Scottish Court of Session Decisions

By his holograph last will and testament Donald Paterson, farmer, Dunnet, inter alia, bequeathed “in the first place the sum of One thousand pounds to the inhabitants of Ratter, Scarfskerry, and the Burn of Ratter—the said money to be invested, and the yearly proceeds or interest to be

Page: 385↓

given to the poor or needful in the above district.”

The testator further provided that three directors be chosen by the householders in the district, and that “this be called the Paterson Bequest; that it be amongst themselves, independent of any other outside relief, and that it be continued with them as long as grass grows and water runs.” The testator appointed two trustees to realise and divide his estate.

This special case was presented by (1) Paterson's testamentary trustees, (2) the directors chosen to administer the “Paterson Bequest,” and (3) three inhabitants and ratepayers in the district, to determine the following question in law, among several others—“4. Whether the annual proceeds of said bequest fall to be applied exclusively for behoof of persons entitled to parochial relief, or may be applied for behoof of poor and needful persons whether in receipt of or entitled to such relief or otherwise?”

The second parties maintained that the objects of the bequest might be selected both from needful persons in receipt of or entitled to parochial relief and from those who were not so. They referred to Liddle v. Kirk-Session of Bathgate July 14, 1854, 16 D. 1075, and Presbytery of Deer v. Bruce, January 20, 1865, 3 Macph. 402.

The third parties contended that the bequest was for behoof solely of persons entitled to parochial relief, and referred to the opinion of Lord Rutherfurd in Liddle, ut sup., p. 1082, to the effect that “the poor” must generally be understood in the legal sense.