Scottish Court of Session Decisions

On the 20th June 1882, in consequence of disputes as to the possession of the lands of Waterstein, forming part of the property of Glendale in the Isle of Skye, a note of suspension and interdict was presented to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills at the instance of the testamentary trustees of the late Sir John Macpherson Macleod of Duirnish and Glendale against certain tenants and crofters in the said island, in which the Court was craved “to interdict, prohibit, and discharge the said respondents from entering or trespassing upon the lands or farm of Waterstein, or any part thereof, and from pasturing or herding their sheep, horses, or cattle thereupon, or upon any part thereof, and from allowing their sheep, horses, or cattle to stray thereupon, or upon any part thereof, and from otherwise interfering with or encroaching upon the said lands or farm of Waterstein or any part thereof, and from obstructing, molesting, or interfering with the complainers in their occupation of the said lands or farm, or with their tenants, servants, stock, and implements on the said lands or farm.” This note and suspension were duly served upon the respondents, but no answers were lodged for any of them, and on 6th July 1882 the Lord Ordinary passed the note and granted interim interdict as craved. Notice of this deliverance was duly served on the respondents on 12th July 1882.

On 19th December 1882 a petition and complaint was presented to the First Division at the instance of the said trustees, setting forth that the petitioners were under the necessity of complaining to the Court of various breaches of the interdict granted in the month of July preceding, and setting forth that John Macpherson, Donald Macleod, and John Thomson, on whom the interdict had been served, had broken the interdict by, inter alia, pasturing their sheep and cattle on the complainers' lands. It was further alleged by the complainers that the persons on whom the interdict was served had by means of a violent and illegal combination, and in breach of said interdict, molested and interfered with the servants of the petitioners in the exercise of their duties upon the farm, and by violence and intimidation had prevented them from carrying into effect the orders of the petitioners by clearing Waterstein of stock which was not lawfully there. It was further averred that in all these proceedings the persons above named had actively participated. This petition and complaint was ordered by the Court to be served upon the respondents, but the officer returned an execution setting forth that this was not accomplished owing to the violent conduct of the people in the district who had met him and prevented him from executing service on the respondents.

On 26th January 1883 the Court made an order directing that the respondents should be apprehended and brought to the bar in custody, and this having been done on the 20th February, and application having been made on their behalf for an opportunity of lodging answers, and this having been consented to by the complainers, this interlocutor was pronounced:—… “The Lords having resumed consideration of the proceedings, and heard counsel for the parties, in respect the said respondents have found sufficient caution, each of them under a penalty of £100, that they will attend personally all diets of Court in this cause, Discharge the said respondents from custody, and of consent allow them to lodge answers to the petition and complaint within forty-eight hours.”

In their answers the respondents denied generally the allegations made against them in the petition and complaint, and maintained that they were not guilty of contempt of Court or of breach of interdict. In particular, they denied that they had put their stock on Waterstein, and averred that any of their stock which had gone there had strayed there for want of a fence.

By interlocutor of 23d February 1883 the complainers were allowed a proof of their averments,

Page: 516↓

and the respondents a conjunct probation, and this proof was taken before Lord Shand on the 9th March. On the 15th March, after hearing counsel for the parties, the Court found that the respondents had each and all of them been guilty of a breach of the interdict of 6th July 1882.