BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Sir Arthur Nicholson and Others Petitioners [1919] ScotLR 438 (07 March 1919)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1919/56SLR0438.html
Cite as: [1919] SLR 438, [1919] ScotLR 438

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 438↓

Court of Teinds.

Friday, March 7. 1919.

56 SLR 438

Sir Arthur Nicholson and Others     Petitioners.

Subject_1Church
Subject_2Disjunction and Erection
Subject_3Process
Subject_4Narration of Statutes.
Facts:

In a petition for the disjunction and erection of a church and parish quoad sacra it is unnecessary to narrate the statutes from which the Court of Teinds derives its constitution and its power to disjoin and erect churches and parishes quoad sacra.

Headnote:

Sir Arthur Nicholson and others, petitioners, brought a petition for disjunction and erection of Arisaig and Moidart church and parish quoad sacra.

The petition was in the usual form (see Juridical Styles, 3rd. ed., vol. iii, p. 867), the Acts anent the constitution of the Court of Teinds and its powers to erect parishes quoad sacra being referred to at considerable length.

Upon the motion for a first order for intimation the following opinions were delivered:—

 Judgment:

Lord Sands—The first paragraph of this petition narrates the provision of the Act of 1707, by which the Lords of Council and Session were entrusted with the powers and duties of Commissioners of Teinds. The second paragraph narrates the provisions of the Act of 1844, by which the Court of Teinds was empowered to erect parishes quoad sacra. I think that I may venture to assure petitioners that the Court is familiar with the origin of its jurisdiction, and with the powers conferred by the Act of 1844, and that it is therefore unnecessary in every petition to remind the Court of these matters. I do not desire to reflect in any way upon the framers of this and other similar petitions for setting forth these particulars. They have simply followed an ancient tradition of the fathers. The several matters were novel to the Court in 1707, and again in 1844, so it was thought proper to set them forth in the first petitions or applications, and having thus found their way in, there they have remained. But I think that petitioners might very well now take their courage in their hands and drop this practice. It adds a little to the cost of every application, and in the matter of the erection of new parishes alone it must probably have cost at least £750 since 1844, without any profit to petitioners or any assistance to the Court. Similar considerations

Page: 439↓

probably apply to other writs in this Court. The learned Clerk is, however, much better qualified than I am to determine as to whether in any particular class of application there may be technical need for those operose narratives. I refer specifically only to applications of the class now before the Court, and I am quite clear that in petitions of this kind such narratives are unnecessary and ought to be discontinued.

Lord President—I think, and I am sure your Lordships all concur with me, that the observations of Lord Sands are well worthy of the attention of applicants to this Court.

Lord Mackenzie, Lord Cullen, and Lord Blackburn concurred.

The Court ordered intimation.

 Counsel:

Counsel for the Petitioners— Addison Smith. Agents— Menzies & Thomson, W. S.

 1919

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1919/56SLR0438.html