'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.' And the witness produced documents to show that he had actually paid rent in advance to Mouat in June 1871, which, according to the law of Scotland, does not discharge the tenant; and that he had afterwards paid it to Mr. Irvine, as factor for Mr. Bruce. While it may be taken for granted that the condition of tenants under Mr. Mouat was at no time enviable, some of the statements about his conduct ought probably to be accepted as literally true only with regard to the period of struggling circumstances immediately preceding his bankruptcy. [John Leask, 1284; Gavin Colvin, 1382; M. Malcolmson, 2978; W. Manson, 3018; H. Sinclair, 5312; W. Irvine, 3948.] [Page 10 rpt.] EVICTION AND LIBERTY MONEY.