Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. reported by ALEXANDER TAIT, CLERK OF SESSION, one of the reporters for the faculty.
Subject_2 SESSION-CLERK.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

It is fixed, by two decisions, that the nomination of the Session-clerk, Keeper of the Register of Baptisms and Marriages, is in the Kirk-session, 4th December 1740, Magistrates of Elgin against The Kirk-Session; and, 19th November 1761, Kirk-Session of Dundee against The Magistrates. Both these cases were in royal burghs, where the Magistrates paid the salaries, and yet, in both, the Lords found, That the Magistrates had no right to interfere in the election. In Edinburgh the case is different; there is only one session-clerk, and he is named by the Magistrates. See also case of Glasgow, 1756, Harvie.

See petition, Kirk-Session of Paisley, dated 7th February 1763.

In the case of the West Church, Sir John Nisbet against The Session, 2d July 1773, adhered to 17th November 1773, the Lords were of opinion, That the election of the session-clerk belonged to the Session. They differed, however, in opinion, chiefly on this ground, that, by the Act 1696, for establishing parochial schools, the schoolmaster's salary is declared to be by and attour the casualties which formerly belonged to the readers and clerks ; so that, by the plan of that Act, the parochial schoolmaster in landward parishes was understood to be reader and session-clerk ; See Bank., Vol. I. p. 160 ; but this was so far controverted as not to infer a necessary conjunction of these offices, unless all parties were pleased, seeing the election of a schoolmaster was by the heritors; that of session-clerk and reader by the Session. The Lords determined as to the right of election of the session-clerk, but they went no further.

They seemed to be of the same opinion as to the office of precentor.

In a case between the late Magistrates of Tweddale against The Kirk-Session of Dumfermline, it was discussed, whether the fees of marriages, baptisms, &c. belonged to the precentor or session-clerk. The Lords found that they belonged to the precentor; but this decision, it is informed, went upon specialties. The contrary seems to be the general rule. See papers in the case of Dundee.

See Kilk., p. 324. See 4 New Coll., No. 19.