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 defender afterwards abandoned the first defence, in consequence of a decision in the Second Division, Ross v. Earl of Haddington, 8th June 1824, where it was found that the King's Park was within the parish of Canongate, to the effect of subjecting the defender in his proportion of the expense of a manse.
The Court found, 4th March 1829, ‘That the King's Park is property originally belonging to the Crown; and that there is no evidence of said King's Park ever having belonged in property to the Abbey of Holyrood, or to any subject.’
Upon the remaining question, whether the King's Park, upon the supposition of its having, from the most ancient period to the present day, formed part of the royal demesnes, is upon that ground exempt from the payment of tithes and stipend—
The general rule of the law of Scotland being that all lands are liable to pay tithes, is there any exception to that general rule in regard to Crown lands?
No such exception is to be found in the canon law; on the contrary, it is expressly laid down that no such exception exists. It declares that grants of tithes by kings and queens shall be void; Decreet. de decem . iii. 30, 31; Rebuffus , quest. 8, § 27.
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.