Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a suspension and interdict at the instance of William Baird, Esq. of Elie, Fife, against Hugh Baird, farmer, Abercrombie, St Monance, praying the Court “to interdict, prohibit, and discharge the respondent from collecting, removing, or carting away, by himself or others acting with his authority or on his behalf, sea-ware from the sea-shore or beach ex adverso of the complainer's lands and estates of Elie, Ardross, St Monance, and Pittenweem, in the county of Fife, or any of them, and also from carting or taking away sea-ware which has been in the knowledge of the respondent, or the persons acting on his behalf, gathered by others from the said sea-shore or beach, and removed to a short

Page: 435↓

distance therefrom, without the complainer's authority or permission to do so.”

The complainer set forth that he was heir of entail in possession of the said estates, including the ancient baronies of these names. The estates extended for several miles along the sea. Under his titles to the said lands and estates the complainer had the sole and exclusive right to the sea-ware, whether growing or drifted, upon the shores or beach ex adverso of his said lands and estates, and to remove and dispose thereof at pleasure by himself or others having his authority. No such authority has been given to the respondent by the complainer, or by any one acting for him. The complainer further averred (Stat. 3)—“The respondent is tenant of the farm of Aberorombie, the property of Sir Robert Anstruther of Balcaskie, Baronet, and is situated about one and a half mile from St. Monance, and notwithstanding that he has no authority from the complainer, or any one acting for the complainer, to do so, the respondent has recently removed from the beach near St. Monance, ex adverso of the complainer's said lands and estates, large quantities of sea-ware, which is valuable manure, and has used the same as manure for his farm. At all events, he has carted and taken away, and used as manure for his farm, large quantities of said sea-ware which had been at his instigation, or in consequence of inducements held out and payments made by him, gathered by women and boys, or others of the St Monance villagers, from said beach and removed a short distance therefrom.”

The complainer further averred that the respondent had been warned that the villagers had no authority to remove the ware.

The respondent admitted that previous to 1875 he had removed some sea-ware, but the complainer having objected, he ceased doing so, and the only ware used by him since that date he had purchased in open market from the inhabitants of the burgh of St. Monance, who claimed to have right to gather the ware under the charters of the burgh.

The Lord Ordinary on the Bills pronounced the following interlocutor:—

“6 th March 1877.—The Lord Ordinary having heard parties' procurators, passes the note, but recals the interim interdict formerly granted.

Note.—It is not disputed that a traffic in the sale of sea-ware by the inhabitants of St Monance has been publicly going on for a considerable period to the knowledge of the complainer. It also appears that this is done in the assertion of a right by these inhabitants. The complainer, however, has taken no steps to put an end to this traffic by proceeding against them. In these circumstances the Lord Ordinary does not think the complainer is entitled to interim interdict against the respondent, who merely purchases from them.”

The complainer reclaimed.

Authorities— M'Taggart v. M'Douall, Mar. 6. 1867, 5 Macph. 541; The Officers of State v. Smith, Mar. 11, 1846, 8 D. 711; Paterson v. Marquis of Ailsa, Mar. 11, 1866, 8 D. 752; and Lord Saltoun v. Park, Nov. 24, 1857, 20 D. 89.