13,077. Did you understand at that time that you were not at liberty to trade with the Fair Isle people without Mr. Bruce's permission?-I did not understand anything about it. He only asked me to go with freight, and I asked him if I would be at liberty to trade with the people myself, and he said I would.

13,078. Did he not say that it was only for this special occasion that you were to have liberty?-He did not.

[Page 324]

Boddam, Dunrossness, January 26, 1872, 1872 JOHN HALCROW, examined.

13,079. You are a fisherman at Levenwick?-I am.

13,080. On whose property is your ground?-On that of Mr. Bruce of Simbister.

13,081. Was that ground formerly under tack to Robert Mouat?- Yes. His tack expired about a year ago; but before that, he had become bankrupt.

13,082. Were you bound to fish for him?-Yes.

13,083. Were you also obliged to deal at his shop?-No. I had a little money of my own, and I went to any merchant that I thought I could get the best bargain from.

13,084. Did you go to Mouat for a good bargain?-No.

13,085. Why?-Because he never had good bargains. The quality of his articles was not good, and the price was dearer than that of any merchant in the neighbourhood.

13,086. Were many men in the habit of dealing with him?-Mr.

Bruce's tenantry both in Channerwick and Levenwick were bound to fish for him.

13,087. But did they deal with him for shop goods and provisions?-Yes, almost all of them dealt with him.

13,088. Why?-Because they were bound to do it.

13,089. Were they bound to deal with him for shop goods?-The fishermen were. They were required to go to him with all their produce, meal, ponies, and eggs, as well as with their fish.

13,090. But they were not bound to buy their goods from him?- No; but they had to do so, because he received all their produce, and they could not go anywhere else. They had no money.

13,091. Would he not give them money for their produce?-Yes, for such as cattle he would. But it was very few of them who had any money to get from him.

13,092. Why?-Because they were bound to fish for him, and he received all their fish.

13,093. But if he received all their fish he would have to pay them money for them?-It was very hard to get it from him.

13,094. Did he prefer to give them the price in goods?-Yes, if they would take it.

13,095. And did they take it in goods?-Not very much.

13,096. Why?-Because they were not very good.

13,097. Then they would have money to get, at the end of the year if they did not take very much in goods?-Yes.

13,098. Did they get the money at the end of the year?-No. He said he did not have it to give them.

13,099. Then they did not get their money at all?-In some cases they got it.

13,100. But some of them did not get it?-Yes.

13,101. And some of them did not get goods either?-Yes; they would not take his goods.

13,102. Then did they go without either money or goods?-Yes.

13,103. Was that often?-I have had to do it myself.

13,104. When was that?-In 1870. He said he had no money to give me.

13,105. Was that at settlement?-Yes. He had the tack for two years more at that time, and he gave me a receipt for the rent of 1871. Then he failed; and I had to pay my rent for 1871 over again to Mr William Irvine.

13,106. Why did you give Mouat your rent for 1871 nearly two years before it was due?-Because I thought he was to have the tack for two years more.

13,107. But it was your own fault, was it not that you had to pay it twice?-I don't know about that.

13,108. Could you not have got the money from Mouat?-No. I would have had to apply to the civil law to get it.

13,109. You could have got the value of it in goods from him?- Yes. I could have got it in goods; but they were of an inferior quality, and I did not want to take them. [The witness produced a receipt for the rent of 1871 from Mr. William Irvine, and also receipt from Mouat in the following terms: '5 MOUL, 13