Mr James Lawtie, Minister at Chirnside, v. Mr William Carbraith, Minister at Morebattle.
1670.
June. Case No. No. 24.
Similar to M'Queen, No. 22. supra.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a double poinding raised at the instance of the Parishioners of Chirnside, against Mr. James Carbraith, compearance was made for the said Mr. William, their last minister, who was transported to Morebattle, betwixt whom the competition was for the half of the stipend 1669, from Martinmas to Whitsunday. It was alleged for Mr. William, That albeit he had made admission of his place of being Minister in October, yet having actually served at the said kirk until the last of February, he ought to have right to the half-year's stipend, because in such cases annus inceptus habetur pro completo, much more where he did restrict to the half-year, especially being in competition with his successor, whose presentation was only dated in April, and had neither collation nor institution until August thereafter.—It was alleged for the now entrant, That Mr. William could have no right, because he had formerly demitted his place in the Bishop's hands in October, and accepted of a presentation to Morebattle, by virtue whereof he had right, and had uplifted that year's stipend of the kirk of Morebattle, at the least the half thereof, and so could not possess both stipends, plurality of benefices not being allowed.
The Lords having considered the case, found, That there was a great difference betwixt a stipendiary Minister within burgh and beneficed persons; so that albeit in the case of M'Queen against the Marquis of Douglas, who was called to the town of Edinburgh, they did allow the half year both of the kirk from which he was called and the half-year's stipend given by the Town of Edinburgh, in respect that the Town did ordinarily allow the same for the charges of transportation, and that a stipendiary Minister when he dies, there is no sum due to his relict and bairns; yet they found not the like reason in the case of beneficed persons; but as to this point they did not decide, seeing it was offered to be proved, that albeit Mr. James’ presentation did bear date in April, yet it was never delivered to him, nor to any other for his behoof, until several months after, which was found relevant to exclude him for that half-year's stipend preceding. But if the collector of the vacant stipends had compeared, it is thought he would have been preferred to them both, seeing the one had demitted his office, and the other was not called during that half year.
