Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The assessor of the county of Inverness having entered the respondents in the valuation roll for that county as lessees of the kelp shores in the parish of North Uist, the property of Sir John P. Orde, Bart., at a yearly rent of £800, and the Commissioners of Supply having found that the Valuation Acts did not embrace the kind of subjects of which the British Seaweed Company were the lessees, the assessor now appeals against that decision. In the adjusted case prepared for the opinion of their Lordships, it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the valuation complained of was made by him in terms of a return made by Sir John Orde, the proprietor of the subjects in question, which bore that the British Seaweed Company were tenants or occupiers of the kelp shores at a rent of £800, for a term of years, on a formal lease; that the subjects appealed against formed pendicles or pertinents of the estate of North Uist, and as such were capable of actual occupation; that although the British Seaweed Company have not an exclusive right to gather seaware, they were precisely in the same position as the other tenants on the estate, who shared with them the right of gathering seaweed for manure, and whose gross rents were included in the valuation roll; that although kelp shores are not enumerated in the interpretation clause of the Act 17 and 18 Vict., cap. 91, sec. 42, yet that the seaweed which grew upon the shores and rocks in North Uist was part of the proprietor's immoveable estate, and must therefore be deemed “heritage,” and of such a nature as would make its exclusion from the roll repugnant to a fair and just interpretation of the context of the Act, as set forth in the 42d section.

It was further observed that the shores of these islands, and the margins of the numerous interior salt lakes, produce in great abundance three kinds of seaware— ladyware, which grows between the spring and neap and high tides; bellware, between low and

Page: 139↓

high neap tides; blackware, at low water, spring, and neap tides—and that the manufacture of sea-weed had recently been revived among the islanders, and formed a source of very considerable profit to the proprietor.

The respondents argued that although they were entitled to the right of gathering and cutting seaweed from the shores and rocks above and below high-water mark in the parish of North Uist, which they manufactured into kelp, iodine, and other substances, they had no exclusive right to do so, and had no formal lease of any lands or kelp shores in North Uist; that they had merely to pay an annual rent or lordship of £800 for the right to gather and remove the seaweed in common with the tenants on these islands, and that they had merely the privilege of going on the lands for the purpose of collecting the seaweed—the said lands being let for agricultural and other purposes to other tenants, who paid rent therefor.

They further referred to the interpretation clause of the Act 17 and 18 Vict. cap. 91, as showing that the right to gather kelp or seaweed is not comprehended under the words “lands and heritages” in the Act, and contended that the assessor had no right to include in his valuation roll any pertinent or accessory of land not specially mentioned in said clause, and that in practice no such right has heretofore been valued or assessed.

Their Lordships reversed the decision of the Commissioners.