Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an application for admission to the poor's roll presented on behalf of Alexander Macaskill, joiner, Port William, with a view to enabling him to bring an action against Macleod of Macleod, and John Macaskill, Kilmuir, Skye, the applicant's brother.

The proposed action was for reduction of a lease bearing to be dated 31st January 1885, granted by Macleod of Macleod in favour of the applicant's father Ewen Macaskill, and for declarator that the applicant was tenant of the subjects leased, for decree of removing against John Macaskill, for an accounting against him, and for damages.

On 14th May the application was remitted to the reporters on probabilis causa litigandi, who on 4th June reported that counsel for the parties admitted that the applicant was earning 31s. 6d. a-week, and that out of this he had to support his wife and two children, and to pay £16 of rent for a house, and with the exception of his household furniture he had no other property, and that on the merits, in their opinion, the applicant had a probabilis causa litigandi.

Counsel for the applicant moved for admission.

Counsel for Macleod of Macleod objected, and argued—No applicant earning as much as 31s. per week and with only two children to support had ever been admitted to the poor's roll. The strongest case for the applicant was Paterson v. Linlithgow Police Commissioners, July 4, 1888, 15 R. 826; he had a wife and four children dependent on him, and the proposed action was for damages for personal injury, whereas this was for reduction of a lease granted in favour of the applicant's own father, which had been allowed to stand unchallenged since 1885. In that case it was also to be noted that Lord Rutherfurd Clark dissented. In the case of Robertson, July 8, 1880, 7 R. 1092, it was laid down per L.P. Inglis that in ordinary circumstances a man earning 23s. a-week is not entitled to admission. In Stevens v. Stevens, January 23, 1885, 12 R. 548, the applicant's nett income was only £53 per annum.

Argued for the applicant—It was conceded that no applicant earning more than 27s. per week had ever been admitted, but on the principle laid down by Lord Young in Stevens v. Stevens, cit., at p. 549; and in Anderson v. Blackwood, July 11, 1885, 12 R. 1263, at p. 1264, which was that the criterion must be whether a man can pay for counsel and agents in the Court of Session—a man with 31s. 6d. a-week was entitled to admission. In the latter case the applicant, though only earning 15s. a-week himself, had a son living with him who earned £1 per week. In Wright v. Kerr, February 27, 1890, 17 R. 516, where the applicant could earn 30s. a week, the Court refused the application, not in respect of the applicant's high wages, but on the ground that the action should have been brought in the Small Debt Court. See per the Lord Justice-Clerk at p. 517.