Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PUBLIC OFFICER.
Subject_3 Schoolmaster of a Royal Burgh removable summarily by the Council, upon just cause.

Mr John Hastie
v.
Patrick Campbell of Knap and Others

Date: 29 June 1769

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collection, p. 351; Dictionary, 13, 132.]

Barjarg. This is a mater of administration, but not of jurisdiction, and is subject to review.

Monboddo. Were the question, Whether Hastie was properly tried?—I should be clear that he was not: but the question is singly as to administration. The Magistrates have the power of turning out, both by public policy and by the decisions of the Court.

Stonefield. There is a contract, between the Magistrates and the schoolmaster, that he shall enjoy the office while he behaves properly.

Pitfour. We now lay greater stress on freeholds than in former times. If a man is named a schoolmaster, his office is understood to be for life. The law has given to Presbyteries a jurisdiction over schoolmasters. I therefore think the proceedings before the Magistrates void, and am moved with the keenness snowed by the Magistrates.

Auchinleck. The office of a schoolmaster is a small but an important office. The law, as to schoolmasters, is not well expressed: it says that they are amenable to the church courts; but it does not say that the sole jurisdiction is in the church courts. The proceedings there are tedious and inextricable. There was no occasion to bring a formal libel. Upon a proper precognition and inquiry, a schoolmaster may be dismissed. The proceedings here were irregular. I would allow the proof to go on here, instead of throwing the cause into the church courts, which is the same thing as throwing it into the sea.

Kaimes. Whether a man is chosen into an office durante beneplacito, or for life, depends upon the nature of the office. The decisions have determined, rationally, that he who names a schoolmaster, may turn him out; but then it must be at his peril.

President. I maintain the same opinion here as in the case of Harvey: he may be removed from his office, but not arbitrarily. It would be inconvenient and dangerous to bring a schoolmaster before a court of law, either civil or ecclesiastical, in the first instance.

On the 29th June 1769, “The Lords repelled the objections against proceeding; but found it still competent for the pursuer to bring a proof, and the defenders a conjunct proof.”

Act. A. Crosbie. Alt. Ilay Campbell. Reporter, Pitfour.