5273. Then the merchant has interfered as a creditor merely?-Not the merchant, but the proprietor.
5274. Was it for his rent that he interfered?-Yes.
5275. In these cases was the proprietor a merchant as well?-Yes, in some cases.
5276. And he has interfered both for his rent, and for the account due to him as a merchant?-I cannot say about him being a merchant. I always understood it was done for rent. I have known of cattle being taken according to law for a shop account.
5277. You mean that they were poinded?-Yes, by a Sheriff's warrant.
5278. But is there any practice in Yell of a man marking his cattle as belonging to a merchant to whom he is in debt?-No; I never knew that done.
5279. Or coming under an obligation not to sell them to any one except that merchant?-I could quite believe that a tenant would offer his cow or his pony, or whatever it might be, to the proprietor; but I am not aware of any one being compelled to do so in North Yell. I have myself marked a cow of a defaulting tenant when I was acting as my brother's agent, and as lessee of Major Cameron's property, but that was for the rent.
5280. Did you mark it and allow it to remain on the ground?- Yes; I allowed it to continue in the tenant's hands until I might think fit to remove it.
5281. Was that man in debt to you as well?-He was in debt as a tenant only for rent.
5282. Was he not also in debt for goods supplied?-No; because he was not a fisherman; he was a sailor.