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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Note for James Allan for Admission to Poor's Roll [1872] ScotLR 9_299 (28 February 1872)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1872/09SLR0299.html
Cite as: [1872] ScotLR 9_299, [1872] SLR 9_299

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 299↓

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Wednesday, February 28. 1872.

9 SLR 299

Note for James Allan for Admission to Poor's Roll.

Subject_1Poor's Roll
Subject_2Status.

Facts:

Held that it is incompetent to state objections to the status of a person claiming the privilege of the Poor's Roll after a remit has been made to the Reporter probabilis causa litigandi.

Headnote:

In this case the Reporters made a report to the Court that it had been stated to them that the circumstances of the petitioner were such as not to entitle him to the benefit of the Poor's Roll.

A. J. Young, for the objector, founded upon the terms of the Act of Sederunt of 1842, by which the Reporters are to certify, not only that there is a probabilis causa, but that the applicant otherwise merits to be put on the roll; and asked that it be remitted to them to inquire as to his alleged circumstances. The cases of Hackett, June 23, and Oal, 14 S. 1120, were referred to.

Fordyce for the petitioner.

The Court refused to remit, and admitted the petitioner.

At advising—

 Judgment:

Lord Neaves—This is too late. Notice is given in the minute-book for the express purpose that objections may be stated when the case appears in the Single Bills. The change in the A. S. of 1842 from that of 1819 was made in order to alter the system formerly pursued.

Lord Benholme concurred.

Lord Cowan—I think it very important that the present rule should be adhered to. According to it, an opportunity for objecting is always given when the case is in the Single Bills; objections are frequently stated there, and are perhaps disposed of at once; or perhaps we may then remit to the Auditor to report on the matter of poverty under the certificates, while the probabilis causa is remitted to the Reporters. I am very clear, that where the objection to their report comes to this, that there should never have been a remit at all, it cannot be listened to.

Solicitors: Agent for Petitioner— Thomas Veitch, S.S.C.

 1872

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1872/09SLR0299.html