Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Lord Ordinary (20th December 1839) refused the note and recalled the interdict, ‘in respect that, as the suspender has not been examined by the presbytery, their interlocutor was not ultra vires, and that the presbytery have declared their readiness now to examine the suspender.’ His Lordship added the following note:
‘The suspender, in order to be entitled to the status of a schoolmaster, must be examined, and go through his trials before the presbytery, as was found in the case of Mathieson, 8th July 1830. It having appeared, therefore, incidentally, that the suspender never had been examined, the presbytery were entitled to insist on that, and so far their judgment was not ultra vires; but as the chargers have agreed that he should still have an opportunity of being examined, the suspender should avail himself of that permission.’
J. T. Gordon .—This is a new presbytery,—of Isla and Jura: it was formerly that of Kintyre.
Lord Meadowbank .—That is more favourable to the schoolmaster: these new adventurers are attempting to do what they knew their predecessors would not have done. I do not presume that they will not do their duty in the examination; but if this man has a legal right, founded on a presumption that he has been already examined, he is not bound to be examined again.
Lord Ordinary, Murray. Act. E. J. Gordon. Alt. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) J. T. Gordon. Roy & Wood, W. S. and James M'Innes, S. S. C. Agents. T. Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.