'64 Appendices to Sixteenth Anmud Report 



*' the Court of Session, at the instance of Lord Banff and others, pro- 

 " prietors of upper fishings in said river, against James, second Earl of 

 Fife, the predecessor of the first party, then in possession of said 

 fishings and cruives, raised for the purpose of regulating the position, 

 " dimensions, and use of the cruives and cruive dyke then belonging to 

 " the said Earl, and now belonging to the first party, and to prevent 

 '* the withdrawal of water from the river at said cruive dyke by a lade 

 " for the said Eack Mill, the Court, by interlocutors dated 16th 

 " February and 8th December 1773, and 4th August 1774, found that 

 ** the defender James, Earl of Fife, and his tacksmen, were entitled to 

 maintain and uphold the cruive dyke now belonging to the first party 

 " in the form and shape in which it then was, but that the defenders 

 '* were bound to place three cruives at least in the said dyke ; that each 

 of these cruives must be an ell in height, and an ell in breadth ; that 

 the rungs of the hecks must be placed perpendicularly at the distance 

 of three inches from each other ; that the sole trees of the cruives 

 " must be placed in the river so that the upper part of them shall be 

 " equal with the bed of the river ; that the sole of the cruive boxes 

 " must be placed on a level with the bed of the river ; and that all 

 sharp pointed stones and other impediments which might prevent 

 tlie salmon from entering tlie cruives must be removed ; that 

 " tlie defenders were })ound to observe the Saturday's Slaj) 

 from six o'clock on Saturday afternoon till Monday at sunrising, and 

 that during the said space the inscales of the cruives ought to be taken 

 out and i-emoved, but if, by reason of a flood in the river, the cruives 

 ''could not be come at, the inscales in such case ought to be fixed back 

 to the sides of the cruive boxes in such manner that the salmon might 

 have a free and open passage ; that in forbidden times the cruives 

 ought to be totally l emoved, and the slaps or holes where they wei-e 

 placed in the cruive dyke left free and open ; and declared that the 

 defenders, in case they should contravene the regulations thereby 

 established in time to come, should be liable to the pursuers in the 

 sum of <£50 sterling of damages for each contravention. By the said 

 " interlocutors it was found that the said Earl of Fife was entitled to 

 " withdraw water from the liver at the cruive dyke by a lade for the 

 purpose of driving the said Back Mill belonging to his lordship, the 

 entry to the mill-lade from the river to be two feet above the bed of 

 the river. The said interlocutors were, on an appeal by the pursuers 

 Lord Banff* and others, affirmed bv the House of Lords in the year 

 ^' 1781. 



3. In or about the year 1780, the said Earl of Fife, having been 

 " charged under the said interlocutors, at the instance of Peter Garden 

 '' of Delgaty and John Grant of Dunlugas, two of the pursuers in the 

 " sjiid action, suspended the charge, and two actions were raised in the 

 " Court of Session at the instance of the Bight Honourable William, 

 Lord Banff", and certain other proprietors of upper fishings in said 

 " river, against the said Earl, and the tacksmen of his fishings, alleging 

 that they had ti-ansgressed the terms of the foiesaid interlocutors, in 

 various ways therein mentioned, and were liable in the penalties 

 therein concluded for. The three actions were conjoined, and, after 

 proof, the Court of Session, by interlocutors dated 2nd August 1782, 

 ''21st January 1783, and 23rd February 1784, found that it had not 

 " been proved that there had been any alteration made on the cruive 

 " dyke since the decrees, dated 16th February and 8th December 1773, 

 '- and 4th August 1774, above mentioned, nor any contravention of the 

 *' legulations established by those decrees, and thei'efore sustained the 



