of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 
55 
any Bye-law — a most unfortunate result, when it is considered that more 
than half the Fishery Districts in Scotland have no District Boards. 
It is somewhat curious that a decision has recently been given in 
England which will have something like the effect on the English inland 
fisheries, which a confirmation of the Sheriff of Elgin's judgment would 
have on the inland fisheries of Scotland, and which is thus commented on 
in Land and Water of 10th May last in a leading article entitled 1 A 
4 Danger to our Fisheries ' : — 4 A decision given by the Queen's Bench 
' Division last week, in the case of Andrews v. Hamlin, is of more than 
1 ordinary importance to Fishery Boards. The precise facts of the case are 
' not worth discussing, but the decision is of far-reaching importance. In 
* effect it decided that no one but Fishery Boards can prosecute for 
* penalties under the Salmon and Fresh-water Fishery Acts. It had 
* previously been decided that under the Sea-fishery Act, only the officers 
4 appointed under it could sue for penalties, and that is now followed up by 
* this, that only the Fishery Boards can sue for j^nalties under the Salmon 
4 and Fresh-water Fishery Acts, the reason for the decision being that it is a 
4 rule of law, extending from the time of Lord Mansfield, that when the 
4 penalties under a statute are given to any particular body that body alone 
4 can sue for them. Under the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873, sec. 62, if the 
* penalty is recovered on the information of a Fishery Board, or of a person 
4 authorised by a Fishery Board, the whole of the penalty goes to the Board, 
4 and, taking hold of this provision, the Court held that this gives the 
4 penalties to the Board ; and that, therefore, the Board alone could sue for 
4 them. The first thing that strikes us is, how is the law to be enforced in 
4 places where there is no Fishery Board 1 If only Fishery Boards can sue 
4 for the penalty, then who can do so in places like the Thames, where there 
* is no Board, the Thames Conservancy not being a Fishery Board, within 
4 the meaning of the Act, or in places like Essex, Cambridgeshire, or the 
4 other places on the coast of England, where there is no board? The logical 
4 conclusion seems to be that in these places the Act cannot be enforced. 
4 At first this may seem to be a very small matter, but it is of a far more 
4 widely-reaching nature than is imagined, for the penalties of the Fresh- 
4 water Fisheries Act can only be enforced by means of the Salmon Acts, 
4 and if there is no Fishery Board the penalties of the Fresh-water Fishery 
4 Act cannot be enforced at all. So. that in the parts of England where 
4 coarse fish are mostly found the Act that has been passed for their pro- 
4 tection will be a dead letter. Where no Fishery Board exists a still more 
4 serious difficulty exists ; for instance, for some part of its course half the 
4 Avon that' flows by Stratford is in Yv r orcestershire and half in Warwickshire. 
4 The Worcestershire half is in the Severn Fishery District, the Warwickshire 
4 half is not; the result is that a man can be prosecuted for fishing in one half 
4 the stream, but not in the other half. Or further, if a man catches fresh- 
4 water fish and offers them for sale out of a fishery district, he cannot be 
4 prosecuted. Hitherto the idea has been that the law prohibited the Sale 
4 of fish during close time throughout the whole of England and Wales, now 
4 the law is that this only applies to fishery districts, and that outside 
4 fishery districts a person cannot be prosecuted for selling fish during close 
4 time ; for Fishery Boards have no jurisdiction outside their districts. 
4 And as only Fishery Boards can enforce the Act, and they cannot enforce 
4 it outside their districts, all throughout the Thames watershed, in London, 
4 Reading, and Oxford, fresh-water fish can be sold without any difficulty. 
4 There is another view of the question that is still more important. There 
4 are certain streams, like the Test and the Itchen, that are full of trout, 
4 and the landowners have always refused to have such streams made into 
4 fishery districts. We have often thought they were wise in doing so ; but 
