M'Innes v. Rigg and Bell

A woman who had previously acquired a residential settlement in a parish was on 15th August 1895, being a pauper and a lunatic, admitted upon a warrant of the Sheriff to the district asylum, which was outwith the parish. The parish maintained her until 2nd November 1895. From that date till 1st May 1906 she was maintained in the same asylum by her brother, her name being transferred from the list of pauper patients to that of private patients. After 1st May 1906 her brother ceased to support her.

Held ( diss . Lord Johnston) that she had not lost the residential settlement which she had on 15th August 1895, and that the parish of her residential settlement, and not the parish of her birth, was liable for her maintenance.

The pursuer, inter alia , pleaded—“(2) The pauper having a residential settlement in the parish of Kelton, the pursuer is entitled to decree as concluded for against the defender Samuel Rigg, as representing the Parish Council of that parish. (3) Alternatively, and assuming that such residential settlement has been lost by absence, the pursuer is entitled to decree against the defender James Bell, as representing the Parish Council of the parish of Parton, which is the parish of the pauper's birth settlement.”

The defender James Bell (parish of Parton), inter alia , pleaded—“(1) The pauper not having a parochial settlement in the parish of Parton, said parish of Parton is not liable in relief to the pursuer for the pauper's maintenance. (2) The pauper having Page: 765 ↓

Minutes were lodged for the parties, in which they renounced probation, the facts of the case not being in dispute, and in which the parish of Kelton and the parish of Parton admitted that one or other of them was liable.