Phyn v. Kenyon and Another [1905] ScotLR 42_382 (21 February 1905)

Phyn v. Kenyon and Another [1905] ScotLR 42_382 (21 February 1905)

Section 11 of the Salmon Fishery Act 1861 imposes liability only on the owner of the fixed engine, not on servants or employees acting under instruction; the complaint was also irrelevant for failing to specify whether the locus was within the area to which the Act applied as fixed by the commissioners.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_382
Parties
Complainer and Appellant: Charles Stewart Phyn; Respondent: Robert Kenyon; Respondent: Peter Williamson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 1905
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Complaint (appeal) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondents assoilzied (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Illegal Salmon Fishing, Fixed Engines, Statutory Interpretation, Criminal Liability of Servants, Relevancy of Complaint
Criminal Law Fisheries Law Illegal Salmon Fishing Fixed Engines Statutory Interpretation Criminal Liability of Servants Relevancy of Complaint

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Stewart Phyn

Complainer and Appellant

Robert Kenyon

Respondent

Peter Williamson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Complaint (appeal) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint was relevant for failing to specify the locus as fixed by statute or commissioners
  2. 2 Whether the accused, as servants and not owners, could be liable under section 11 of the Salmon Fishery Act 1861
  3. 3 Whether a whammel (drift/hang) net is a fixed engine under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11 of the Salmon Fishery Act 1861 imposes liability only on the owner of the fixed engine, not on servants or employees acting under instruction; the complaint was also irrelevant for failing to specify whether the locus was within the area to which the Act applied as fixed by the commissioners.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondents assoilzied (acquitted)

Orders

  • Third question of law answered in the affirmative (respondents properly assoilzied)
  • Unnecessary to answer the remaining questions