Inspector of Poor of Kinglassie Parish v. Kirk-Session of Kinglassie

Subject_1 Poor Subject_2 disposition Subject_3 Kirk-Session Subject_4 Parochial Board—Poor Law Amendment Act, § 52. Facts: Held that a disposition of lands in 1726, in favour of the minister of the parish and three elders of the session “and their successors in office from time to time as minister and elders of the said kirk-session for the use and behoof of the poor of said parish, ” fell under the provision in the 52d section of the Poor Law.

The question in this case is whether a certain farm, purchased in 1726, belongs to the heritors and kirk-session, on behalf of the legal poor of the parish of Kinglassie, or is vested in the kirk-session exclusively, and for the purpose of distribution, according to their discretion, amongst the poor persons in the parish, whether possessing a legal right of relief or not.

The disposition itself has not been recovered, but its terms are shown by those of the instrument of swine which passed on it, and of a charter of confirmation afterwards granted by the superior. The disposition was in favour of the then minister, and certain elders specially named—“elders and members of the kirk-session of Kinglassie, and their successors in office, from time to time, as ministers and elders of the said kirk-session, for the use and behoof of the poor of the said parish.”

“In order to dispose of this demand, it appears to be necessary to ascertain whether or not the words, the poor of the parish, as used in the disposition of 1726, have the same meaning as that in which they are used in the statute 1846? If they have, the action is clearly well-founded. But if they have not—if the class of persons so designated in the disposition, according to the true meaning of the phrase as there used, are a different class of Page: 96 ↓

“The same remark applies to the inquiries, which both parties have entered into, as to the source from which the price was derived which was paid Page: 97 ↓