Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This is a question between the common agent in the locality of Selkirk, and Mr Charles Scott Plummer of Middlestead. In making up a rectified state of teinds the common agent held, (1) that the teinds of certain lands of Blackmiddings, held by Mr Plummer along with the lands of Middlestead, were not included in a valuation of “the lands of Middlestead,” dated 25th July 1636. (2) That Mr Plummer's share in the commonty of Selkirk, which had been divided by Act of Parliament in 1681, was unvalued. To this state Mr Plummer objected. He alleged, (1) that Blackmiddings was valued along with and included under the name of Middlestead in 1636, the lands being separately mentioned in the titles from 1628 downwards. On the other hand, no separate teind had been paid to the titular for Blackmiddings. It is now distinguishable as a separate subject; and in a valuation roll dated 1643, the deduction from Middlestead for feu-duty (no mention being made of Blackmiddings) is £30, 6s. 8d., being exactly the amount of the feu-duty which appears from the Crown titles to have been payable for both of the lands—viz., £24 for Middlestead and £6, 6s. 8d. for Blackmiddings. (2) That the lands of Sunderland, Sunderlandhall, and Yair were also valued by the same valuation of 1636. In 1676, there was a settlement of the boundaries of the commonty of Selkirk between the burgh and the heritors, afterwards ratified by Act of Parliament, by which of the commonty were allotted to the said lands now belonging to the objector. There was no subsequent addition to the titles.