Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Sharp of Hoddam v. Murray of Brockilrig
Date: 22 February 1695
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mersington reported Sharp of Hoddam against Murray of Brockilrig, being a spuilyie of teinds. Alleged,
1mo. Your tack is null, being set by the episcopal minister after the revolution of the government, and the abolition of episcopacy. The Lords repelled this, unless it had been set after he deserted his church.
2do. That, being without consent of the patron, it was null. Answered,— 1mo. It is set to the patron himself;—but he should have taken it in a third party's name. 2do. He restricts it to three years, as the Act 200, Parliament 1594, allows. The Lords sustained it for that time, as had been done, 18th July 1688, Johnston against Parishioners of Houden.
3tio. alleged,—I have a tack yet standing, set by the incumbent in 1662, with consent of the Archbishop of Glasgow, patron; and the setter, Mr James Craig, though transported, is yet alive. Answered,—1mo. The Duke of Queensberry and Southesk are patrons, as appears by their several presentations produced. 2do. It is signed by Bishop Burnet; whereas Fairfoul, in 1662, was Archbishop of Glasgow. It seems they have got his subscription ex post facto.
The Lords found the tack expired, and preferred the last; but yet thought the first sufficient to purge the spuilyie, and restricted to the value.
