E106/31/5/57

Transcriber's notes

Note: Mr Forbes claims the superiority of the above two parcels, but Mr Learnmouth stands enrolled upon both

Note: Mr Livingstone of Parkhall's Lands, part of Manuelfoulis, &c., were found by the procedure, 30th April, 1791, to be £259.5s.6d; and in an application by Mr Forbes of Callendar for fixing the valuation of the Lands, of which he was superior, the above two sums of £25.6s and £15.2s.9d. were stated separately, without its being mentioned of what cumulo they formed part; and they are, therefore, held to be part of this valuation, as fixed in 1791, and the difference is now stated to him at £218.16s.9d

Note: By the procedure in 1791, on the application of Mr Lockart of Muiravonside, Mr Phaup's valuation was ascertained to be £29.6s.9d, and in other respects the observations made on Mr Livingstone's Lands, as above, apply to Mr Phaup's also.
It has not been found practicable to apply particularly these last disjunctions to the several heads in the Old Roll,which have been placed opposite, although the amount of both corresponds to within 2d., which is lost upon the disjunctions. From 1742 to 1762 an entry appears in the Collector's Book of £919.7s.8d. under the name of "Manuelfoulis and Manuelmiln, &c." while none of the above names or sums standing in the Old Roll are entered therein, except the second being £99.5s.4d. under the head of Compston. From 1762 till 1791, the sum of £886.1s being the balance after the £33.6s. for Blackridge was disjoined, appears under the same title, and Compston is still continued; but after 1791 the foregoing disjunctions appear, and Compston disappears. The presumption, therefore is, that the above items in the Roll 1691 were disjunctions of certain lands or baronies called Manuelfoulis and Manuelmill, &c., of which no evidence can be found, the Record going back only to 1693

Note 4: It is impossible to say whether the £7.12s.4d. above disjoined, forms part of Parkhall £161.1s., or of Whyterigg £100., disjoined from the Earl of Callendar in 1705, the disjunction being craved from a cumulo of £261.1s.11d. comprising both these sums. 9s.1d. is lost, which arises from the disjunction being made from the sum in the Collector's Book where Mr Livingstone's valuation, from 1746 downwards, has been continued at £260.11s.11d, in place of £261.1s., which it ought to be from the Old Roll, and the disjunction of Whyterigg in 1705