Foula 1900-01

Lord Kincairney has issued his judgment in an action of suspension and interdict, raised at the instance of William Ewing Gilmour of Glencassley, Woodbank, Alexandria, proprietor of the Island of Foula, against Peter Peterson, crofter, Ham. The purpose of the action was to have the respondent interdicted from using for the purpose of salting, curing, or drying fish, two artificial beaches on the north and east of the lands of Liorafield, in the Island of Foula, and from putting certain erections on the lands of Liorafield, designed or intended to be used for any other purpose than for the agricultural or pastoral purposes of the croft occupied by him at Ham or Liorafield. Lord Kincairney, in his opinion, says that the action raised a question of general importance. It related chiefly to the use of certain rocks in the Island of Foula, in Shetland, for drying and curing white fish. The complainer was proprietor of the island, which he purchased in 1894. The respondent was a crofter in the island, and his croft or the land of which it formed a part was called Liorafield. His Lordship was of opinion in the first place that the rocks were not part of the respondent’s property. He had, therefore, not the right which he claimed of occupying the rocks as a crofter, and the Crofters’ Holding Act did not assist him. The argument of the respondent went so far as to affirm the right of fishermen of drying and curing their fish on any part of any rocks adjoining the sea, although above high water mark, without any limitation as to the waste or unoccupied character of such lands or as to their distance from high water mark. The respondent’s arguments must go that length if they were sound at all, but his Lordship thought it clear that the statutes founded on did not support it. His Lordship was of the opinion that the complainer was entitled to interdict against the use by the respondent of the rocks, and as his right to use the other beach was not now asserted, that the interdict as to the use of the beaches might go out in terms of the prayer. He was disposed to hold that a crofter might be interdicted from erecting on his croft any building which, if it had at first formed part of the subjects leased, would have warranted a decision that they did not form a statutory holding. He further considered that the erection of buildings designed for curing and storing fish would be, and that the shed already erected was, an illegal inversion of the use and purpose for which the respondent held the croft.

Counsel for the Complainer – Mr Guthrie, Q.C., and Mr Chree. Agents – A. P. Purves & Aitken, W.S.

Counsel for the Respondent – Mr Kennedy and Mr Morton. Agents – Slater & Rose, W.S.

(Before the Lord Justice-Clerk and Lords Young and Trayner.)

PETER PETERSON V. WILLIAM E. GILMOUR.

From The Scotsman 17/02/1901

Judgment was given in the action of suspension and interdict raised at the instance of William Ewing Gilmour of Glencassley, Woodbank, Alexandria, proprietor of the Island of Foula, against Peter Peterson, crofter, Ham. The purpose of the action was to have the respondent interdicted from using for the purpose of salting, curing, or drying fish, two artificial beaches on the north and east of the lands of Liorafield, in the Island of Foula, and from putting certain erections on the lands of Liorafield, designed or intended to be used for any other purpose than for the agricultural or pastoral purposes of the croft occupied by him at Ham or Liorafield. Lord Kincairney, in the Outer House, found for the complainer, with expenses. The respondent reclaimed, but the Court to-day adhered to the judgment of the Lord Ordinary.

Counsel for the Reclaimer – Mr Kennedy and Mr Morton. Agents – Slater & Rose, W.S.

Counsel for the Complainer – Mr Guthrie, K.C., and Mr Chree. Agents – A. P. Purves & Aitken, W.S.