Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 89

3019. Do you hold a piece of land under Mr. Bruce of Simbister?-Yes.

3020. It was formerly included in the tack to Robert Mouat?-Yes.

3021. Were you bound to fish for Mouat?-Yes.

3022. Did you give your fish to any other merchant during the time of his tack?-Yes. In 1870, the year that Mouat failed in business, I gave my fish to James Smith, because I saw I could not live for want of meal, and therefore I and some others were determined to give our fish where we could get both meat and money; and for doing so, Mouat served me with a summons.

3023. Were Smith and Tulloch the only fish merchants in that neighbourhood besides Mouat?-Yes; they cure fish, but not in a large way.

3024. But they buy your fish, and sell you provisions and goods?- Yes.

3025. In consequence of selling your fish to Smith, did you receive a letter from Mouat?-Yes; I have lost that letter.

3026. Did it warn you that you were to leave your ground?-Yes.

3027. Did you also get a formal warning to quit?-I did. I have it.

[Produces summons of removing.]

3028. This is a summons at the instance of Robert Mouat, residing in Lerwick, princ.i.p.al tenant under Robert Bruce, Esq. of Simbister, dated 29th September 1870, giving you warning to leave at Martinmas: was that summons served upon you by a sheriff officer?-Yes.

3029. Did you leave in consequence of it?-No; it was in the latter part of the harvest that I received it, which was a very inconvenient time for me to leave, and I went to Mouat and spoke to him about it. He told me that if I would promise to be an obedient tenant, and agree to fish for him the same as I had been doing before, and pay the expense of the summons, I could stay. I knew that it was then coming towards the end of his lease, and I agreed to do that.

If I had thought he was to continue longer on the place, I would have left.

3030. Did you pay for the summons?-I did.

3031. You have handed me another letter in the following terms:

'MOUL, 1869, . 18.

'THOMAS JAMIESON.

'LAURANCE MALCOLMSON.

'WILLIAM MANSON.

'WILLIAM MOUAT.

'I this day duly give you notice to look out for A house at Martamas 1869, as I am not incline to keep such men as you for your preasent cond.i.c.k.

'ROBERT MOUAT.'

3032. What does that letter refer to?-It was sent to us because we had allowed Malcolm Malcolmson to give his share of the fish away to another merchant than Mouat.

3033. You understood Mouat to refer to Malcolmson having sold, his fish to Tulloch?-Yes.

3034. This letter was written at an earlier period than the warning you received yourself?-Yes, the year before.

3035. How do you know it was that particular act on your part which caused this letter to be written?-Because Mouat told me so himself.

3036. When did he tell you so?-That same year, just a few days after the letter was written

3037. How was it that you did not leave your ground at that time?-We just never minded him, but went on as we had been doing. I and the rest of the men fished for him, and that man fished for Thomas Tulloch as he had been doing, and Mouat never asked anything about it afterwards. He just annulled the letter, as it were.

3038. You have produced another summons of removing: what does it refer to?-It is the summons that was served upon another man, Thomas Jamieson, at the same time that the summons was served upon me, and for the same thing. He knew that I was coming here, and he wanted me to bring his summons also, that I might show it to you. He had also fished for James Smith in 1870.

3039. Have you anything to say about Mouat's shop?-It was very little worth.

3040. Did you get all your goods there?-Yes.

3041. Were you obliged to take them there?-We were because we could not get them anywhere else.

3042. Did Mouat tell you that you must take them from him?-He did not say that we must take them; but when we were fis.h.i.+ng for him, and getting no money, we were obliged to go and take our goods from his shop. Although they had been double the price of what they were anywhere else, we had no other way of doing. We could not make a better of it.

3043. You think the quality of the articles you got there was not good?-It was not.

3044. The meal especially was bad?-Yes; the meal was worst.

3045. Was the tea good?-No; it was bad, and it was dear.

3046. For whom were you fis.h.i.+ng last year?-For James Smith.

3047. Are you perfectly at liberty now to fish for any one you please?-Yes, we are at perfect liberty.

3048. Smith is not a tacksman?-No; he just takes our fish, and pays us well for them, as high as can be got in the place.

3049. Do you deal at Smith's shop?-Yes.

3050. And you settle with him annually?-Yes; I have just settled with him this week.

3051. Had you a balance to receive from him?-Yes; 4, 14s.

3052. That was your balance of the season's fis.h.i.+ng, after deducting the price of the goods you had got during the season from his shop?-Yes.

3053. Is that a usual balance in a good season, or is it under or over?-It is just about the general thing.

3054. Was that paid to you in cash?-Yes.

3055. You paid your rent to Mr. Irvine, of Hay & Co.?-Yes.

3056. Have Hay & Co. any fish-curing places in that neighbourhood?-No, they have a place down at Dunrossness, but that is a long way from us.

3057. You are not expected to fish for them?-No; we have heard nothing about that yet.

Lerwick, January 6, 1872, ROBERT ANDERSON, examined.

3058. You are princ.i.p.al shopman to Mr. Robert Linklater, merchant, Lerwick?-Yes.

3059. I understand you desire to make some explanation with regard to the evidence of two women who were examined here?- Yes; of Margaret Tulloch, and of Mrs. Thomas Anderson, Margaret Tulloch said she refused to take worsted from us to knit, because she could not get cash for her work. I have to state that we refused to give her work because she kept it so very long; and when she was asked why she had kept it so long, she said she had so many lodgers, that she had scarcely any time for knitting. The last thing she had from us was a small handkerchief, the knitting of which was worth 1s. 6d., and which could easily be [Page 68]

made in three days. She had it in hand for two days short of five months. Mrs. Anderson made the same remark, that she would not take worsted, because she could not get cash for her knitting. I have the same explanation to make with regard to her, that we refused her work because kept it too long. She got a little shawl to knit on 28d February 1870, and she returned it to use on 14th June. The knitting of it cost 2s.