E106/28/2/27B

Transcribe other information

[Page] 2
Brought Forward -- £1697.12.1

Vice Jonathan Forbes -- £12.4.10
Proportion of Teinds -- £12.11.11

Vice Kennock -- £120.0.0
Proportion of Teinds -- £3.8.8 -- £123.8.8

Vice Macculloch of Priesthill -- £16.10.0
Proportion of Teinds -- £0.9.0 -- £16.19.0

Vice Alexander Mackenzie of Woodside including portion of Teinds -- £48.15.8

[Total] -- £1899.7.4

This leaves a sum of £12.5.8 to be accounted for but later in
the same Roll occurs an entry under the name of D Juror,
His Lands -- £11.18.10
Proportion of Teinds -- £0.6.10
[Total] -- £12.5.8

These lands apparently belong to Flowerburn and when their Valued
Rent is added to the sum of £1899.7.4 stated above it brings out the
Valued Rent of £1911.13.0
I regret I can give you no information with reference to the
difference between this sum and the £1951.6.0 given to you by the
Teind Clerk. It occurs to me, however, that the whole of the lands
entered at Rosehaugh £1096.3.6 may not have belonged to Flowerburn.
In the Roll made up in 1795 they are entered under the head of "Ross
of Cromarty". Neither can I trace in the Rolls the entry "His other
Lands "£18.18.10.
The detailed valuation I have specified above may help you to
account for this discrepancy, and I may call your attention to the pro
portions of Teinds which are included in these valuations, but which
do not appear under the head in the figures given to you by the Teind
Clerk. These tends may have something to do with the apparent dis
crepancy.

Yours faithfully

(Sgd) W. J. Duncan,

County Clerk.
[Page] 27b