of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



79 



statutes are altogether in desuetude. But in the case of Bute v. More 

 no precedent could be found for a conviction under these Acts, and 

 neither the ingenuity of counsel nor the experience of the Judges 

 composing the Court was able to discover any form of process under 

 which a person might be penalised for the contravention of these statutes. 

 Therefore it is not saying too much when I conclude that these statutes 

 are not likely to be again enforced. Indeed, without doing any 

 violence to authorised expositions of the law, it may very well be held 

 that the statutes have gone out of use altogether. But without entering 

 further into that question, we know that it was the practice of the 

 Scottish legislature to pass statutes which were expressed in very 

 general terms, which were not always workable without the aid of 

 judicial construction, and which were intended to be worked out by the 

 courts of law applying common sense principles to their interpretation. 

 But before and after the passing of these Scottish statutes it is needless 

 to say that there were certain descriptions of labour which had to be 

 regularly performed on Sundays. Domestic service and a considerable 

 portion of the work of farm service had to be carried on upon the first 

 day of the week. Horses had to be fed, cows had to be milked, cattle 

 had to be driven out to pasture in the morning and brought home at 

 night. The statutes never were understood to prohibit anything 

 except such work as was ordinarily carried on during week days and 

 could be as well done on any other day as on the Sunday. The tailor 

 or bootmaker was not to work at his trade nor to require his men to 

 work for him on Sundays. The case of fishing for salmon, with all its 

 statutory obligations, and the work of putting nets out of gear, must 

 be held to be ejusdem generis with these kinds of work which have to 

 be carried on upon Sundays ; and as the Act of Parliament makes it 

 necessary that the leaders should be removed either at six o'clock on 

 the Saturday evening or as soon thereafter as the state of the weather 

 permits, that is a sufficient reason why the lessee of such fisheries 

 should be held bound to engage men who were willing to do this 

 trifling amount of Sunday work when occasion requires. I have no 

 conception that there would be any difficulty in finding men willing, 

 when necessary, to perform these services on Sunday, just as servants 

 can be found to undertake other services which are usually performed 

 on Sundays as well as week-days. I agree with your Lordship in the 

 chair that we should answer the question by holding that the person 

 accused was liable to be convicted. 



Lord Kinnear. — I agree entirely with the Lord Justice-General, and 

 I only add, since this case has been brought for the purpose of review- 

 ing the decision in Middleton v. Paterson y that I agree with the opinion 

 of Lord MoncriefF in that case, and that my only difficulty in doing so 

 has been removed by what the Lord Justice-Clerk has said. 



Lord Stormonth-Darling. — I concur in the opinion of your Lordship 

 in the chair, and particularly in your Lordship's agreement with the 

 dissent of Lord MoncriefF in the case of Middleton v. Paterson. He 

 there points out at 6 F., J.C. 31, that li Sunday constitutes two- thirds 

 of the weekly close time, and the regulations contain no sanction for 

 non-observance of them on that day, on any ground whatever." 



Lord Low. — I concur. 



Lord Adwall. — My Lords, on the application of the statute and the 

 general law of the case, I entirely agree with your Lordship in the 

 chair and with Lord MoncriefF's opinion in the case which has been 

 cited. I should be very sorry if anything that we are deciding should 

 seem in any way to derogate from the proper observance of Sunday. 

 And I recommend the following view of the matter to these worthy 



