BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Morris v Greig [1835] CA 13_1092 (10 July 1835)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS1092.html
Cite as: [1835] CA 13_1092

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Shaw_Court_of_Session

Page: 1092

Morris

v.

Greig
No. 339.

Court of Session

1st Division

July 10 1835

Robert Morris,     Petitioner.— Forman. Alexander Greig and Others,     Respondents.— Mackenzie.

Subject_Poors' Roll.—

1. Where a kirk-session obstinately refuse to take the declaration of an applicant for the poors' roll, in terms of the Act of Sederunt, and thereby occasion unusual delay and expense to the pauper, the Court will subject them in expenses to him. 2. Circumstances in which the Court did not award such expenses.

Robert Morris presented an application for the benefit of the poors' roll. Notwithstanding repeated orders by the Court, the kirk-session of Aberdour refused to take his declaration in terms of the Act of Sederunt, alleging, inter alia, that they thought him a vexatious litigant, without a well-founded action. The Court then “remitted to Alexander Greig, the session-clerk, to call a meeting of the elders, or any two of them, within four days after intimation hereof, to take Robert Morris's declaration in terms of the Act of Sederunt.” The minister, in respect of his bad health, was exempted from the order of Court. This interlocutor not having been obtempered, the Court granted letters of first and second diligence against Greig and two others of the session, who were brought to the bar. They were admonished by the Court in similar terms to the cases of Glass (March 7, 1833, ante XI. 543), and Smith (July 8, 1834, ante XII. 890). They apologized for their error, and agreed to take the declaration, upon which they were allowed to withdraw from the bar. Morris moved for expenses against them, so far as these had been incurred in serving on them his several applications to the Court for orders to take his declaration, and also for executing the diligence against them. The Court did not award the expenses. On the day following, Morris again moved the Court for expenses, and produced the following interlocutor, which had been pronounced under an application by Mary Ross, from whom the minister and kirk-session of North Berwick had for some time obstinately refused to take her declaration, but had afterwards taken it, on being ordained by the Court either to do so, or to assign their reasons for refusing.

“23d Jan. 1819.—The Lords having resumed consideration of this petition, and advised the same with the certificate by the minister and kirk-session of North Berwick, now produced, and heard the counsel for the parties, they sustain the certificate, appoint the original application for the poors' roll to be intimated upon the walls of the Inner and Outer House, and in the minute book, in common form, for eight days. Further, find the Rev. George Murray, minister, and Robert Bertram and David Blair, for themselves and as representing elders, the other members of the kirk-session of the parish of North Berwick, liable to the petitioner, Mary Ross, in payment of the sum of five pounds sterling of expenses, and decern for the same, and also for the dues of extract, and allow the decree for the expenses to be extracted.”

Morris moved the Court, under this precedent, to award expenses. But it was objected that the opposite parties, Greig and others, had received no notice of this new application and had left town, the whole question having been disposed of yesterday. The Court were understood to adopt this view, and to consider that they could not now go back upon the question of expenses; and the motion was therefore refused. But Lords Gillies and Mackenzie intimated, that, after the repeated admonitions which had been given to kirk-sessions on this subject, it would be necessary to visit them with expenses, wherever their wrongheadedness or obstinacy occasioned unusual trouble, delay, and expense, to a pauper litigant. The other Judges were understood to concur in this opinion.

Solicitors: J. Macknight, W.S.—Agent.

SS 13 SS 1092 1835


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS1092.html