WILLIAM BLAIR, Esquire, of Blair, v ANDREW MILLAR, Esquire, of Kersehead (Court of Session)

Mr Blair also maintained separatim , that he had made use of this access immemorially, both before Mr Millar had purchased the property (about 20 years before) and since that time.

Mr Millar, however, objected to this right; and, accordingly, built up a wall near the bridge to shut up the access to the bank. Upon this, Mr Blair applied to the Sheriff of Ayrshire for an interdict.

Thereafter, the Sheriff-depute found “that, instead of its being barely recommended to the pursuer to take the road through the defender's holm, as near to the brink of the water as possible, he is hereby found entitled to a road only in that direction,” &c.

The case having been advocated, and a condescendence ordered, the Lord Ordinary remitted to Mr Paton, a land-surveyor, to report upon certain points, and particularly upon the practicability of a cart passing from the bridge to the foot of the Rye, on the east bank of the Garnock (on Lord Glasgow's side). Mr Paton reported in the negative; but added that, unless a flood was in the river, there was room enough for a cart to pass in the channel of the river from the bridge to the foot of the Rack Pool.

Upon advising this report, the Lord Ordinary found “that there is no clear and distinct evidence of any servitude of a horse and cart-road in that direction claimed by the pursuer; and that he may exercise every right of fishing which he has in the Rack Pool, without injuring the defender's holm by claiming a road through it: Therefore advocated the cause; assoilzied the defender; and decerned.”