Dundee Society in the 19th Century

19th Century - The Sheriff Court and Dealings
Regarding the Poor.

From the Poor Law Magazine for Scotland 1838 to 1868

Page 1

Mr Sheriff Logan

The Inspector of Poor, Dundee, Pursuer
The Inspector of Poor, Barry Defender.
The Inspector of Poor, Arbirlot, Defender

Idiocy - Forisfamiliation, In the case of a young man, a pauper, who, from congenital idiocy, was incapable of Forisfamiliation, and to whom no residential settlement was open; Held in a competition between the parish of his own, and his parish of his father’s birth, that his legal parochial settlement was in the latter parish.
During the discussion of the case, it was conceded on all hands that there was no precedent, on what is technically styled all fours, to rule the different questions agitated in this case; therefore, it was necessary to resort to principals. In these circumstances the more satisfactory way will be to give the conclusions of the summons entire, as well as the words of defences. These cases of parish relief and their various phases come now to affect so materially the social well-being that time and attention are well bestowed on a report of them the summons as follows: -
Therefore the defenders, or one of them, ought to be decerned to pay to the pursuer the sum of 34 sterling, being the amount advanced and paid on the 18th July 1856, by the pursuer on behalf of the Parochial Board of the Parish of Dundee to the Governors of Directors of the Dundee Lunatic Asylum to and for the support and custody of Stewart Ritchie, aged about nineteen years, of thereby, son of David Ritchie, farm servant, and at present residing at Maryfield, near Dundee, in the Parish of Dundee, the said Stewart Ritchie being insane of fatuous, and having become chargeable on the said Parochial Board of Dundee, and being an object of parochial relief; and the said David Ritchie his father being unable to ailment and support, and defray the necessary expenses requisite for the said Stewart Ritchie in his unfortunate condition, and whereby the said parities in respect of the state and condition of the said Stewart Ritchie have become entitled to the parochial relief on the premises, neither the said Stewart Ritchie, nor the said David Ritchie have a legal settlement in the parish of Dundee, and the said Parochial Board of Dundee is not liable in the ailment or support of said parties; the said Stewart Ritchie was born if the said parish of Barry; and the said David Ritchie his father, was born in the said parish of Arbirlot, and the defenders, or one or other of them, are so liable in respect of the said David Ritchie having a settlement therein, and the defenders, or one or either of them, are liable and bound to repay to the pursuer the foresaid sum advanced by him as aforesaid, and to relieve the pursuers and the said Parish and parochial Board of Dundee of the ailment and support of the said Stewart Ritchie in time coming. The Defender, the Inspector of Barry, declined to relieve the pursuer, on the ground that the parish settlement of the father David Ritchie, is liable, while the defender, The Inspector of Arbirlot, declined to relieve the pursuer, on the ground that the parish birth of the said David Ritchie is liable; and in this way the pursuer is unable to get relief, and has been obliged to raise action against the defenders, having intimated to them both his claims of relief, and that failing him being paid and relieved, the present action would be brought against both. Item; the defenders, or one of them, should be found liable in expenses, and including the expenses which may be incurred by one defender against the other in determining their respective liabilities.

The defence of the parish of Barry was expressed as follows: -
The defender denies that the parish of Barry is liable for the sums pursued for or is liable to ailment or provide for Stewart Ritchie mentioned in the summons.
David Ritchie, the father of the said Stewart Ritchie, was born in the parish of Arbirlot. He thereafter resided in the parish of Barry for about sixteen years, -viz., from Whitsunday1833, to Whitsunday, 1849, and during this residence his son, Stewart Ritchie was born in the parish of Barry about 1st December 1834.
The said David Ritchie did not reside did not reside after Whit-Sunday, 1849, and has not resided for five years in any parish since he left Barry.
The said Stewart Ritchie has been from his birth and still is insane, or weak of mind and imbecile, has been always a fir object for parochial relief.
Although he is now about twenty-one years of age, he has never been able to provide for himself, but has all his life been in a state of childish helplessness and a member of his father’s family.
In these circumstances the defender pleads -
1st. That being insane and imbecile from his birth and incapable of providing for himself, and all his life an object for parochial relief, the said Stewart Ritchie has never and cannot become emancipated or forisfamilated, but he remained and still remains a member of his father’s family, and as such chargeable to the parish of his father’s birth, his father having lost his settlement by residence in the parish of Barry.
2nd That the parish of Arbirlot, the place of the father’s birth, and not the parish of Barry is liable; and the defender is entitled to absolvitor with expenses. (See Adamson v. Barbour, House of Lords, 30th May 1853; Jurist, vol., p. 419.)

The defence of the parish of Arbirlot was -
The defender admits that David Ritchie, the pauper’s father, was born in the parish of Arbirlot. That the said Stewart Ritchie the pauper was born in the parish of Barry on or about 1st December, 1834. He is now nearly twenty-one years of age. The lunatic, after removing from Barry, went with his parents to reside in the parish of Monifieth.
He afterwards removed to the parish of Dundee, where he has ever since been in a in a state of forismiliation or emancipation. The defender does not admit that the pauper has been a lunatic from infancy, but it is admitted that he bows in that state. The defender further admits that David Ritchie, the lunatic’s father, is not able to support his son.
In these circumstances the defender pleads -
1st that if the lunatic pauper has been in a state of insanity from infancy, the parish of Barry being the parish of his birth is liable for his maintenance as a pauper.
2nd That if the pauper was not insane from infancy, and being above twenty-one years of age when he was sent to the asylum, he was at the date of his confinement as a lunatic emancipated of forismiliated, and, therefore the parish of his birth, or the parish in which he may have acquired a residential settlement, if each has been acquired, is liable for his maintenance as a pauper, and not the parish of his father’s birth.
3rd The pauper being an adult before requiring of getting parochial relief, whether sane or insane, the parish of his father’s birth is relieved from the liability of his support.
4th Under any view of the case the Parochial Board of Arbirlot is not liable for the eminence of the said Stewart Ritchie and therefore fails to be nasalized with expenses.
The record was closed on the summons and the above defences.
There was an interlocutor allowing a proof to the parish of Arbirlot of certain points specified in the interlocutor, and to the parish of Barry a conjunct probation; and the case was tried by the Sheriff himself.

There is a point of proof in the case not undeserving of remark. By the Law of Scotland, a certain course is pointed out. Perhaps a better way of illustrating the matter will be referring to the well-known case of Yoolow, tried by jury at Coupar Angus in January, 1857, reported by Ludovic Colquhoun, Esq., Advocate-Brieve, inquest, and verdict are machinery employed. The present Lord President of the Court of Session acted as council for Yoolow and carried him safely through the trying ordeal. Whether it is legal or safe to have a person branded with certain defects, except under such safeguards as the law selects and permits, is a question open for discussion. In Yoopow’s case a medical man pointed out an infallible sign of his fatuity by saying that he could not answer these questions -” How many shillings are in ten shillings “and “How many shillings are in five shillings?” The record then bears “And he did not know how many? He did not. Then he knew that ten shillings was half a pound, but did not know that ten shillings was ten shillings; was it so? Yes. You may take time to answer the question I am now going to put - If £1200 is laid out at interest, and yields £20 of interest yearly, how much is that per cent by the year I am now going to put - If £1200 is laid out at interest and yields £20 of interest yearly, how much is that per cent by the year. I am not able to calculate that without pen and ink, not being conversant with such matters. If you had the use of pen and ink, could you calculate it? --there are pen and ink, take them. I cannot say that I could calculate it with the use of pen and ink.”
The poor boy, in the present case, when an infant, had, by his father’s testimony, “his tongue cut three times to make him speak,” which operations of course would, in after life, necessarily affect his articulation in a great degree. When, therefore, two medical men, adduced by the parish of Barry, mentioned he articulated, simple words clearly, but longer and less common words with difficultly--- for instance “terrible”- the reason was oblivious. Those two medical men concurred in the disease of the mind being “congenital idiocy” which is not the disease averred in the record. One of them said “my opinion that the case congenital was formed from what I learned from his father and mother” which being read over the other, he concurred. These following questions were put to the father of the boy but the agent for the parish of Arbirlot, and answered as follows, as to his receiving parochial relief from Dundee parish; -- “You never got any parochial relief for yourself?“, No, never. And your son never got parochial aid until removed to the asylum? No. When was he removed there? In June or July 1856. Was he removed at the instance of the Fiscal. He was removed by the Parochial Board” Besides the calamity of the tongue, an ailment at sight, assuming the form of a diabetes, troubled the boy; yet William Keiller, one of the witnesses, who kept shop where article were sold mentions that the boy came there messages - was then twelve of fourteen years of age--”he handed me money sometimes for tea and sugar - he told his errand distinctly , quite correctly--he spoke in a weak manner” Another witness, Mr Sturrock, farmer, speaks of the boy working at his farm, “gathering stones, spreading dung, hoeing potatoes, and such like--he could not hoe turnips, I tried him two or three times. He managed a canny horse on the roller, and yoked an unyoked the horse himself was backwards and forwards with me about fifteen months with the exception of some bad days he did not come forward. I paid him a shilling a day regularly, and in the spring time and harvest I raised his wages to fourteen pence,” Another witness William Symers, speaks of his ability to yoke and yoke horses and cart, “quite well” and he worked at ora jobs. In cross-examination -” It was not my opinion he could be employed as a herd or farm servant”

Thomas Kidd, farmer, mentioned that he paid the eight pence or ten pence per day - never got the length of a shilling - he assisted in waiting on the cows, lifting straw, hoeing turnips - he sometimes, not often, drove carts.
There was a concurrence of testimony as to a certain silliness in the boy’s appearance (just as there were a number of witnesses who spoke to silliness of Yoolow’s appearance), and the parochial schoolmaster of Barry spoke I the most general way of him not making progress in learning with him.
At the debate, the agent for the parish of Arbirlot set out my maintaining that those case presented a specialty, which was this, that the young man had earned in part or in whole his subsistence - that he lived in Barry until Fifteen years of age, working - and must be held to be emancipated, throwing the burden on the parish of his parish. Dunlop on the Poor law (last edition) p. 45, sec. 51. Was referred to, along with the cases there mentioned, particularly the case of Harrington, 1938. Further, that he lost his settlement through his father, by becoming an independent member of the family; and the agent went on to show how it must necessarily follow that the boy could be emancipated even supposing him weak of mind. “He cannot acquire a residence of his own until emancipation. Very well, if a person with a weak intellect can acquire a residential settlement - it is impossible to avoid this conclusion. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent this young man being emancipated. The question whether he is or not. To show this I refer to the evidence. No doubt it is true that he lived with his parents all his life, but this does not prevent emancipation. Erskine, Vol.1, p 157, cited on the point. There were also cited these cases - Thomson, 19th July, 1850, Thomson. 15th February, 1851; Barbour, 2nd July, 1851; Adamson b. Barbour, 30th May 1853; --House of Lords, Jurist, vol.23.p.419; and the recent case of Hay.28th January 1857. In this latter case special notice was taken of the Lord president’s opinion, and that of Lord Ivory, which was read; and it was urged, as the lad was twenty-one and completely beyond control of his father while located in the asylum that these circumstances, coupled with the rest. Threw the burden on the parish of the lad’s birth.

The agent for Barry parish contended that the pauper could not have recourse on the parish of his birth, and that his settlement was by parentage, citing Dunlop,p.60,sec. 81- by weakness of mind was never able to shake off the derivative settlement by parentage, and reference was made to the pleas in law for the birth parish of Barry on that subject--that there was a complete failure to show that lad was either forisfamilated or emancipated, and that it was impossible that such things could never happen in his unfortunate state, citing Dunlop,p.45, section 61. And that position of the case was distinctly the opinions of the Lords Murray & Cunningham, contained in the report of Thomson’s case, 20th July, 1850, already noticed. Those opinions were read at length.
The sheriff (Logan) pronounced the following interlocutor and note: -
Edinburgh, 3rd November 1857, - The Sheriff having heard party’s procurators on the proof, having made avizandum with the debate, and having considered the closed record and whole process. Finds it admitted by the defenders (the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Barry and the Inspector of Poor for Arbirlot) that the pursuer (the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Dundee) is entitled to degree in terms of the concussions of the summons; and that in respect that, Whilst the pauper, Stewart Ritchie, has no settlement in the parish of Dundee, he has a settlement either in the Parish Of Barry or in the parish of Arbirlot; Finds that each of the two parishes last named maintains that the settlement of the pauper lies not with itself, but with the other parish; Barry maintaining that Arbirlot is liable, in being the place of birth of the pauper’s father; Arbirlot, on the other hand, maintaining that Barry is liable, in being the place of the birth of the pauper himself; Finds that David Ritchie , the father of the pauper, was born in the parish of Arbirlot; that thereafter he resided in the parish of Barry from Whitsunday, 1833 until Whitsunday, 1849; and that at Whitsunday of that year he removed from the parish of Barry to the parish of Monifieth, in which he resided until 1853, when he removed to the parish of Dundee, wherein he still is; Finds that the pauper was born in the parish of Barry, in the month of December 1834; Finds that both during pupillarity and after attaining the age of puberty, he lived with his father, first in the parish of Barry, thereafter in the parish of Monifieth, and that in the month of July, 1856, he, being then resident in the parish of Dundee, was recognised as an object of parochial relief by being admitted, as a pauper lunatic, into the Dundee Asylum: Finds that the pauper has from birth been of weak and defective intellect, in consequence of congenital idiocy, and that, though at one time capable of occasionally doing some of the more ordinary kinds of farm work for which he received renumeration, he was at no time able to earn nearly what was requisite for his support: Finds, under those circumstances, first that in July 1856, the settlement of David Ritchie, father of the pauper, was in the parish of Arbirlot, he having been born there, and not having subsequently acquired by residence a settlement in any other parish; and secondly, that in July., 1856, the pauper’s own settlement; was also in the parish of Arbirlot, that being the parish of his father’s birth settlement, and he himself not having acquired by residence or otherwise a settlement in any other parish: Therefore sustains the defences proponed by the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Barry; assoilizies him from the conclusions of the summons and decerns; farther, repels the defences proponed for the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Arbirlot, and decerns against hi in terms of the conclusions of the summons; under reservation always of all questions which may hereafter arise should the father of the pauper either die or acquire a settlement by residence in Dundee or elsewhere; Finds the pursuer entitled to his expenses of process from both defenders down to and including the 1st April, 1857. And allows an account to be lodged, taxed, and reported on; it being declared that, should decree be taken for the expenses.
Now decerned for against the Inspector of the parish of Barry; and should he make payment of the same, he shall be entitled to be relieved thereof by the Inspector of Arbirlot: Further, and in competition between the two defenders, Finds the Inspector of Barry entitled to his expenses from the Inspector of Arbirlot, whereof allows an account to be given in, and remit’s the same, when lodged, to the auditor for taxation and report.

Note -The preceding judgment appears to the Sheriff to be the necessary legal inference from the following propositions.
1. A person born on a derives from a mere fact of birth a settlement within it, which entitles him, should he afterwards fall into poverty without having acquired a settlement elsewhere, to claim relief from that parish. This of course holds only where he possesses no derivative settlement--no settlement unseeing to him through another person; and, thus guarded, the proposition is one which has at no time been disputed.
2. A lawful child has the settlement of his father; and if from any sufficient cause he becomes a fit object for parochial relief, it makes no difference whatever on his right to claim it from the parish of his father’s settlement, that that settlement is Founded on birth and not residence. The first member of this double proposition has never been doubtful; and since the decision of the House of Lords in Adamson v. Barbour (30th May 1853) the second member of it can be doubted no linger.
Whenever has a settlement, however obtained, cannot loss it until he has acquired another settlement; and there is no known way in which a forisfamilated male child can do so unless residences of the statuary character and for the statutory period. To say that a boy, who until fourteen years of age complete has a settlement in the parish in which his father was born, co ipso of his attaining that age such settlement. And henceforth becomes chargeable on the parish where he himself was born, was not maintained in this case by the parish of Arbirlot; and it is a position for which the Sheriff knows no authority and can discover no principal.
It, therefore, the three preceding propositions are sound in law, it follows from the facts admitted by both defenders, as well as found by the interlocutor, that the pursuer of the action must have recourse against the parish of Arbirlot.

Vol: 2 p. 152 1859-60 DUNDEE POOR

Sheriff Henderson and Logan

Ann Williamson or Dow, residing in Dundee - Pursuer
Henry Jack, Inspector of Poor, Dundee - Defender

Person entitled to Parochial Relief. Held by Sheriff in the case of an able bodied woman, the wife of a soldier absent in India, and earning by her labour6s, a week, with two young children, and living with her mother, who earned 2s a week, that she was not an object of Parochial relief.
Ann Williamson or Dow, residing in Dundee, made an application to the Dundee Parochial Board for relief. On investigating the case. The circumstances were found to be that her husband was a soldier in India that she got nothing from the Government; she had two children under six years of age, and lived with her mother, an old woman who cleaned a church, and had 2s, a week of income, at least. The applicant herself worked at a factory, and earned at an average about 6s, a week. The Parochial Board refused relief, and a petition was presented to the Sheriff, complaining of the deliverance. A record as made up, and after debate the sheriff-substitute (Henderson) found that the application was not entitled to Parochial relief.
An appeal was taken to the sheriff, who appointed the case to be heard.

Mr James Miller, for the petitioner, maintained that the decision ought to be altered, the applicant receiving nothing from the Government, because her name was not entered in the Regimental Books, and her marriage was not recognised by the War Authorities.
The woman was not endeavoring to support herself and family by her labour, and earned close to 6s, a week at a mill. This he thought was not sufficient to feed and clothe herself and two young children. The applicant’s mother, who got a small allowance for cleaning a chapel, but it was plain that she could not subsist properly on this small income. He did not maintain that the petitioner was entitled to a large addition from the Parochial Board, but she was clearly entitled to a small sum, and that she was a poor person entitled to get parochial relief.
Mr William Hay, the respondent, said that appeared, generally speaking, to be a great misapprehension as to the rights of parties applying for parochial relief. No such application can be legally entertained unless there be destitution, and the party requiring of “necessity to live by alms,” The present petitioner was an able-bodied woman, earning 6s. A week admittedly, and having two children. She lived with her mother, who had at least 2s, a week, in this way there were 8s, a week among two adults and two children. Could it be said that she was in destitution. He thought not - and he referred to the case of Pryde or Duncan, in 1814, in the Court of Session, where a widow with seven young children complained to the court, having only got 6d. A week for each member of her family, her whole income, including the Board’s allowance, having been 8s. A week. The Court in that case held the allowance rather small, but some of the Judges had great doubts, and that a very little more would have put it beyond the limits under the Poor Law; but here the whole parties have 2s. A week each, old and young, and double the allowance of Widow Duncan’s case. It was also stated in that case by one of the Judges that from parliamentary returns 6s. A week appeared to have been the average wage of some classes of deserving artisans, who had their families to support from their labour. She submitted, therefore, that in the circumstances this was not a case for parochial relief.

The Sheriff said that he conceived the case to be founded upon total misapprehension of the terms of the Poor Law Act. The object of the parochial assessments was not to eke out the earnings or income of people, or to supplement wages with the view of making people more comfortable that they otherwise would be. It was for the ailment of the destitute. No doubt this applicant earned a very small pittance indeed, but she is able bodied, and that what she has is sufficient for sustenance. It would, he thought, be a misapplication of the Poors’ Assessment, were the court to grant and order for relief in such a case.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Mr Miller, --Will your Lordship frame a special interlocutor in the case, as it is one of very great importance?
The Sheriff--I do not think this is necessary, I go on with the facts of the case.