( 102 ) 



tlio riglit of fishing is in the tenant also." This point wns 

 decided (Duke of Richiimod v. Dempster, 14.th January 

 1860, Jus;. c. 33, so. .Tur. 183.^ The Court of Justiciary, 

 consisting of five Judges, per Tnglis, C. J., came to the 

 following conclnsion : — " We are of opinion tliat an agri- 

 cultural tenant has not, as such, any right to fish in a stream 

 running hv or through his farm, with any net of any kind 

 or description" (PutersonJ — a decision said to he open to 

 question. 



CIV. 'The nature of a right of fishery proper is an 

 ini'ornoral hereditament, and as such 



Nuture of ri" it of fislinig. f i i i i i « 



ca:i be conveyed only by deed. A 

 license of fishing is distinct from the right of fishery, and 

 is at most only a justification for what would otherwise he 

 a trespass A license is rcvocahle at will, and in order to 

 be bindin,--, even for an hour, must he granted by deed" 

 fPatersoiL p. 57J. A " fishery may l)e let by verbal agree- 

 ment ; and even wliere no rent has been agreed upon, the 

 landlord i- entitled to sue the tenant for a reasonable rent 

 under an iulehitatus count for use and occupation" (p. G7.) 

 " The purciiasers of a fishery in the River Galway and Lough 

 Corrib petitioned the Coui't of Chancery to be quieted in 

 the possession and enjoyment of their several fishery. The 

 defendants were represented by ten persons, who were paupers, 

 who set up as a defence that the river was, except in a cer- 

 tain specified portion, open to the public, and had been so 

 from time mmemorial. Evidence was given on both sides, 

 and the pi: intiffs, who produced grants from the Crown, 

 and evideiice of user, contended that the evidence of user 

 on the pari/ of the defendants Avas evidence merely of a 

 succession of tresjiasses. Tliere had been a trial of an issue 

 some years previously wliieh settled the right to the fishery 

 in the pL.intitTs. The M. 11. accordingly, Avitliout put- 

 ting the 1)1 lintilfs to any further trial, granted the decree 

 declaring 1 lie petitioners' rights and continuing the injunc- 

 tion (p. 117-8). 



CV. " Property is essentially an exclusive thing, and 

 . ^ , the incident of fishini? is also so. 



Right of property lu fisliery. . ,, ,, , °„ 



All other persons, therefore, except 

 the owner of the soil beneath, or the riparian owner, have 

 no more right to fish in his water, than they have a right to 

 seize any other perquisite of \\\q soih Whether a stranger 

 fishes witli a net or a rod can make no dilference in point of 

 law; it is Uie taking of the fisli, not the manner of taking 



