Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lords repelled an exception of triennial and dicennial possession, being proponed contra verum patronum, in respect of the express words of the rule of the chancellory, whilk bear dummodo ad beneficium, per eos ad quos presentatio pertinuit, presentati fuerunt.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 114. Kerse, MS. fol. 9.*** Haddington reports this case:
The Earl of Wigton pursued reduction of the Archbishop of Glasgow's pretended right to the patronage of the kirks of Drummelzier, &c. and Mr Alexander Schieyne, minister, his provision, proceeding upon the Archbishop's presentations. The Archbishop compeared not. Mr A. Schieyne compearing, alleged, That be could not produce his provision, because he was triennalis et decinnalis possessor beneficii, et ita non tenebatur docere de titulo. It was replied, That being provided by the right patron, he needed not to show his title; but the patron's right being taken away, by the certification of the summons, the minister behoved to produce to the right patron; in respect of the whilk reply, the Lords repelled the exception.
