Omaezaki is a tableland promontory, projected into the Sea of Enshu, at the western side of the mouth of the Suruga Bay. In the north of this promontory, facing the Suruga Bay, there are two village communities, Meiwa and Futatsuya ; in the east is the community of Shimomisaki and in the south, facing the Sea of Enshu, are the two communities of Kamimisaki and Hirosawa. Omaezaki Mura (the Village of Omaezaki) consisted of these five communities, whose inhabitants used to depend chiefly on fishery for their living. In this village, an established fishing practice had been handed down from of old, in due observance of which the people there had made their living. And this fishing practice consisted of the following agreements : limiting each community's piscary within the sea in front of it, restricting the number of the fishing boats within that of the hitherto taxed ones, and disapproving the new attempts of fishing.
In this village of Omaezaki, around 1844, there arose a judicial dispute concerning fishery right, which was submitted to the court of Jisha-bugyo (Commissioner of Temples and Shrines) in 1850 and was finally settled in thirty-one years. The beginning of the dispute was that the people in Futatsuya bought a used boat and launched towing net fishing in the piscary of Kamimisaki and Hirosawa communities. At first, these two communities connived at it because it did not disturb them. But, as it gradually developed into a large-scale fishing, they called for its discontinuance, but the Futatsuya people did not comply with it. The two comunities commplained to the magistrate's office of an offence of the customary practice but no settlement was reached between them. Therefore, in the aforesaid year, the two communities appealed to the court of Kanjo-bugyo (Commissioner of Treasury) concerning the Futatsuya people's wrongdoing. But, a day before it, the latter had already taken to Jisha-bugyo an action against an interruption of their fishing. In consequence, contrary to their intention, the former came to be examined as the defendants of the latter's law suit. It seemed that a compromise was reached between them and this dispute was brought to a settlement, but the Futatsuyama people, without assenting to it, again took an action to Jisha-bugyo with the claim and suitor changed. And thus we have a thirty long years' judicial dispute.
What the plaintiffs assert is that, despite their having fishery right in the defendants' piscary, they are prevented from exercising it and that they will be disabled from keeping their living and paying taxes. Refuting this, the defendants insist that the plaintiffs' assertion is entirely wrong and against the customary practice. Once this offence be admitted, as they say, it would be impossible to maintain their living and tax-paying, not to mention the peace in the village.
Fishery disputes of this sort were not rare in those days. This particular dispute, however, is of great help in understanding the actual circumstances of the judicial procedures in those days because of the completeness of its extant materials, such as the descriptions of subpoena, court attendance or trial, the exhibits, the documentary evidences, etc.
