The Heritors of the Parish of Abdie v. Mr John Corsan minister there
Date: 21 July 1713 Case No. No 2.
Found, that the yearly modification for the communion elements cannot, when the sacrament is not administered, be diverted to the benefit of the minister, but ought to be applied to the poor's use.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr John Corsan having ten bolls of victual yearly, modified in his decreet of locality, for defraying the expense of the communion elements; the heritors of his parish pursued him for repetition of these modified bolls, as indebite paid to him, for all years wherein the sacrament was not administered by him, to the end the same might be given to the poor, or applied to other pious uses within the parish. Because the act 54th Parl. 3d, James VI. ordaining persons (i. e. the parishioners), of all parish kirks to furnish bread and wine to the communion, how oft the same shall be ministered there, implies, That they are liable to that charge only when the sacrament is ministered: And those who are of opinion, that the heritors are liable yearly, hold, that the sum modified, when the sacrament is not administered, should be given to the poor, and not to the minister, Mackenzie's Obs. on the said act, Forbes' Treatise of Church Lands and Tithes, p. 428, and a minister obtained decreet for payment of the sum modified for communion elements, upon his offer to put it in the poor's box, November 29th 1678, Birnie against the Earl of Nithsdale, (No 1. p. 2489.): Which offer was made, because he knew the Lords would oblige him to it.
The Lords found, That the yearly modification for the communion elements, cannot, when the sacrament is not administered, be diverted to the benefit of the minister, but ought to be applied to the use of the poor. Albeit it was alleged for the defender, That he had the same right to the modification for communion elements, as to any other part of his stipend. And as there is no positive law determining that manner of application; so there hath been no decision, save one, proceeding on the minister's consent, which ought not to be a rule against those who do not consent. Besides, the minister is the most competent judge when it is fit to administer the sacrament, within the parish under his cure; and is only censurable for remissness or negligence therein, by the ecclesiastical judicatures.
Thereafter, July 28th 1713, the defender craved by a bill, 1mo, That the application of the modification, for communion elements to the use of the poor when the sacrament is not administered, might be made a rule to take effect only in time coming; and that the Lords would assoilzie him from repetition of bygones, seeing it would lay a precedent for innumerable vexatious pleas, not only against ministers in pari casu, but even against the widows and orphans of such as are dead: 2do, That the Lords would find the jus exigendi of these modifications for the poor's use, to be in the kirk session, accountable for the due administration thereof to the Justices of Peace, or other judges competent.
