BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Key v. M'Intosh [1877] ScotLR 15_91 (15 November 1877) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1877/15SLR0091.html Cite as: [1877] SLR 15_91, [1877] ScotLR 15_91 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 91↓
Where a party belonging to a parish in the country applied to be admitted to the poor's roll, and for that purpose produced a certificate from the kirk-session of an Edinburgh parish, which bore the qualification that they were ignorant of the truth of the applicant's statements, the Court remitted to the parish of domicile for further information, but dispensed with the personal attendance of the applicant there, which is required by the 3d section of the Act of Sederunt of 21st December 1842.
In an application by a party named Key for admission to the poor's roll, the necessary certificate, under the Act of Sederunt of 21st December 1842, was produced from the kirk-session of the parish of St Andrew's, Edinburgh, in which the applicant had resided for about five weeks previously. It bore that the kirk-session were not personally aware of the truth of the facts stated, as they rested entirely on the applicant's own credit.
The petitioner's story was that he had been a veterinary surgeon in Nairn, but falling into a state of destitution he had come into Edinburgh, partly to try to obtain work, but also with a view of making arrangements for carrying on an action which he had depending in the Court of Session against a party named M'Intosh.
The application was opposed by M'Intosh, on two grounds—1st, That the certificate should have been from the kirk-session of Nairn, where the applicant's real domicile was; and 2d, that as the certificate depended entirely on the applicant's own statement, it was not sufficient.
Objector's authorities—Duncan's Parochial Law, 720; Paton, Nov. 30, 1832, 11 S. 146; Paterson v. Mackenzie, June 15, 1830, 8 S. 920.
Counsel for the applicant stated that he was willing to apply to the kirk-session at Nairn, but that by the 3d section of the Act of Sederunt of 21st December 1842 he would be obliged to attend personally before the kirk-session, and asked the Court to allow communication to be carried on by letter, as the expense of going to Nairn was more than the applicant could afford.
Petitioner's authorities— Gumming, Jan. 27, 1831, 9 S. 342; A. B., June 21, 1832, 10 S. 673; Dickson, Jan. 15, 1852, 24 Jur. 154.
The Court made a remit to the kirk-session of Nairn for information as to the applicant, and dispensed with personal attendance by the applicant.
Counsel for Applicant— Goudie. Agent— F. J. Martin, W.S.
Counsel for Objector— Mair. Agent— Wm. Officer, S.S.C.
