May 13, 1893] 
THE EISHING GAZETTE 
353 
the bed of the river being full of huge rocks, 
round which it is no joke steering the salmon, 
which run very large. After a course of some 
seven miles it enters another lake* quite a small 
one, and becomes the Bolstad river. This has a 
course of only one mile, in which, however, are 
some large and splendid pools, before it enters the 
Fjordal Bolstadoren. Both portions of this fine 
stream are now rented by the same Englishman, 
who enjoys first-rate sport on them. The 
fish run exceptionally large, bigger, I fancy, 
than upon any other Norwegian river, and there 
is always at least one giant, fifty odd pounds, 
killed each year on them.” 
According to this description, theEvanger river 
runs from the Vossevangs lake to the Evanger 
lake, in a length of “ some seven miles.” Believing 
this statement of length to be correct, as I had 
never measured the river myself, and considering 
the fact that the Englishman was so far from 
having the “ greater part ” of the above-described 
Evanger river (as Mr. Corbett will have it) that he 
actually only retained the “ Ho ” and the 
“ Skorve” pools thereof, aside of some unfishable 
rapids, and a small pool only fishable after a spate, 
I was led to think that my portion, which I knew 
to be by far the longer, would amount to about 
six miles. I therefore quoted Mr. Corbett the 
length of nearly six English miles (not over six 
English miles, as Mr. Corbett writes). Further, 
I confirmed the account of the Fishing Gazette, 
only correcting that the Englishman, instead of 
having the whole of this (Evanger) river, had 
merely two pools of it (not “ a pool or two,” as 
Mr. Corbett writes). 
Same account of the river says, as you see, 
nothing about that insignificant lake “ called the 
Seimsvand,” through which the stream passes on 
its way to the Evanger lake, whereas it mentions 
the latter, which is more than twenty times as 
large as the Seimsvand, as “quite a small lake”; 
nor does that account say anything about the trap, 
and I myself thought of none of these things 
when I gave an affirmative reply to Mr. Corbett’s 
question, if my water was “ good fishable water, of 
which I had the exclusive right of fishing.” 
It was, however, quite natural that I did not 
think of that little lake and that single trap, as 
former tenants had never complained of them if 
I had happened not to mention them in my repre¬ 
sentation of my water. 
After Mr. Corbett’s acceptance of my offer, I 
asked him, in a very polite letter, if he had any¬ 
thing against paying the rent beforehand, as I 
had already had to advance the rent myself to 
the riparian owners. I am sure Mr. Corbett 
must admit himself that my correspondence with 
him about paying the rent in advance was no 
“ demand,” but a very polite suggestion on my 
part, and with the result of that correspondence, 
viz., the advancement of the half rent, I was 
quite content. Altogether I looked forward 
with great pleasure to making the acquain¬ 
tance of my new tenant, not anticipating 
for a moment the great annoyance which 
was in store for me. Thus the negotiation was 
at an end, and in due time Mr. Corbett called 
in my office on his way to the river, affirming 
our agreement to pay the other half of the rent 
eight days after his arrival at Evanger. You 
may therefore easily imagine my astonishment 
when I received a letter from Mr. Cobbett, on his 
arrival at my river, saying that the fishing was 
inconsistent with my representation of it, and 
that he would either leave the river, and be 
repaid the advanced half of the rent, or remain 
at the half rent, against my waiving any claim 
on him for the balance. So much greater was 
my astonishment, as my July tenant, whom I 
had given the very same account of the river as 
I had given Mr. Corbett, had shortly left me 
without intimating with a single word that my 
representation of the fishing was incorrect. 
Amongst the copies of letters from English 
sportsmen which I have sent you, you will find 
one in which that same July tenant of mine even 
plainly says that he found my description of the 
Evanger fishing “ perfectly fair, and not in¬ 
tending to deceive.” 
From this account of my negotiation with Mr. 
Corbett T think it will be clear to everybody that 
any so-called “ misrepresentation ” was neither 
wilfully done by me nor regarded as discrepancy 
by my former tenant. I shall therefore proceed 
to demonstrate Point 4 (re the verdict). 
On receiving above-mentioned letter from Mr. 
Corbett I replied, expressing my astonishment 
at its contents, and trying to persuade him 
to remain in hopes of good sport if the weather 
kept favourably. I added that I could not 
accept his offer to take half rent as full payment, 
and that I should have been glad to repay him 
his advanced half rent and look for another 
tenant if it had not been too late in the season for 
that. Thereupon Mr. Corbett answered that, as I 
had not accepted his proposals, he had begun to 
fish under protest. Thus Mr. Corbett started 
fishing, en joying at once good sport, and when the 
week had passed I asked him if he would pay the 
remaining half of the rent agreed upon. He re¬ 
plied that he would pay no more than the half 
rent already advanced, leaving me altogether to 
deal with his lawyer. I then tried all I could to 
settle the dispute in a friendly way, making 
the folowing offers: 
1. An extra week on the river gratis. 
2. Arbitration of the points of dispute. 
3. Both reduction of the rent in proportion 
to the number of miles the river after being 
measured might be found to be too short, and arbi¬ 
tration of the other points viz., my omission of 
mentioning that little Seimslake and the trap. 
Finally, Mr. Corbett declared himself willing 
to accept the last offer, on the condition that the 
arbitrators should have no right to take into 
consideration the bag he (Mr. Corbett) had made. 
As the object of arbitration and the mission of 
the arbitrators naturally only could be to get 
fixed the damage or loss Mr. Corbett could be 
presumed to have suffered from the existence of 
the lake and the trap, I think anybody will 
admit that there would be no use in a settlement 
by arbitration on such conditions. I then knew 
no more proposals to make, and as I was con¬ 
vinced that the fishing which I had given him 
was worth much more than half the rent agreed 
upon, I had no alternative but letting the judge 
settle between us. 
Thus the lawsuit began, and the verdict has 
at last been passed. And what does it say ? It 
really chiefly says that the loss Mr. Corbett can 
be supposed to have suffered can merely be a 
financial one, and that a “skjon,” i.e., a taxing 
committee (not the taxing officer of the court, as 
Mr. Corbett writes) shall fix the value thereof ! 
Such taxing committee consists of four men, 
of which two are elected by each party. Between 
themselves they elect an umpire to decide in case 
of mutual dissension. May I then ask, what is 
the difference between such a taxing committee 
and a committee of arbitrators Certainly the 
difference is none, and as arbitration was the 
offer I made Mr. Corbett before the lawsuit 
began, I venture to claim that the verdict is just 
as much in my favour as in that of Mr. Corbc^^t. 
It is even much more in my favour, for the 
following reasons :— 
Firstly, because the taxing committee must 
take into consideration the good bag Mr. Corbett 
made, and such consideration was just what Mr. 
Corbett would forbid the arbitrators, if he were to 
accept my offer of arbitration. 
Secondly, because the committee must also 
consider the finding of those men, who, during 
the proceedings of the lawsuit, were called upon 
to decide whether the Seimslake was a part of 
the river or a lake. Their decision was that it 
was a lake in the geographical sense of the word, 
but not of such a character that it formed any 
interruption in the sport (in other words, there 
might as well have been some long and unfish¬ 
able rapids as that little and partly fishable lake, 
which, furthermore, had the advantage of forming 
two of the best pools at its in-and outlets. 
Thirdly, because same committee cannot help 
considering that fact, which also was confirmed 
during the proceedings of the lawsuit, viz., that 
the owner of the trap had some years ago got a 
large sum from the State as compensation for 
the injury done to his catching apparatus by the 
building of the railway. The trap cannot be 
considered “ productive ” but must rather be 
called harmless. Surely if Mr Corbett had 
accepted any offer of ordinary arbitration the 
decision of the arbitrators would have been much 
more in his favour than can possibly be the 
finding of the taxing committee, which will now 
be obliged to take all above-named considerations. 
It is even not at all quite impossible that the 
committee, when duly considering all above- 
mentioned points, and comparing Mr. Corbett’s 
bag and the rent asked with bags and prices of 
salmon fishing in Norway generally, will find that 
Mr. Corbett has suffered no loss at all. 
Mr. Corbett should therefore not yet say in his 
statement of this case that according to the 
verdict he has been “ held entitled to a reduction 
of the balance claimed,” and I think, therefore, 
that I do not say too much in Point No. 4, when 
claiming that the verdict is so far from being 
a victory to Mr. Corbett, that it is entirely equal 
to what I offered him beforehand, viz., arbitra¬ 
tion. 
Re the 5th Point. 
It will suffice to say that if the price of salmon 
fishing ever corresponded to the bag in the same 
proportion as it does in this case, there should 
be little reason of complaint either in Norway 
or elsewhere. Mr. Corbett was to pay £60 for a 
period of thirty-two days (i.e., from Aug. 1 till 
Sept. 8, Sundays excepted) and the bag made 
was 6351b., viz. 
30 salmon weighing 5031b. 
23 grilse „ 961b. 
10 sea-trout „ 361b. 
Total. 6351b. 
This bag makes the price of the fish caught, 
at a rent of £60 even, less than 2s. a pound, and 
Mr. H. T. B. calls, in an article in the Field of 
Nov. 29, 1890, that Norway-going salmon fisher 
a lucky man whose fishing costs him only 2s. 
a pound in rental. Surely, therefore, not many 
sportsmen would have acted as Mr. Corbett did 
in this case, leaving the river having paid only 
half of a reasonable rent, and then forcing the 
lessor to be at law with him for the balance. 
Only a few words need be said about Points 2 
and 3, and these are, that I heard complaints of 
“Norwegian agents ” long before I had any fishing 
of my own to let. Already by the time when the 
well-known Etne and Aaro rivers, then belonging 
to a friend of mine, were the only streams on 
which I could occasionally and satisfactorily pro¬ 
cure seme sport for Englishmen, did I hear com¬ 
plaints from sportsmen re river affairs in Norway. 
Thus I was not the creator of the Bergen system, 
and that I do not practice it is, I hope, sufficiently 
proved by the good letters of recommendation 
which many English sportsmen have given me, 
and of which I have sent you some verified copies. 
I was sorry and much annoyed even at the mere 
thought of beginning a lawsuit against a sports¬ 
man of the English nation, to which I, as a busi¬ 
ness man in the tourist line, am so much in¬ 
debted, but I hope here to have made it clear to 
everybody, that as none of my offers was accepted, 
I had no choice. I can safely say that I have 
ever done my best to assist British sportsmen 
and tourists coming to Norway, and being one of 
the “agents ” now made so suspicious in English 
sporting papers, I am glad to have had this 
opportunity of defending myself. The sporting 
agency is no easy “ line of business misunder¬ 
standing and unpleasantness may often arise, 
much against the agent’s will, and, though he be 
ever so careful in his statements, but I trust that 
if I am doing my best and acting in bond fide, as I 
have ever done, I shall, in the event of future 
disputes, only meet with tenants willing to settle 
in a friendly way. 
I remain, dear sir (asking you kindly to excuse 
the length of this letter). 
Yours very truly, 
Tiioeyald Beyee, 
Owner of the firm T. Beyer, Strandgaden. 
Bergen, Norway. 
For the following we are indebted to the Field: 
SlE, —The full text of the judgment in this case 
is before me, and I find that, incorrect as were 
the statements made regarding Mr. Beyer’s 
water, they were reasonable compared with those 
he made about mine. The judgment recites that 
in a letter of June 24 last to Mr. Corbett, describ¬ 
ing the river, Beyer wrote: “ It proceeds from 
the Vangs Lake, and falls into the Bolstad Fjord, 
and is altogether over seven English miles long. 
Of this river I possess six miles.” He does not 
expressly say there is only one mile left for me, 
but that is an obvious inference. Though willing 
to bet I have nearer five, I shall, in order only to 
* The Evanger lake. 
