SALMON-FISHERY OF SCOTLAND. 73 



penses from the person he was robbing the bond fide grantee 

 of the Crown, all which was confirmed by his Lordship's Divi- 

 sion of the Court. 



Here we have two judgments of the Court, on precisely the 

 same point, directly in the teeth of each other. Which of them, 

 then, was LAW ? If the law was clear on the subject, how 

 happened the whole of the judges of the Second Division of the 

 Court, whose contrary decision, as we said, was unanimous, to 

 be utterly ignorant of it ? The question was, in fact, a very 

 simple one viz. Whether a person, who complains of injury, 

 or loss of property, from the acts of one who, by his own con- 

 fession, had no right to inflict such injury, had a title to seek 

 redress ? The one Division of the Court were unanimous that 

 he had, the other that he had NOT ; and as the latter prevailed, 

 the sufferer was found liable in expenses, for making the 

 attempt, to the person whom it was not once pretended had a 

 right to inflict the injury. The opinion by which the Court 

 were led was, that the Crown might, if it chose, inflict the 

 injury complained of, and as the Crown might do it, the de- 

 fender, who only did what the Crown might do, could only 

 be punished by the Crown for doing it ; and this miserable 

 QUIBBLING was held out as law, for the purpose, as we have 

 said, of enabling a man to appropriate to himself what he had 

 no right to. 



It could not, however, be very agreeable to the Court that 

 these contradictory judgments, on the same point, should 

 remain, in the face of each other, upon the records. What 

 would the country think of it ? What would future lawyers 

 say ? What opinion would they form of the Court ? Which 

 decision would hereafter be considered law, the one in accord- 

 ance with justice, or the one which disregarded and trampled 

 upon justice ? Then the legal reputation of the two divisions 

 of the Court was brought into unfortunate collision. Which 

 of the two divisions must succumb ? All this was undoubtedly 

 most mortifying ; but que faire ? So, to end the matter, 

 Houston's agent, a man of excellent tact, if scrimp of brains, 

 kindly brought his case again into the Second Division, and 

 though the judgment had become final from the lapse of time, 



