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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mackenzie v. Coulthart and Others [1889] ScotLR 26_764 (19 July 1889) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1889/26SLR0764.html Cite as: [1889] SLR 26_764, [1889] ScotLR 26_764 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 764↓
Circumstances in which the Court pronounced a sentence of two months' imprisonment for breach of interdict.
William Dalziel Mackenzie of Newbie, in the county of Dumfries, had obtained interdicts against John Coulthart, William Hill, and John Birnie, all residing at Powfoot, in the said county, interdicting and prohibiting them from erecting or maintaining or using during the open salmon fishing season stake-nets on the shores of the
Page: 765↓
Solway, between high and low water-mark, on the portion of the complainer's salmon fishings of Newbie, known as the Powfoot and Howgarth Seaurs. This was a petition and complaint by Mr Mackenzie and his tenant in the fishings of Newbie, against Coulthart, Hill, and Birnie for breach of these interdicts. In the prayer of the petition the petitioners craved the Court “to find that the said respondents respectively, by their actings and proceedings above set forth and complained of, acted illegally, and have been guilty of a breach and violation of interdict granted by your Lord-ships as above set forth, and of contempt of the authority of your Lordships; and in respect thereof to inflict upon them such punishment, by imprisonment or otherwise, as to your Lordships shall seem necessary; and further, to find the said John Coulthart, William Hill, and John Birnie jointly and severally liable in the expenses of the petition and complaint, and of all proceedings to follow hereon.” No answers were lodged, but the respondents having appeared, denied that they had been guilty of the breaches of interdict complained of.
A proof was thereafter taken at Dumfries, at which Coulthart and Birnie appeared for themselves, but no appearance was made for the respondent Hill.
The Court pronounced the following decree.
“Find (1) that the respondent John Coulthart has broken the interdicts granted by the Second Division of the Court of Session on 1st and 3rd December 1881; (2) that the respondent William Hill has broken the interdicts granted by said Division of the Court on 3rd December 1881; and (3) that the respondent John Birnie has broken the interdict granted by said Division of the Court on 1st December 1881: Therefore decern and adjudge the respondents John Coulthart, William Hill, and John Birnie each to be imprisoned for the space of two months, and to be thereafter set at liberty; and for that purpose grant warrant to officers of Court to convey the said respondents from this bar to the prison of Edinburgh, thereafter to be dealt with in due course of law: Authorise the petitioners to remove the nets complained of at the expense of the respondents, and authorise execution to pass on a copy hereof certified by the Clerk of Court: Find the respondents liable in expenses,” &c.
Counsel for the Petitioners— Johnstone. Agents— Hope, Mann, & Kirk, W.S.