130 THE HIGHLAND CLEARANCES. 



For the statements in the petition, in so far as they were concerned, 

 there was not the slightest evidence. Indeed, as to Macpherson, the 

 witnesses were not sure whether he was even in the crowd. As to the 

 alleged assault on Macdonald at Ramasaig which was the most serious 

 thing charged Macpherson and Morrison were not at Ramasaig, but 

 remained with Nicolson, the shepherd ; and Macleod, though he went a 

 little further with the crowd than the other two, was not with the crowd 

 when the alleged assault was committed. In conclusion, the Dean said 

 this was about the first time for two generations in which it had been 

 necessary in the case of Highlanders that any interdict should be granted 

 against them. It was a kind of process with which they were not well 

 acquainted. They were not well acquainted with lawyers or with 

 judges ; and their intercourse with the policeman of the district had been 

 of the slightest and most friendly kind. He could not help thinking 

 that when their Lordships considered the whole case, they would come 

 to the conclusion that there was a mixed feeling on the part of these 

 people, greatly caused by this, that while the law was being used 

 against them to produce a state of things which was perfectly legal and 

 right, but which was not usual in these townships, where there was a 

 great deal of freedom, and where they had managed to get on in the 

 same way for generations, a cause of irritation was introduced either by 

 the carelessness or want of reasonable attention to their duties on the 

 part of the petitioners' servants that these people, after being forbidden 

 to send their stock across the march, had from time to time, and in spite 

 of remonstrance, large quantities of stock thrust upon them by the 

 Waterstein servants, who knew well that it did not belong to Milovaig 

 at all. In these circumstances, he submitted, it was not a case in which 

 the Court should find these men guilty of intentional breach of the 

 interdict granted, but that their Lordships should hold that the case 

 had not been made out. 



Lord Shand, in giving judgment, said My Lord, the single question 

 that is raised by the proceedings in this case is whether the respondents 

 have committed a breach of the interdict or order of this Court. That 

 interdict was granted upon the 6th July, 1882, and was duly intimated 

 to the respondents and a number of other crofters in Milovaig, as the 

 original interdict had also been duly intimated to them. The order of 

 the Court was an interdict, as has been pointed out by the complainer's 

 counsel, striking at three different acts on the part of the respondents. 

 The Court interdicted, and prohibited, and discharged the respondents 

 entering or trespassing upon the lands or farm of Waterstein. Again, 

 they were interdicted from pasturing or herding their sheep or cattle on 



