54 Appendices to Eighth Annual Report 
'any other person.' The 37th section of the Act of 1868 provides that 
' any proprietor of a fishery shall be held to have a good title and interest 
4 at law to sue by action any other proprietor or occupier of a fishery 
' within the district, or any other person who shall use any illegal engine 
* or illegal mode of fishing for catching salmon within the district.' 
These sections of the Acts, it humbly seems to me, are sufficient to 
entitle Captain Dunbar Brander to prosecute the mill-owners on the Lossie 
for contravening a Bye-law under the 15th section of the Salmon Fisheries 
Act of 1868, which inflicts penalties on every person ' who in any way 
' contravenes any Bye-law.' I w r as informed that the section upon which 
the Sheriff relied in support of his decision that Captain Dunbar Brander 
is not entitled to prosecute is the 29th section of the Salmon Fisheries 
Act of 1862, which provides that * in the event of any person refusing or 
' neglecting to obey any Bye-law made by the Commissioners, or any 
1 regulation made by the District Board, the Clerk may apply to the 
1 Sheriff by summary petition in ordinary form, praying to have such 
' person ordained to obey the same, and the Sheriff shall take such 
* proceedings and make such orders thereupon as he shall think just' 
With regard to the validity of the Commissioners' Bye-law (Schedule 
G), ordering hecks to be placed on the intake and tail-lades of mills and 
manufactories, and the obligation on owners and occupiers to put such 
hecks on at their own expense, there cannot be the slightest doubt, since 
Case of the decision in the case of ' Kennedy v. Murray, 8th July 1869,' in 
'Kennedy v. which it was held (1) that the Commissioners had power to make Bye- 
Murray. i awg ag to j a ^ eSj d am s, & c ., although not in process of construction or 
repair ; (2) that they had power to impose an obligation on owners and 
occupiers to execute the works embraced in the Bye-laws at their own 
cost ; and (3) that the provision to the effect that the regulations to be 
made V»y the Commissioners should not interfere with any right held at 
the passing of the Act under royal grant or charter, or possessed from time 
immemorial, did not free the proprietor of a mill so held from the obliga- 
tion under the Act to place hecks, &c, as specified in the Regulations. 
I have the honour to be, 
Your obedient Servant, 
ABCH D . YOUNG. 
P.S. — Since writing the above, I find a case (' Blair v. Sandeman & 
' Lumsden, 20th July 1869 ') in which the decision of the Court of Session 
may possibly be considered adverse to Captain Dunbar Brander's title to 
pursue. Iu that case, a complaint under the Summary Precedure Act, 
1864, for contravention of Bye-law relative to the construction and altera- 
tion of mill dams, &c, concluding for penalties, was dismissed as 
incompetent, on the ground that proceedings for enforcement of Bye-law 
must first be taken under section 29 of 25 and 26 Vict. cap. 97, the 
respondent, failing obedience, being then liable to be proceeded against 
under section 28 of that Act, as kept in force by section 30 of 31 and 32 
Vict. cap. 123. 
With reference to the above it should be mentioned that if the decision 
of the Sheriff at Elgin should be appealed from, and should be confirmed 
by the Court of Session, the result would be that, in those Districts where 
there are no District Boards, and consequently no District Board Clerks, 
no proprietor of Salmon Fisheries could prosecute for the contravention of 
