'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.