 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'Quaker v. Governors of Ballantrae Educational Trust and Others [1891] ScotLR 28_377 (5 February 1891) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1891/28SLR0377.html Cite as: [1891] SLR 28_377, [1891] ScotLR 28_377 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 377↓
[
By section 25 of a scheme framed by the Commissioners under the Educational Endowments Act 1882, it was provided that the governors should apply a certain annual sum in establishing a bursary for university or technical education, to be awarded by competitive examination “among those who have been pupils in public or State-aided schools in the parish of B for at least six months before the date of examination, and whose parents or guardians require aid for giving them higher education.”
In 1889, after an examination, the Governors awarded the bursary to W, and placed M second.
In an action at the instance of M's father, the Court held—(1) that M having been enrolled as a pupil of a school in the parish of B during the six months preceding the examination, was not disqualified as a candidate by the fact that he had been absent from school with leave during part of that time, and therefore found that the pursuer had a good title to sue; and (2)— diss. Lord M'Laren, and rev. Lord Wellwood— reduced the award of the bursary to W, in respect that he had not been a pupil of any school in the parish during the six months preceding the examination, and with the consent of the defenders awarded the bursary to M.
Observed that the Court would have been slow to interfere with the governors' award on the ground that the successful candidate's parents did not require aid in giving him higher education, that being a matter largely for their discretion.
Under a scheme framed by the Commissioners appointed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act 1882 for the administration of the educational endowments in the parish of Ballantrae, a governing body was appointed by the name of “The Governors of Ballantrae Educational Trust,” and by section 25 of the scheme it was provided as follows—“The Governors shall apply the annual sum of not less than £20, nor more than £25, in establishing a bursary for university or technical education, which shall be called the Caddall Bursary. This bursary shall be awarded by competitive examination among those who have been pupils in public or State-aided schools in the parish of Ballantrae for at least six months before the date of examination, and whose parents or guardians require aid for giving them higher education: it shall be tenable for such period, not exceeding four years, as the Governors may determine, at a university or school for higher or technical or professional education, to be approved of by the Governors.” …
By direction of the Governors, a competitive examination was held on 25th April 1889, for the purpose of determining who should be the bursar or holder of the said Caddall Bursary for the period of four years thereafter. Several competitors appeared, and among them Hugh Wason and John M'Quaker. As the result of the examination, the Governors awarded the bursary to Hugh Wason, and placed John M'Quaker second.
The present action was raised by William M'Quaker, crofter, the father of John M'Quaker, who was in pupillarity, against the Governors of Ballantrae Educational Trust, Hugh Wason, and James Wason his father, for reduction of the award of the bursary to Hugh Wason, to have it found that the Governors ought to have awarded the bursary to the pursuer John M'Quaker, to have them interdicted from paying it to Hugh Wason, and ordained to award and pay it to John M'Quaker.
The pursuers founded on the 25th section of the scheme above quoted, and objected to the award of the bursary to Hugh Wason on the grounds (1) that he had not been a pupil of any public school in Ballantrae parish during the six months preceding
Page: 378↓
the examination, and (2) that his parents “carried on the only baking business in Ballantrae,” and his father held “the offices of postmaster, inspector of poor, collector of rates, clerk to the local authority, sanitary inspector, clerk and treasurer to the school board, and clerk to the said Governors,” and was well able to give higher education to his son. The defenders denied that Wason's parents did not require aid to give him higher education, and averred that John M'Quaker had not been a pupil of any public school in Ballantrae during the six months preceding the examination.
The defenders pleaded—“(1) No title, et separatim, no interest to sue. (4) The defender, the said Hugh Wason, having been eligible to compete for, and having been duly awarded the said bursary, the defenders should be assoilzied from the whole conclusions of the summons.”
The facts with regard to the attendance of John M'Quaker and Hugh Wason in Ballantrae public schools were as follows John M'Quaker attended Auchenflower public school, in the parish of Ballantrae, for several years. From the beginning of the school year on 1st April 1888 he attended up till and including 29th May 1888, and from 19th November 1888 until the date of the examination on 25th April 1889. The school holidays during the said year extended to six weeks, viz., from 22nd June to 7th August. School attendances were marked twice daily, and the total number of John M'Quaker's attendances for the school year ending 31st March 1889 was 175, and for the year immediately preceding 25th April 1889 was 181. Between 29th May and 19th November 1888 he was absent from the school, with the permission of the teacher, for the purpose of assisting his father in his outdoor work. During all that period his name remained on the daily register of attendances, and he was marked absent. Hugh Wason attended the Ballantrae public school for several years prior to 26th October 1888. During the year immediately preceding 26th October 1888 his attendances were 383, and during the school year ending 31st March 1889 his attendances were 190, the whole of these being prior to 26th October 1888, when he left the school. On 1st November 1888 he was enrolled as a pupil of Allan Glen's Technical School in Glasgow.
On 20th June 1890 the Lord Ordinary ( Wellwood) sustained the defenders' second plea and dismissed the action as irrelevant.
“ Opinion.—By section 25 of a scheme framed by the Commissioners under the Educational Endowment Act 1882, it is provided that ‘the Governors shall apply theannual sum of not less than £20, nor more than £25, in establishing a bursary for university or technical education, which shall be called ‘The Caddall Bursary.’ This bursary shall be awarded by competitive examination among those who have been pupils in public or State-aided schools in the parish of Ballantrae for at least six months before the date of examination, and whose parents or guardians require aid for giving them higher education.’
“A competitive examination for this bursary took place on 25th April 1889. After competition the bursary was awarded to the defender Hugh Wason, the pursuer's son John M'Quaker being second in the examination. In this action William M'Quaker, father of John M'Quaker, seeks to have the award reduced, and that the bursary should be given to his son, on the ground that the successful candidate, Hugh Wason, was ineligible, firstly, because he had not been a pupil in a school in Ballantrae for the six months immediately preceding the date of the examination, and secondly, because his parents did not require aid for giving him higher education. The first and more important of these objections depends upon the construction of the 25th section of the scheme. Before considering this it may be stated that a joint-minute of admissions has been lodged, from which it appears that Hugh Wason, the successful candidate, attended Ballantrae public school for several years prior to 26th October 1888, when his attendance ceased. It also appears that John M'Quaker attended up till 29th May 1888, and from 19th November 1888 until the date of the examination, 25th April 1889, but that he was absent from 29th May 1888 till 19th November 1888, it is said, by permission.
“Taken literally, the words quoted simply mean (1) that the candidate must have been a pupil in a public or State-aided school in the parish of Ballantrae for at least six months, and (2) that the six months' attendance must have been completed before the date of examination. But it is objected that if the clause is thus construed the bursary would be open to anyone who, perhaps years before the examination, had attended a school in the parish for six months. The answer to this is, I think, that the clause must be read and applied reasonably, and that it was not an unreasonable decision on the part of the Governors to allow a boy to compete whose connection with a public school in the parish terminated not quite six months before the examination. They have power by clause 32 to make regulations and bye-laws in so far as not inconsistent with the scheme, and the question might be fairly tested by considering whether a bye-law would be valid which allowed an interval of six months between the latest date of attendance and the examination.
“The pursuer's construction again involves the reading in of the word ‘immediately,’ and the contention, that in order to qualify, the attendance must continue till the examination. The difficulty of maintaining this construction is shown by the boy M'Quaker's own case. He had not attended for at least six months immediately before the date of examination, but only since 19th November 1888, having been absent since 29th May 1888, a period of nearly six months. If the clause, as read by the pursuer, is to be construed strictly the boy M'Quaker was also ineligible, and on that ground the pursuer has no title to
Page: 379↓
“Now, while I think the matter calls for regulation, I prefer a construction which does not disqualify a candidate who has left school a few months or weeks before the examination, and which admits of reasonable latitude as to the time or times at which the pupil must have finished his six months' attendance. Besides, the pursuers' construction would lead to results quite as unfair and foreign to the spirit of the scheme as any which could result from that put upon the clause by the defenders, because there would be nothing to prevent a boy not connected with Ballantrae coming at any time, and attending only for six months immediately before the examination in order to gain the bursary. The pursuer states a second objection to the award, viz., that Hugh Wason's father, the defender James Wason, does not require aid for giving his son a higher education and in support of this contention makes the following averments (Condescendence 5):—‘The parents of the said Hugh Wason do not require aid in giving him a higher education. They had, as already mentioned, sent him to a technical school in Glasgow. They carry on the only baking business in Ballantrae, and his father, the defender, the said James Wason, holds the offices of postmaster, inspector of poor, collector of rates, clerk to the local authority, sanitary inspector, clerk and treasurer to the school board, and clerk to the said Governors, and he is well able to give higher education to his son.’ It appears to me that the question whether a parent requires aid for the higher education of his son is peculiarly one for the consideration of the Governors. It would require a very strong case of injustice to induce the Court to interfere. Now nothing that is stated is inconsistent with Hugh Wason's father requiring such aid. Nothing is said as to his liabilities and burdens, or even as to the amount of his income. The very number of the offices which he is said to hold indicates that the remuneration in each must be small. I am therefore not disposed to allow a proof as to the state of Wason's affairs. Since the case was debated, and indeed since my opinion was written, the case of Angus Macdonald v. The Synod of Argyll was decided by the First Division of the Court, 17th June 1890. The circumstances of that case were very similar to those of the present, and the Inner House, affirming the judgment of Lord Trayner, held that the pursuer had no title to sue. The defenders in the present case plead that the pursuer has no title and no interest to sue, but the only arguments stated to me in support of that plea was that the pursuer had no title to sue, in respect that on his own showing his son John M'Quaker had not attended school for at least six months before the date of the examination.
“Now, it may be that the terms of the deed in the case of Macdonald v. The Synod of Argyll conferred wider powers of selection upon the administrators of the trust than the scheme in the present case, and that there are stronger grounds in this case for maintaining that there was something of the nature of a contract to the effect that the bursuary should be given according to priority in the competition. At the same time, as I read the opinion of Lord Trayner, which was adhered to, it seems to me that the grounds of judgments in the case of Macdonald are wide enough to rule the present case.
“As, however, the point was not argued to me by the defenders, and as I have arrived at the conclusion that the action must be dismissed on other grounds, I have not thought it necessary to postpone giving judgment until the case of Macdonald is fully reported.”
The pursuer reclaimed, and argued—The questions for the Court to decide were two in number—(1) Whether the pursuer's son was or was not eligible for the bursary? For if he was not, the pursuer could have no title or interest to sue the action. And (2) Whether Hugh Wason was or was not a qualified candidate and so rightly elected? Both these questions depended on the construction of the 25th clause, and the proper construction was that only present pupils of Ballantrae schools, who had been pupils for the six months preceding the examination, were qualified to compete for the bursary. The pursuer's son satisfied this test, for though he had not been in actual attendance at school for the whole six months preceding the examination, he had been a pupil of the school all the time, as he had been absent with leave to assist his father with outdoor work, and his name had never been removed from the roll. Such absence was allowed by the Scotch Education Code, article 206, and would not disqualify for the Government grant, and clearly a boy so absent did not cease to be a pupil of his school. Wason's case was quite dfferent, as it was admitted that he had ceased to be a pupil of any Ballantrae school six months before the examination, and had been for almost the whole of these six months enrolled as a pupil of a school in Glasgow. Wason accordingly did not satisfy the test of qualification, and the Governors, who had a discretion in some matters connected with the bursary, had no power to award it to a candidate who had not been a pupil of a Ballantrae school during the six months preceding the examination— in re Smith, L.R., 17 Q.B.D. 4.
Argued for the defenders—The pursuer's construction of the 25th section of the scheme made it necessary to read the word “immediately” into the section before the word “before,” or otherwise to add to the clause, but the clause required no such addition to make it intelligible, and there was no reason to limit the period of necessary attendance to the six months immediately preceding the examination. The discretion was left with the Governors to see that the latitude allowed by the terms of
Page: 380↓
At advising—
Now, that is the clause to be construed, and the first thing that appears to me to be pretty clear upon the face of the clause is, that this is properly speaking a school bursary. It is not a bursary which is to be held at a particular university, or a particular technical or advanced school, but it is a bursary which is to be held by a Ballantrae pupil. That is made, I think, very clear by the words of the clause, and accordingly the competitors for this bursary are described to be those who have been pupils in Ballantrae schools for at least six months before the date of the examination. The state of the facts as regards the two competitors here is this:—The defender of the action, Wason, is in this position. He had ceased to be a pupil of the Ballantrae school. I think that as a matter of fact cannot be disputed, because he had dissevered himself from that school and all connection with it, and had betaken himself to another school in a different part of the country, for the purpose of proceeding with his education, and therefore in any ordinary sense the term “pupil of Ballantrae school” could not be applied to him. He was a pupil of a school in Glasgow—Allan Glen's Technical School—and the objection to him therefore is, that he does not fall within the description of a pupil within the meaning of section 25 of the scheme.
On the other hand, the pursuer of the action, M'Quaker, is in this position—He has not attended the Ballantrae school continuously during the whole period of six months preceding the date of the examination, and therefore if that be essential as a qualification for competition he does not possess it. But it rather appears to me that that is not the meaning of the section. The question whether a boy is a pupil of a particular school does not depend upon his actual attendances. He may be a pupil although not in attendance, and I use the word “pupil” as exactly synonymous to the word “scholar” as used in the code. I do not think there is really any difference between them. It means a boy who is bound under ordinary circumstances to attendance at that school, whose name is on the school roll, and whose absence from school, unless it be satisfactorily accounted for, is a fault for which he can be punished. Now, that is precisely the position of M'Quaker. His name was on the roll of the school during the whole of the period of six months preceding the examination. His absence is accounted for in this way. During the period that he was absent there was a certain period of vacation, which it is needless to say anything more about. The rest of the period of absence he was engaged in useful work, assisting his father, who was a crofter, in out-door labour, and all this with the perfect approval and sanction of the school authorities. Therefore, not only was his name on the school-roll, but his absence was justified by the employment in which he was engaged outside the school. It was therefore a justifiable absence, and being a justifiable absence it appears to me that it could not possibly be an absence that disqualified him from being a pupil or scholar of the school during the time of that absence.
Now, that being so, my opinion is that the pursuer, M'Quaker's son, fully comes up to the condition required in the 25th section of the scheme, and that he has been for at least six months before the date of the examination a pupil in the Ballantrae school. But then Wason, on the other hand, has not been an enrolled pupil or scholar of the Ballantrae school for a considerable period. The length of the period is not very material, because this is not a question of majors and minors; it is a question
Page: 381↓
That is the view of the case which I take, and I do not think it necessary to go into any of the other details at all. There are a number of things left to the discretion of the Governors, and with these we do not interfere in any degree, and among other things I would hesitate very much to interfere with the discretion of the Governors in determining whether the parent of a competitor was in such a condition of life as to require the aid of this bursary to enable him to send his son to a university or technical school. At all events, that is a matter for consideration by the Governors in the first instance. If they went flagrantly wrong, and conferred the benefit upon a boy whose parent was quite able to send his son to a university at his own cost, probably there might be means found to restrain that, but there is no case of that kind before us.
I am sorry to say I cannot agree with the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and I think the pursuer is entitled to prevail.
The first question is, whether Wason was qualified as a candidate under the conditions imposed by the scheme? The facts which raise this question are these:—It is beyond dispute that Wason ceased to be a pupil of any school in Ballantrae in October 1888—that is, in the October preceding the April in which the examination took place—and that he became a pupil of Allan Glen's Technical School in Glasgow on 1st November 1888. The question arises, whether, on a construction of the 25th section of the scheme, a person in that position was qualified to compete for the bursary? I agree that the question depends entirely on the construction of that section, and I also agree that the bursary is intended to be what is entitled a school bursary, to be competed for by persons who are pupils of the public schools in Ballantrae. The intention of the scheme and the construction of the scheme, as I read it, are that the bursary should be awarded among those who are at the time of the examination pupils of one of the public schools in Ballantrae, with this further qualification added, that they must have been pupils of such school for the six months before the date of the examination. To make the section bear that interpretation it is not necessary to interpolate any words, though no doubt the meaning might be expressed in another way by saying that the bursary was to be awarded among those “who are and have been pupils” in the Ballantrae public schools for six months. I also think we are quite entitled to look at the possible consequences of reading the section otherwise. It is to be observed that the Governors have no discretion as to awarding the scholarship. If a duly qualified candidate appears they must award it. The defenders say that the only necessary qualification is that a candidate must have been at some time a pupil in a public school at Ballantrae for six months—no matter when or how long before the competition—and that if a candidate so qualified is successful, he is entitled to have the bursary awarded to him. It is a very startling conclusion to reach, that a person who as a lad of five had been a pupil in one of the Ballantrae public schools for six months could come back and claim a right to compete for the bursary against present pupils of these schools. That would be an unlikely condition to attach to any bursary, and it would require a great deal more distinct language than I can find in the section to make me put that interpretation upon it. If, however, that were to be taken as the proper interpretation of the scheme, I think the observation made by Mr Jameson would be correct, that there was no use of the phrase six months “before the date of examination.” These words would appear to me to be in that case mere surplusage, but if the other view is adopted, that a candidate must have been a pupil of a Ballantrae school for the six months immediately preceding the examination, then the presence of these words is explained.
I agree, therefore, that on the construction of section 25 of the scheme the bursary is a proper school “bursary,” to be awarded to a boy who has been a pupil of a Ballantrae public school during the six months preceding the date of the examination.
If, then, that is the true construction of the 25th section of the scheme, the result as to Wason's claim to the bursary
Page: 382↓
The next question is, whether M'Quaker has a qualification? Now, the facts bearing on this question are these:—The competition, as I have already said, was held on April 25, 1889, and M'Quaker's attendances at the Auchen flower public school in Ballantrae during the preceding year were as follows:—From the beginning of the school year on 1st April 1888 till 29th May 1888, and from 19th November 1888 until the date of the examination, 25th April 1889. He was accordingly absent from the school between 29th May and 19th November in that year, but six weeks of that period—from 22nd June to 7th August—were taken up by the school holidays. It is, however, beyond all doubt that he was a pupil of a Ballantrae public school at the date of the examination, as he was then on the rolls of the Auchenflower school, and had been attending that school during the five months preceding the date of the examinations, and the only question which remains is, whether he was or was not a pupil of that school for six months preceding the date of examination. It is contended by the defenders that he was not, because he did not attend the school during the month prior to 19th November 1888, but it is necessary to point out that the question is not one of attendance, but simply whether he was a pupil of the school during the necessary period. As a matter of fact, he was absent during the month in question, but with the permission of the school authorities, and he was on the roll during that period, and was marked as absent because he was regarded as being on the roll and as a pupil of the school. It is not, I think, necessary to go into the question whether the authorities of the school ought or ought not to have treated him as a pupil of the school. In that part of the country, schoolmasters, with some authority from the code, are in the way of allowing lads during the summer leave of absence to assist their parents in the field-work, and that is regarded, and apparently quite properly regarded, as an ordinary ground of absence, and was so treated in this case, as the master of the school, with the authority of the Governors, treated him as a pupil of the school, and marked him as absent. The question however is, not whether he was entitled to earn the Government grant, but whether he was a pupil, and I think he was. If so, he was qualified as a candidate for the bursary, and it ought to have been awarded to him, and that being the view of the Court, no difficulty is raised as to his being found entitled to it.
With regard to the question whether Wason satisfies another condition of the competition, namely, whether his parents require assistance in giving him higher education, I shall only say that that question does not arise for consideration in this case. If I had to express an opinion upon it, I should say that that was a matter almost entirely within the discretion of the Governors. They know the locality and the circumstances of each candidate's parents, and they are the persons to judge whether or not they require assistance in educating their children. I do not say that we would not interfere if they had awarded the bursary corruptly, but there is no such case here, and I should not be inclined to interfere with the Governors' award on this second ground. Therefore I agree that this interlocutor should be reversed.
Page: 383↓
Passing from that part of the case I come to the more important matter, which is the construction of the first condition—“The bursary shall be awarded by competitive examination among those who have been pupils in public or State-aided schools in the parish of Ballantrae, for at least six months before the date of the examination.” I agree with your Lordship that this points to what is usually known as a school bursary. I think one may gather from the clause as a whole, and from the character of the order, that it was intended to enable boys to pass direct from the parish public school to a school or college of higher instruction. I could not for a moment entertain the view that it would enable a grown-up person at any distance of time to come forward and compete with the proper recipients and objects of this foundation upon the plea that he had in early life attended six months at this public school at Ballantrae. But I arrive at that result entirely by implication — implication from the whole object of the foundation, and especially from the tenor of this particular clause; because, as I read the clause, there is no restriction in words as to the time at which the attendance may have been given. On that subject I would venture, as the Lord Ordinary's opinion was not very fully brought under our notice by the bar, to read a sentence from it which fully expresses my view on this question. His Lordship says—“Taken literally, the words quoted simply mean (1) that the candidate must have been a pupil in a public or State-aided school in the parish of Ballantrae for at least six months; and (2) that the six months' attendance must have been completed before the date of examination. But it is objected that if the clause is thus construed the bursary would be open to anyone who, perhaps years before the examination, had attended a school in the parish for six months. The answer to this is, I think, that the clause must be read and applied reasonably, and that it was not an unreasonable decision on the part of the Governors to allow a boy to compete whose connection with a public school in the parish terminated not quite six months before the examination.” I have nothing to add to this expression of opinion on the question of the reasonable construction, as I should consider it, of this clause, but as to the literal construction of the clause I should like to add a word. I think the expression “those who have been pupils for at least six months before the date of the examination” is not a strictly accurate expression, because if read literally it would mean only those who had attended school before the passing of the order. The words are “who have been,” referring to time past. What is really meant is attendance in the future. I am not finding fault with the language; it is good colloquial language; but if it were in an Act of Parliament we should expect it to read, “among those who shall have been pupils at least six months before the date of the examination.” Now, that is a form of speech which is no doubt equally applicable to a period of six months completed immediately before the examination, or to a period completed at any previous time. But then if the former is to be the meaning, one would expect that the word “immediately,” or some equivalent word, would have been inserted, or that the clause might have been put, “among those who are at the time of the examination and have been pupils for the period of at least six months.” The Lord Ordinary holds—and I agree with him—that the pursuer's construction involves the reading in of the word “immediately,” and the contention that in order to qualify the attendance must continue until the examination. Now, there are cases where a court of construction may justifiably introduce into the clause which is construed some word which is not there, but which is clearly implied, and is necessary either to make the clause sensible or to give effect to what may be reasonably supposed to be its meaning when the whole clause is read consecutively. But it seems to me that it is at least a conceivable construction that the Commissioners by whom this order was made intended to leave the competition open, not only to boys who had just completed a period of six months' attendance, but also to those who had completed it only a short time before the examination commenced, and who had not done anything that might be considered to be an impediment to their passing from the school to the university. I see no particular public advantage in limiting the competition to those whose attendance has exactly and punctually terminated at the time of the examination, and I see no disadvantage in letting in those who had completed their school attendance a few months before. And therefore I cannot assume that the insertion of the word “immediately” (if it is to be inserted) is necessary in order to make sense of the clause, or in order to give full effect to the general intention of the order. I rather understood your Lordship to think that “immediately” was implied, because you used the word in giving your view of the sense of the clause. But in my humble opinion we are not entitled to read the clause in that sense, because there are no words, so far as I can see, that impose any such strict limitation as to time.
I have only to add that, for the reasons which I have given, I think that M'Quaker also was qualified. I have no doubt of it, although, strictly speaking, he had not been in attendance during six months immediately preceding the examination. The difference is that you had to add a period at the beginning to M'Quaker's attendance to complete the six months, while you have to add a period at the end to the attendance of the other young man to bring him within the clause. Both, I think, are quite legitimate according to my interpretation of the scheme. I do not think it necessary to proceed at all—indeed
Page: 384↓
If the pursuer has a title, the next question is, whether the boy Wason who beat him in the competition had also a qualification? and I am of opinion that he had not, because he was not a pupil of the school. I agree with your Lordship that what is established by this scheme is an ordinary school bursary. It is a bursary to be given by competitive examination among scholars of Ballantrae schools, and not among boys or young men who have already obtained a higher education at a university or a technical school. Now, the boy who has succeeded had left Ballantrae school for months, and before the date of the competition I think he had been for some months at a technical school in Glasgow. It is not material during what period of time his attendance at that school had lasted. The material point is that he had absolutely left the school in Ballantrae and had gone to a higher technical school. Now, if that were not held to disqualify, it would appear to me that the scheme must be read so as to let in all boys and young men who had at any time of their lives been even for six months at any Ballantrae public school. That would be altogether inconsistent with the design of the scheme,
Page: 385↓
The Court pronounced the following interlocutor;—
“The Lords having considered the cause, and heard counsel for the parties on the reclaiming-note for the pursuer William M'Quaker against the interlocutor of Lord Wellwood dated 21st June 1890, Recal the said interlocutor: Reduce, decern, and declare in terms of the reduction and declaratory conclusions of the summons: Interdict, prohibit, and discharge the defenders the Governors of the Ballantrae Educational Trust from making payment to the defender Hugh Wason of the Caddall Bursary, or any instalment thereof: Further, decern and ordain the said Governors to award the said bursary to John M'Quaker, to be held by him for four years commencing at 1st November 1889, and to make payment to him or the pursuer William M'Quaker, as his administrator-in-law, of the sum of £20, 16s. annually, the tenure of the said bursary by the said John M'Quaker being subject always to the conditions and provisions of the scheme for the management, inter alia, of said bursary approved by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty in Council the 3rd day of April 1886, and particularly article 27 of said scheme: Find the pursuer and reclaimer entitled to expenses,” &c.
Counsel for the Pursuer— D.-F. Balfour, Q.C.— Jameson. Agents— R. R. Simpson & Lawson, W.S.
Counsel for the Defenders— H. Johnston— Macphail. Agents— Murray, Beith, & Murray, W.S.