Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 GAME.

James Watson of Saughton, Thomas Craig of Rickerton, John Christie of Baberton, George Inglis of Redhall, and James Carmichael of Hailes,
v.
James Earl of Errol, and the other Noblemen and Gentlemen of the Edinburgh Hunt, and Richard Vary their servant

Date: 9 August 1763
Case No. No 2.

An interdict issued against persons, altho' possessed of the legal qualifications, who had hunted in inclosed grounds, without the permission of of the proprietor.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In May 1762, a petition and complaint was exhibited to the Sheriff of Edinburgh by the pursuers, with concourse of the fiscal, against Richard Vary huntsman of the Edinburgh pack of hounds, for breaking down and leaping over their hedges and ditches, and riding through sown corn, and for hunting a pack of hounds, which he was not entitled to do; and therefore praying, that he might be discharged to hunt in time coming; that he might be found liable in damages to the complainers; and that he might be fined in the sum of L. 50 Sterling for contempt of the law, &c.

A proof having been taken, the Sheriff found it proven, “That the defender Richard Vary has hunted with a pack of hounds on the grounds belonging to the complainers James Watson and James Carmichael of Hailes, after the wheat thereon was brierded, and that he once brushed through the hedge of an inclosure belonging to the said Mr Carmichael; Found, that the said defender had no right to hunt with the said pack of hounds on the grounds belonging to any of the complainers; and therefore prohibited and discharged him from hunting thereon in time coming, with certification. And found the defender liable to the said Mr Watson and Mr Carmichael in damages and expenses, and modified the same to L. 2 Sterling; as also, fined and amerciated the said defender in L. 5 Sterling, payable to the procurator fiscal of Court; and granted warrant to any of the officers of court to apprehend and incarcerate the defender in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, the keepers where of were ordered to receive and detain him, until he should pay the said two sums.”

Against this interlocutor Vary petitioned, setting forth, that he was only a servant; and therefore praying, that procedure might be sisted till the gentlemen of the hunt might be called in the process.

The sheriff upon answers, refused this petition; upon which the Earl of Errol and others raised a suspension; in which they insisted, That, by law, they were entitled to hunt where they pleased, and were entitled to keep Vary as their servant to take care of their dogs.

Lord Edgefield Ordinary on the bills reported the same to the Court; upon which the following interlocutor was pronounced:

‘The Lord Ordinary, after advising with the Lords, passes the bill upon caution, prohibiting and discharging Richard Vary, the Earl of Errol, and others, contributors to the Edinburgh hunt, suspenders, or any in their company, from hunting or pursuing game by themselves, or with horses, within the inclosures, or upon the grounds of the chargers or their tenants, and from trespassing upon said inclosures, till such time as this suspension shall be discussed; and that under the penalty of L. 5 Sterling toties quoties, to be levied from the suspender, or any of them, conjunctly and severally.’

Reporter, Edgefield. Act. Rae. Alt. Burnet. Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 248. Fac. Col. No 118. p. 278.