The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-12 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.

fif n
LIVERPOOL.
THURSDAY, JULY 10.--High water 16. min. past ten.
Wind N.W.,---Arrived the Sir James Kemp, M'Britle,
from Savannah; Hannibal, ',uric, from New Orleans;
John and Mary, White, from Barbadoes ; Wallsend,
Watts, from Quebec; Emlymion, Garbutt, from Mira-
uniehi ; Ceres, Miller, from Riga ; Levant Packet, Curidy,
from St. Petersbnrgh : St.
—i°llol, Tretlemayn, from St.
Petersbargh ; Favourite, Wethvcombe, from Newfound-
land ; Duchess of Athol, Christ6n, from the Isle of Man ;
Agrista, Orched, from Dantzic ; Dash, Young, from Eris-
' tol.-Iwo ships and three snows off at a quarter past
eight o'clock.
CLEARED OUTWARDS.-The Henriette Caroline,
Berg, for Dantzic and ;DoCredrte;,
and
dviesthe ia
; for New
York ; Concordia, Nagel,
ratha, Veen, for Antwerp.
Telegraph Office, July 10.
rl
ihs th bsrmeeazcek.
p—aPt alsisedoinward
iu*stit
odi Na ot .161..31Yh, eathde DNa. \r‘rt; 13'
li3r
l.
One ship, 1 brig, inward bound, and a pilot boat, off
•
Point Lynas. •
One.ship, inward bowl, and one pilot boat, off Voel
Naut.

Two brigs off Holyhead, inward bound, have not shown
their numbers.

A ship, inward bound, and ttvo pilot boats, off Voel
Nast, at 7 30.

The father of the Rev. Mr. POPE, who dis-
comfited the Rev. Mr. 111.saurrtc in the Religious Discus-
sion, held in Dublin during the last year, has just been
elected Mayor of Cork..—Cori, Constitution.

'The Loan CHANCELLOR said this case had been Lrgued
at their Lbrdships' bar some time ago. It was an appeal
from a judgment of the Court of Session in Seotland, and
Was of very considerable importance in point of value, and
.also as a public question... The appellants were propretors
of salmon fisheries in the river . Don, in Aberdeonsiire ;
white the respondents Tosseesed rights of salmon fishing
along the•sea•shore about two miles from the mouth. of the
river Don, and altogether of about three miles in extent.
The respondents erected what are called stake nets along the
coast adjoining their .respective properties, and of thesethe
proprietors of the river Don complained. Now the
question was whether sea coast proprietors were entitled
to place stake nets ,is such a position, and this de-
pended on the construction of certain Acts -of the
,Scottish Parliament. Their Lordships would -observe
that it was not disputed in this case, that by the law of
Scotland, persons were entitled, 'under certain circum-
stances, to place crnives and, other fixed machinery above
the point in which the tide flowed ; but where the file
actually did flow each 'Machinery-could not legally: be,
placed. The question which was tried in the Court of
Session, and which afterwards came before that Rouse, re-
lating to the river Tay, was whether stake nets could be
put in the river water, or frith of the Tay. The Court of
Session was of opinion in that case, that the statutes pie-
hibited such maehinery from being placed in those parts of
the Tay, and this decision was afterwards confirmed by
their Lordship,. But in arguing that case, great care was
taken not to decide the question as to the legality of stake nets
along the sea coasts; so that the present case came before
the House unfettered by any previous decision. It was+
argued with great ability in the Court below ; which ulti-
mately came to be of opinion that the Acts of Parliament
did not apply to the sea coast. In as far as related to the
earlier of these Acts, it was so clear as to admit of nor
doubt whatever. The first of these statutes was, the Ist
of Robert 1., of Scotland, passed so far back as 1318.
It was quite obvious that it was never intended to apply to
sea coasts, for it talks of salmon übi descendant et ascend-
ant, which could not possibly have reference to the sea •
coast. The next statute was that of James 1.. of Scot-
land, passed in 1424, .the language of which clearly,de-
noted rivers, or the channels of rivers. In the statutes:of
a later period, the expressions were certainly more equi-
vocal and more general. But construing these Acts 'with
a view to all the circumstances of the case, hit Lordship
considered himself justified in concluding that the whole
body of these enactments referred, not to the sea coast, hart
to rivers and the channels of rivers, and therefore he would
recommend to their Lordships to confirm the judgment of
the Court below. His Lordship had consulted the institu-
tional writers of the law of Scotland, and found that they
spoke of these Acts of Parliament as applying to rivers, and
to rivers only. It was contended at their Lordships' bar
that, by the terms of their grants from the Crown, pro-
prietors on the sea coast could only fish by net and coble.
If their grants were so limited, that was a question between
them and the Crown. The Crown might think right to.
complain, and possibly might hive a good right to institute
proceedings, concerning which, however, hit Lordship
wished to be understood as expressing no opinion Whatever.
But the proprietors of the river Don, at least, had ,no
right to complain. His Lordship then moved that the de-
cision of the Court of Session be affirmed.