BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Mr George Johnston v Mr James Inglis. [1694] 4 Brn 229 (25 December 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040229-0519.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Mr George Johnston v. Mr James Inglis
Date: 25 December 1694
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mersington reported the competition between Mr George Johnston and Mr James Inglis, the old and present minister of Burntisland, for the stipend thereof. The first question was, Whether the first sentence against Mr George is deprivation? for, if it was only suspension, that is only ab officio, and not a beneficio.
The second, If the four grounds in the Act of Parliament 1690, restoring Presbyterian government, were so taxative that the church judicatories could depose for no other. For Mr George's libel was for none of them; but that he was admitted and instituted only by one minister, on a letter from the Archbishop; whereas the Apostolical Canons require two or three at least at the imposition of hands. But it was urged, This enumeration of four was not exclusive of others, especially seeing, in that same act, “contumacy” is also made a ground. Yet I remember, when Sir John Monro of Foulis moved that “persecution” might also be added, the Parliament refused it.
The third point was, If the Presbytery had legally planted that church, seeing, by an act of Privy Council, they were discharged to fill it till Mr George's appeal was discussed in the General Assembly. But the act was not produced, and this was to put the two jurisdictions by the ears; and the ministers will not agree that the Privy Council should interfere in their business.
The Lords were equally divided,—six for preferring Mr Inglis, the present minister, to the stipend,—and six for producing the Presbytery's first sentence, with the act of Privy Council. So the President, voting for Mr Inglis, did cast the balance.
