96 SALMON-FISHERY OF SCOTLAND. 



Second, — The word " fresche," in both parts of the clause, 

 makes nonsense of the act. One of them must therefore have 

 been an error, on this groiind alone. The error could not have 

 been in the latter part of the clause, because cruives are allowed 

 in fresh waters in the whole of the acts. The error miost, there- 

 fore, necessarily be in the insertion of the word in the first or 

 prohibiting part of the clause ; — ^which is confirmed by the fact, 

 that the word will not be found in that part in a single one of 

 all the other statutes. 



Third, — In a subsequent statute, wherein the words of this 

 statute are expressly cited, the error does not appear — from 

 which it may be presumed that, in the original statute, it did 

 not, as we said, exist. The words of this statute are as follow : 



" Act 1477. — Item, It is statute and ordained that the Act made 

 of before be King James First anent crui-ves set in waters, be ob- 

 served and keepit— the quhilk bears in effect that all cruives and 

 yairs set in waters where the sea fills and ebbs, destroys the fry of all 

 fishes, be put away and destroyed for evermore," &c. 



The omission of the word, therefore, in this statute, which 

 expressly cites the former, is, we conceive, sufficient proof that 

 the error did not exist in the original statute — or, if it did, that 

 it was deemed so palpably an error, that it was omitted in the 

 next statute, and, indeed, in the whole of the subsequent statutes 

 on record. There is not one of these reasons which is not 

 sufficient, even singly, to show that the word was a mere error, 

 wherever it originated. Remove the error, and the statute is 

 in all other respects consistent with the other statutes. If the 

 word was not an error, then the clause, as it stands, is, as we 

 said, nonsense, and the statute should be passed over, there 

 being no lack of statutes on the subject. But even if it were 

 not nonsense, at the very worst all that could be said is, that 

 it prohibits yairs in fresh waters, where yairs could not be 

 placed ; but that is no reason why the subsequent statutes 

 should not prohibit them in salt water, or on the coasts — ^that is, 

 in those parts where they could be placed, and where they 

 would destroy fry of all descriptions or of all fishes. It would, 

 indeed, be extraordinary if this statute were to neutralise or 

 defeat aU the subsequent statutes. — We have heard of statutea 



