Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk District Board of Lunacy v. Parish Council of Selkirk [1902] ScotLR 39_546 (28 January 1902)

Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk District Board of Lunacy v. Parish Council of Selkirk [1902] ScotLR 39_546 (28 January 1902)

Selkirk was not the parish 'in and from which' the lunatic was taken and sent to the asylum within the meaning of section 78; liability does not attach to Selkirk as the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_546
Parties
Pursuer: Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk District Board of Lunacy; Defender: Parish Council of Selkirk
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 1902
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liability for Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics, Statutory Interpretation, Competency of Appeal, Finality of Sheriff's Judgment
Public Law Mental Health Law Local Government Law Liability for Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics Statutory Interpretation Competency of Appeal Finality of Sheriff's Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk District Board of Lunacy

Pursuer

Parish Council of Selkirk

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Parish Council of Selkirk liable for the maintenance expenses of a pauper lunatic under section 78 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act 1857?
  2. 2 Does the finality clause in section 78 preclude appeal by asylum authorities against a parish?

Ratio Decidendi

Selkirk was not the parish 'in and from which' the lunatic was taken and sent to the asylum within the meaning of section 78; liability does not attach to Selkirk as the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed
  • defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the action