of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



69 



It will be noticed that there are two material alterations between this 

 and the preceding statutes. One, that the mid-stream is only to be 5 

 feet, and the other, that the hecks are to he five instead of three inches wide. 

 These differences are probably due to careless draughtsmanship, and the 

 increase of the width of the hecks has been so decided, and has been dis- 

 regarded as a clerical error (Heritors of Don v. Town of Aberdeen, 

 M. 10,840). The reference to the old statute as being King David's ought 

 to have been King Alexander's. 



The Act, James Y. cap. 17 ordained that the Acts made by the King's 1535, c. 17, 

 father and his progenitors anent the holding of cruives and fish yairs be IL 34 °- 

 observed, and kept, and put in execution, and that resetters and assisters 

 should incur the same penalties as principals. 



The Act of Mary, 1563, cap. 3, professed to ratify an Act made by 1563, c. 3, 

 James III., but the Act quoted is clearly the Act of James IV. 1488, u > °' 37 - 

 cap. 16. The statute further ordained that all cruives and yairs that were 

 set of late upon sand and shoals far within the water, where they were not 

 before, should be taken down, and, that the remaining cruives that were 

 set upon the water sands should stand until 1st. October then next and 

 then be put away. The Sol way was excepted from this Act. 



The Act, James VI. 1579, cap. 89, renewed the earlier statutes. The J579, c. 27, 

 preamble bore that — 'Considering the hurt that has cummin to the 111 - 14 '- 

 ' commoun weill of this Realm, and lieges thereof, be having and 

 ' keeping of cruves and zaires, slauchter of reid fische in forbidden time, 

 1 and Smoltes, and that divers Acts and constitutions have beene maid 

 ' by his Hienes maist noble progenitors, in time by gane, toward the 

 ' destruction and away taking of the said cruves and zaires, and eschewing 

 ' of slaying of reid fische and Smoltes, quhilkes has not received due 

 ' execution in time by gone, bot hes bene neglected and over seene, 

 ' therefore ordains the said Actes to be extended, and have effect and 

 ' execution in time dimming against the transgressors thereof, after 

 ' the forme and tenour of the same.' The Act, after prohibiting certain 

 things, proceeds to ordain that the landlord and owners of the said cruives 

 and yairs, before the first day of March then next, put down and 

 hold down the said cruives and yairs conform to the ' saidis Actes,' 

 and under the pains therein contained. The Act then provides for 

 procedure in enforcing the prohibitions. 



It will be noticed that no new provision is made, but that the old 1581, r. 15, 

 Acts are renewed and thus prevented from becoming obsolete. This IIT - 21 7 - 

 Act was evidently not sufficient for the purpose intended, for, by the 

 Act, James VI. 1581, cap. Ill, all former Acts made by 'his Hienes 

 ' and his maist noble progenitors anent the destruction of cruves and 

 ' yairs, slauchter of reid fische, smoltes, and frye,' were ratified and 

 confirmed, and authority was given to Sheriffs, and others individually 

 named, to enforce the Acts and exact the penalties. The statute closes 

 with this important qualification, c be it alwaies understand that this 

 c present Act, nor nathing therein conteined, shall be prejudicial to his 

 1 Hienes subjectes being dewlie infeft and in possession of holding of 

 1 cruves, lines, or loupes, within fresche waters, bot that they may use, 

 ' joise, bruik, and occupie the same in time cumming, according to their 

 ' richtes, keepand the Setterdaye's slop and sik distance betwixt every 

 ' heck, as the Actes of Parliament appointes.' 



In the Heritors of Don v. Town of Aberdeen (1655, M. 14,286), stress 

 was laid on the omission of the provision for the mid-stream being left 

 free, and too much would almost seem to have been made of the omission, 

 seeing the Act does not profess to enact anything new, but merely to 

 give effect to the old statutes. Strictly, if any alteration or modification 

 of the old Acts was to have been made it should have been expressly 

 mentioned. 



