to the passing of the New Poor-Law Act (Aug. 1845), having come to the parish on 26th May 1842.

Their residence in Leswalt for more than three years prior to the passing of the Act was admitted by the parish, which averred, however, that their circumstances had undergone no change during their residence there, and that if fit objects of relief now, they had been so from the first.

It was averred by the claimant that his wife had applied for and received relief from the parish soon after the completion of their three years residence, but had been struck off the roll of paupers on the passing of the New Act. Leswalt admitted that application, and stated its date to have been on 26th May 1845, the day on which the three years' residence expired. Leswalt also admitted that temporary relief had been given, but alleged that this was in the month of September, after the new Act had passed. It was likewise admitted that the temporary relief was withdrawn in December 1845.

Leswalt contended, 1st, That as the husband is confessedly "able to work," the application is incompetent. 2d, That they had not become proper objects of parochial relief prior to the passing of the Poor-Law Act, and that a five years' industrial residence thus became necessary to establish a settlement.

The sheriff-substitute (Macdonell) pronounced the following interlocutor and note:

66

Wigtown, 8th December 1846.-Having considered the closed record, Finds it sufficiently admitted that the petitioner's wife is unable to earn her own maintenance. Before farther answer allows the petitioner a proof that before the Poor-Law Act came into operation, he was an object of parochial relief, and that he still is unable to earn a sufficient maintenance for himself and his wife; and to the respondent a conjunct probation; Grants warrant for letters of incident diligence against witnesses and havers, and commission, &c. (Signed) "A. MACDONELL.”

Note. Of course the petitioner's wife, however helpless, has no claim to parochial aid if her husband is able to support her; and being a married woman, her rights depend on those of her husband. It appears, from the statement

given, that the petitioner and his wife came to reside in the parish of Leswalt at Whitsunday 1842; consequently any settlement that they may have acquired in that parish must be in virtue of a three years' industrial residence prior to the passing of the Poor-Law Act. But in order to afford them this right of settlement, the residence must be coupled with the fact, that previous to the passing of the act, the petitioner was an object of parochial relief."

"To have rendered him an object of relief, it is not necessary that he was, or is, unable to earn a subsistence for himself alone. If he was and is unable to earn a subsistence for his impotent wife also, he will fall within that class of persons; and it is to have this matter cleared up that the above proof is allowed."

Adhered to by the sheriff (Urquhart) on appeal, February 2, 1847.

15. Mary Mackenzie v. George Gillanders, Inspector of Urquhart (Ross-shire.)

Revised by Sheriff-Substitute.

Interim relief, when ordered by the sheriff, must be substantial, not evasive.*

The circumstances of this case appear from the interlocutors, which are subjoined :

66

Dingwall, 9th Jan. 1847.-The sheriff-substitute having considered this case, Finds that, upon the tenth day of September last, when the application of the petitioner to this court was presented and entertained, the inspector was ordered, in common form, to give in his statement of reasons, and to afford the petitioner interim relief: Finds that, upon the 29th day of September, after the statement had been lodged and considered, the interim relief was ordered to be continued: Finds that, upon the 20th day of November, the

*The board of supervision has expressed, through its secretary, its disapproval of attempts to exclude the sheriff's jurisdiction by the payment of nominal allowances to paupers, and directed real support to be afforded. See No. 12, p. 230.

inspector transmitted to the petitioner, by post, one shilling in a letter, in which he states, I find the sheriff has ordered interim relief to be given to you, and, in obedience to his order, I now inclose one shilling: Finds it not alleged that the inspector had previously, or that he has since, given any thing to the petitioner: Finds that this professed imple'ment of the order for interim relief is practically and in effect an evasion of it, and a manifest violation of the inspector's duty; and ordains him to afford the petitioner interim support from and after the said 29th day of September, until a final judgment on the merits. Quoad ultra, in respect the inspector declines to close the record, and moves for leave to condescend, allows him to lodge, within one week, a condescendence of the facts which he avers and offers to prove, and the petitioner to lodge answers thereto within a week thereafter.

The inspector having appealed, the following interlocutor was pronounced :—

"Dingwall, 3d February 1847.-The sheriff-substitute having advised with the sheriff, who has considered this minute of appeal and former proceedings, and who is clearly of opinion that the letter of the inspector, of the 20th November last, when taken in connection with the fact, to be inferred from his minute of the 15th December, that no farther sum has been given for the petitioner's interim support, is substantially an evasion of the order of court of the 10th September last, dismisses this appeal.

16. Parish of St Cuthbert v. City Parish.-William Kidd.—(Edinburgh.)

Revised by Mr Dunlop.

Circumstances in which a temporary absence was held insufficient to interrupt the acquirement of a settlement by residence.

William Kidd, born in 1817, was lawful son of Colin

Kidd, who resided in the city of Edinburgh till Whitsunday 1840, when he removed to St Cuthbert's parish, where he still resides. William lived in family with his father, and accompanied him to his new residence in St Cuthbert's, where he continued to reside with him as before. In the summer of 1841, being a journeyman butcher by trade, he was employed by a flesher in Tranent, on an engagement from week to week. He left his Sunday clothing at his father's house, which he occasionally visited-his clothes were always washed there and during an illness of about a month's duration, he came home to his father's. With this exception he continued at Tranent, living in his master's house, till September or October of the same year. He then returned to his father's house, and lived there till February 1844 (more than three years after his father and his family first went to reside in St Cuthbert's, but less than three years after William's final return from Tranent), when in consequence of an attack of typhus fever, terminating in permanent paralysis, he became wholly disabled from supporting himself and family. He had been married on 22d November 1841. Having applied to the parish of St Cuthbert's, he obtained relief for himself and family in May 1844, and that parish now claimed to be relieved of the burden by the City parish, on the ground that in consequence of the interruption of his residence in St Cuthbert's by his engagement at Tranent, he had not acquired a settlement there, never having been full three years continuously resident there, before be became an object of parochial relief.

The parties differing as to the nature of the engagement and residence at Tranent, the arbiter (Mr Dunlop) allowed a proof, by the following interlocutor :

"June 3, 1846.-Before further answer, allows the respondents a proof of their averments as to the character of William Kidd's engagement and residence at Tranent, as contained in article third of their revised statement of facts; and to the claimants a counter-proof.

"Note. The arbiter, by allowing this proof before answer, does not mean to prejudice, in any way, the question whether the interruption of residence, whatever the nature of the en

gagement was, prevented the acquisition of a settlement in St Cuthbert's.'

66

On advising the proof, which established the facts as above detailed, the arbiter pronounced the following judgment :July 3, 1846.-The arbiter finds that William Kidd's settlement is in the parish of St Cuthbert, and repels the claim of the parochial board of that parish.

66

Note. Although, in order to acquire a settlement by residence, the residence must extend over three full years, it is not necessary that it should be constant. If, indeed, residence in a parish, extending over more than three years, be interrupted by such a taking up of residence elsewhere, as plainly implies a purpose of breaking off from that parish, there might be ground for contending, that, notwithstanding a return after a short absence, a new course of residence must be held to begin to run, so that the prior residence shall not be taken into view in determining whether a settlement have been acquired. But whatever might be thought of such a case, the present is clearly different. There is no ground for inferring any purpose, on the part of William Kidd, of breaking off from St Cuthbert's, and fixing himself at Tranent. On the contrary, his engagement at Tranent was precarious, and scarcely lasted more than four months, and he had no house there, merely living with his master; while he always maintained a certain tie to his father's house, where he left his Sunday clothes, where all his clothes were regularly washed, and where he occasionally visited, and came for a month, as to his home, when taken ill. Such an absence could not, in the arbiter's opinion, so interrupt the course of residence from Whitsunday 1840, to February 1844, as to prevent him from thereby acquiring a settlement in St Cuthbert's."