Scottish Court of Session Decisions

At advising—

Lord Justice-Clerk—This is a short matter, and I think simple in its result. The father lives with his lunatic daughter and wife, and receives wages to the amount of £27 a-year and an allowance from his master; and further, as has been proved in the case, is capable of supporting himself. At the date of his wife's application for relief he was on the eve of acquiring a residential settlement in the parish of Hoddam, and then for the first time, and under no change of circumstance, the parochial board of Hoddam, at the request of the mother, gave him an allowance of £8 a-year, which brings the father's income to £35 a-year. How far that is a proper allowance is a question which I think the parochial board could best judge, but the peculiarity of this case is that the effect of this payment, if the argument on the general legal question is correct, is to lay the burden of bearing the charge on Carlaverock, the birth settlement of the pauper. Now, I do not think that under the circumstances it was sufficiently proved that the father was a proper object of parochial relief in respect of his imbecile daughter, and it seems to me that the parochial board have not properly applied their minds to the question. I am very far from saying that there could have been any design on the part of Hoddam to increase the burden on Carlaverock, but if we find—what is perfectly consistent with the proof in the case—viz., that it is not sufficiently established that the father was incapable of supporting his lunatic daughter, and that therefore he was not a proper object of relief, the burden will fall on Hoddam, who made the advances under such circumstances. On the second point there is no question. The settlement of the lunatic was beyond doubt in the parish of Hoddam, if the father had acquired a settlement at Hoddam. The case of Mane v. Henderson is conclusive on the point. According to the authority of that case, Hoddam is the settlement against which the relief is to be charged, and there is no necessity to go to her former settlement. There were some conflicting decisions on the matter before this case, which was meant to fix once and for all the rule. However, I propose, without going further into this point, to simply find that it has not been properly established that the father here was at the date of the relief a proper object of parochial relief.

Lord Young—I am of the same opinion. James Hunter is certainly not a pauper. He resides industrially now in the parish of Hoddam, and has been industrially resident there as an able-bodied man since Whitsunday 1874. Now, it may certainly be, according to authority, that he is entitled to some assistance in respect of his daughter's sad state, and if he is now or was at any other time since Whitsunday 1879, then Hoddam is the parish to give the assistance. We find that he is not a pauper, and at Whitsunday 1879 he resided at Hoddam industrially for five years, and for two years more; and therefore if he is entitled to assistance, Hoddam is the parish which will be liable. But then a few months before Whitsunday 1879 the parish of Hoddam advanced about £8 a-year, and it is said for them that for this assistance Carlaverock is liable, because five years of industrial residence had not been completed at January 1879, and certainly this might raise some question for the period elapsing between January and Whitsunday. Surely it is almost foolish to raise a question of this kind. Moreover, I agree with your Lordship in holding that it is not proved that in January 1879 any change had occurred in the father's circumstances. On the contrary, he was better off than before, his wages having been raised, and thus nothing in the evidence to show that he had any claim to this exceptional assistance. It may be that we should not have interfered in any way with the Parochial Board of Hoddam, but when they make advances under such circumstances as have occurred, and then appeal to the parish of Carlaverock, I am not satisfied on the evidence that such an appeal was in the circumstances justified. This, however, is not of paramount importance, because in accordance with the case of Mane, whenever assistance is given to a man who is not a pauper in respect of the mental condition of one of his family, the burden of such assistance is to be borne by the parish of settlement at the time, and therefore the defender's counsel in argument conceded that any such exceptional assistance given before a residential settlement had been acquired at Hoddam would have to be borne by Carlaverock, while any given after the five years' residence at Hoddam would, in accordance with the decision of Mane, have to be borne by the parish in which the father was so industrially resident.

Lord Craighill—I concur in your Lordships' conclusions and reasons for such conclusions.