (14 S. L. R. 346) that the question was whether the bastard child after puberty retained a settlement in the birth parish of its mother's husband, which, being its mother's settlement, had been its settlement during pupillarity. That was not an authority where the question was as to the retention or loss of a derivative residential settlement— St Cuthbert's case supra.
At advising—
As Alexander Sandilands was an illegitimate child, his mother's settlement was his settlement; and he had that settlement, and was liable to lose it, on the same conditions as if he had been legitimate, and had therefore taken his father's settlement. Now, as already mentioned, the mother's settlement was an industrial settlement, and the conditions under which an industrial settlement is retained or lost are those stated in the 76th section of the Poor Law Act 1845. Those conditions regulate the retention and loss of an industrial settlement as regards the child who derives it, as well as the parent who acquires it.
That this is the law, and that the conditions under which the birth settlement of a parent is lost by a child on its attaining puberty, do not apply to an industrial settlement, is shown by the case of St Cuthbert's, 1 R. 174, which in my judgment is decisive of the present question.
I am therefore for finding that the settlement was in Govan.
The Court found that the pauper's settlement was in Govan.
Counsel for the First Party — Deas. Agents— Gill & Pringle, W.S.
Counsel for the Second Party— George Watt. Agent— John Macmillan, S.S.C.