Rankin v Wright
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 04 November 1901 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-General, Lord Adam, Lord Kinnear.
Statutory Offence—Trawling—‘Net’—Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act Amendment Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vict. cap. 10), sec. 3.—
The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act Amendment Act, 1890, sec. 3, enacts, inter alia, that ‘every net set or attempted to be set in contravention of this section shall be forfeited.’
Held that in the case of otter-trawling within three miles of the coast of Scotland (being one of the modes of contravention), the word ‘net’ in this enactment includes not merely the netted part of the fishing gear, but also the otter-boards and the warp.
Pyper v. IngramSC, 3 F. 514, followed.
Jeffrey Wright, master of the steam-trawler ‘Lily’ of Fleetwood, and residing at 10 Ash Street, Fleetwood, was charged in the Sheriff Court at Stranraer, on 16th May 1901, on a complaint under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, 1864 and 1881, at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal, setting forth that the accused had contravened the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, section 6, subsection (1), and the schedule annexed to said Act, in so far as he did, time and place libelled, use, on and from his steam-trawler, the method of fishing known as otter-trawling, the same not being permitted by any bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland, ‘whereby the said Jeffrey Wright is liable, in terms of section third of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act Amendment Act, 1890, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, to a fine not exceeding £100, and failing immediate payment of the fine, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days, without prejudice to diligence by poinding or arrestment if no imprisonment has followed on the conviction, and to have the net used on the said occasion (and which has been seized) forfeited.’*
Wright pleaded not guilty. After evidence had been led the Sheriff-substitute (Watson) convicted Wright of the contravention charged and fined him £50 of modified penalty, with the alternative of forty days' imprisonment; ‘and declares the net libelled forfeited—being the net proper, exclusive of the otter-boards and warp thereof.’
The Procurator-fiscal appealed on a case stated.
The case set forth that the following facts, inter alia, were proved:—‘The net or fishing gear seized on the occasion (and which was in full fishing order when seized) was of the kind appropriate to the method of fishing known as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SAVING TITLE IX: DESIGNING MORE EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES.
...pennsylvania/statements/2017/jan/19/bob-casey/trumps-education-pick-donated-philly-group -controv/ [https://perma.cc/4FJ5-P5QM]. FIRE sponsored a suit against the Department of Education that claimed that the Dear Colleague Letter violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and it has been ......