[Falconer, No. 115.]
This case was mentioned, June 4, 1745. The Lords now reversed their interlocutor, and found that the old extent, in this case, was not distinct from the feu-duty, and therefore, by the Act 1681, which was in no respect abrogated by the late Act, the vote was not good. Elchies said, that besides the coincidence of the sums in this case, and the well known practice of juries in such cases, it was evident that the inquest, here, had not followed the rule which was ordinarily followed in retouring the King’s property lands after the 1597. This rule, as we learn from Sir George M'Kenzie, and other writers, was for every quatuor bovatæ terræ, four oxgangs of land, one pound of old extent. Now, according to this rule, there ought to be here forty ploughs, whereas, it is believed, there is not the tenth part of that number.
The like decided, unanimously, June 22, 1747. Arniston and Drummore declared themselves of a different opinion; but, in respect of the former decision, would not vote.