402 THE SALMON RIVERS OF SCOTLAND 



when speaking of the regulations governing cruive fishing, and 

 whether or not the Doachs were cruives : " With reference to the 

 above, I may mention that at the time I inspected the 'Big 

 Doach ' and the deep pool called the ' Black Pot ' below it, the sill or 

 bottom of the Doach was at least 4 ft. 6 ins. above the level of the 

 pool, and there was no paved floor or apron of any kind as 

 prescribed in the bye-law. I may further mention that Mr. 

 Stewart, in his well-known Treatise on the law of Scotland relating 

 to Rights of Fishing, states that fishing by means of Doachs is 

 subject to the provisions of the above-quoted bye-law. ' A method 

 of fishing/ he says, ' not exactly the same as, but similar to, cruive 

 fishing, was subjected by the Court to the regulations which affect 

 cruives.' The case he alludes to is that of Peter Johnston and 

 others, Trustees of James Murray, Esq., of Broughton, against 

 the Messrs. Stott of Kelton and their commissioners, decided 

 in the House of Lords, 18th February, 1802. In this case an 

 action was originally raised by the Messrs. Stott, who were the 

 proprietors of lands and salmon fishings about a couple of miles 

 above the Doachs, to have it found and declared that these Doachs 

 were really cruives, and must be constructed and worked subject to 

 the rules and restrictions regulating that mode of fishing. It was 

 found proved that the fishings at Tongueland had been carried on as 

 far back at least as the middle of the seventeenth century by means 

 of Doachs, as shown by an old valuation of 1642 and other docu- 

 ments. The Lord Ordinary found that 'cruives or doachs must be 

 regulated in terms of the laws regarding cruive fishings, and that 

 the blind eyes and other artificial obstructions or barricades to 

 intercept the run of the fish in the river, within the bounds of 

 defender's fishings, must be removed as illegal.' On reclaiming, 

 the Court adhered, and found that the barricades termed ' blind 

 eyes ' must be removed from the spaces between the rocks, and the 

 said spaces filled up with proper materials, formed and constructed 

 like other cruive dykes. These ' blind eyes ' were more effectual 

 to intercept fish than a cruive dyke, because they admitted a passage 

 to the water downwards, without allowing the salmon to proceed 

 upwards ; whereas, during a flood, when water was coming over the 

 cruive dyke, the fish were able to ascend. The case was then 

 appealed to the House of Lords, who ultimately found ' that the 

 form and construction of the cruive dykes and boxes, and the 

 construction and position of the inscales are to be regulated accord- 

 ing to law,' and remitted back to the Court of Session to give precise 



