Trial of Robert Hay

On Monday last, the Circuit Court of Justiciary was opened here by Lords Hermand and Succoth.

After the usual preliminaries, the Court proceeded to the trial of Robert Hay, residing at Knockorth, in the county of Banff, accused of the crime of forgery. - This was a case of an extraordinary nature, of which the following is a brief outline: - In the month of July last, the pannel called at the Office of the Commercial Bank of Scotland in Banff, somewhat after Bank hours, and presented for discount a bill for L.30, purporting to be drawn by William Smart, in Kirkland of Forgue, upon and accepted by George Fordyce, Brae of Bognie, and Alexander Bartlett, Mains of Bognie, whose name he assumed.  The Agent for the Bank immediately detected the forgery, and desired the man to return on the following day; who, noways alarmed at the delay, and the probability of a discovery, said it would be inconvenient for him to remain in Banff so long, and that he would call at the Bank Office that evening, betwixt 6 and 7.  He accordingly returned in the evening, and the Procurator Fiscal, and Sheriff Substitute having been in attendance, he was charged with the forgery; and while the warrant for his committal was preparing, he laid violent hands upon the bill, (then lying within his reach) and put it into his mouth with the intention of destroying it. - Force was immediately used, to take it from him, and after a considerable struggle, he disgorged it, but so gnawed and masticated, that it was quite illegible.

When the case was called, Mr Jeffrey, and Mr Hope Cullen, appeared for the pannel; and Mr John Hope, Advocate Depute, for the Crown.

In this stage of the case, Mr Hope Cullen stated, on the part of the prisoner, an objection to the relevancy, in bar of trial.  The nature of this objection was, that the document or forged bill founded on, not being produced, it was incompetent to prove its tenor by parole evidence.  Mr Cullen, in a very distinct and perspicuous manner, drew the analogies, as far as applicable, between this and former cases which had been under the consideration of the Court; and shewed considerable research, in elucidating a point unquestionably attended with some difficulty.

On the part of the Crown, the objection was very ably answered by Mr Hope, Advocate Depute; who contended, that in a variety of cases formerly before the Court, the decisions had been uniformly against the relevancy of such objections.  However much the case for the Crown might be weakened by the absence of the forged document; yet the want of it was not sufficient to bar trial.  The pannel was not entitled to avail himself of his own tortuous act and deed, to screen himself from public justice; and where the Crown was deprived of the best evidence, viz. the forged document itself, it was the privilege, as well as duty, of the Public Prosecutor to adduce the next best evidence that might remain.

Mr Jeffrey replied, for the pannel, in a speech of much ingenuity, in which he displayed his wonted eloquence, to the admiration of a crowded court.

The Court, however, repelled the objection; and the usual interlocutor of relevancy having been pronounced, a jury was impanelled, in whose presence the prisoner pled not guilty.

The Advocate Depute then proceeded to call his witnesses; and after some evidence was taken, on the part of the Crown, Mr Jeffrey again rose, to object to a question put by the Public Prosecutor, which went directly to prove, that the bill, before its destruction by the pannel, was a forgery.  He stated that, although the Court had found that the objections made, in limine, were insufficient to bar the trial, as the case might be made out by other documents or collateral circumstances; yet he conceived it at variance with the Law of Scotland, to prove, from memory, the nature of a document  such as the present; more particularly as it went to affect the life of the unfortunate pannel at the bar.  Mr Jeffrey was equally luminous and eloquent on various other points of objection, but without effect.  He then stated to the Court, that so save farther trouble, he was authorised, on the part of the prisoner, to make a candid confession of his guilt; and the Advocate Depute having been advised to restrict the libel to an arbitrary punishment, a verdict of guilty was returned, in terms of his own confession.

[...]

Yesterday morning the Court met again; when Robert Hay, tried on Monday, received sentence of transportation for 7 years.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 29th September 1819.

Circuit Court: trial of Alexander Walker

On Tuesday, the Court met at 10 o'clock, and proceeded to the trial of Alexander Walker, in New Pitsligo, accused of fraud, breach of trust, and imposition, in so far as William Robertson, in Upper Glaslaw, having called a meeting of his Creditors in the year 1815, at which it was agreed that John Ironside, at Nettensheads, should be Trustee on his estate, Robertson accordingly desired the prisoner to make out the Trust Deed, and gave him money to pay the stamp duty, which the prisoner retained, without preparing the deed.  Afterwards, a roup of Robertson's effects took place, at which the prisoner acted as Clerk, and wrote the bills granted thereat, and carried them home with him, under pretence of arranging them, the same being a few days afterwards to be delivered to John Ironside.  After repeated applications, the prisoner delivered the roup roll and certain of the documents to Ironside, and along with them a false bill, which he had fraudulently forged and prepared, in imitation of a genuine bill, for £12 10s 2d; and did fraudulently forge and counterfeit the subscription of the said John Ironside, and the mark of Elizabeth Robertson, to the same; and farther, in breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him, prisoner subscribed the genuine bill as drawer, and indorsed the same blank, and delivered it to William McCook, messenger, in payment of a debt which he was then employed to do diligence against the prisoner for; and all this with intent to cheat and defraud the said John Ironside and Elizabeth Robertson, who, when the genuine Bill fell due, were obliged to make payment of it, with interest and charges. to McCook, for behoof of his employers.  To these charges the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty; and after some debate, his Counsel, Mr Gordon of Craig stated, in bar of the prosecution, an omission of some material words in the copy of the criminal letters served upon the prisoner.  On account of this inaccuracy, the Advocate Depute departed from the prosecution in toto , and the Jury consequently returning a verdict viva voce of Not Guilty, the prisoner was dismissed from the bar.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 1st October 1817.

Forged notes: four men in custody

It would appear from the investigation which has taken place here, respecting the uttering of forged Bank of England Notes, that several persons have been concerned, and that the plan had succeeded to a considerable extent.  It seems, however, to be now completely checked in this quarter.  At present the following persons are in custody, on suspicion of being implicated, viz. Thomas Watson, weaver, William Campbell, cattle-dealer, Andrew Sangster, vintner, and James Henderson, egg-merchant; such of them as may be ultimately committed for trial, it is supposed, will be immediately removed to Edinburgh, to stand trial before the High Court of Justiciary.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 19th March 1817.

Robert Grant, Blairfindy

INTIMATION.

THAT upon Friday the 20th day of November, 1812, ROBERT GRANT, Subtenant in Blairfundy, parish of Inveraven, and county of Banff, ABSCONDED from Justice, as several Warrants were issued against him to apprehend him upon a Charge of FORGERY.

Description: - He is about five feet eleven inches high, black complexion, red whiskers; when he left the country, he had on a dark blue jacket, white pantaloons, and wore an ordinary coarse hat.

Any person or persons who shall apprehend the said Robert Grant, and lodge him in any of His Majesty's Jails, and will send the receipt of the jailor of the jail he is in custody in, to Arthur Reid, writer in Tarland, by Aberdeen, or Charles Gordon, in St. Bridget, by Mortlach, Banffshire, will receive TEN POUNDS Sterling as a Reward; with all expences incurred upon apprehending him.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 2nd December, 1812.

Trial of Alexander Thomson

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.

Monday came on, before the High Court of Justiciary, the trial of Alexander Thomson, alias John Laurie, a private in the Aberdeenshire regiment of militia, accused of uttering bank-notes, knowing the same to be forged notes.  He was indicted on five separate charges, but evidence was only adduced in support of four of them.  After examination of a number of witnesses, two declarations were read, which he emitted after being apprehended; in the first he said he was a drover of cattle, and got the notes at Berwick; in the second he said that he was a soldier in the Aberdeenshire militia, and that he found the notes, with a pocket-book, near Dalkeith.  He was apprehended in the house of a Mrs Dudgeon in Edinburgh, and when searched (besides those above charged) there were found in a small pocket-book, concealed between his foot and stocking, six one pound notes, which were all forgeries. - The Solicitor-General addressed the jury, in a very able manner, for the Crown, as did Mr John Wood, in an excellent speech, for the prisoner.  The Lord Justice-Clerk then summed up the evidence with his usual ability and candour.

The Jury returned their verdict next day, by a plurality of voices finding the libel NOT PROVEN; and after a very suitable admonition, the prisoner was dismissed from the bar.  The Lord Justice-Clerk said, that he did not usually animadvert on the decisions of juries, but he could not help in this case, saying, if he had been one of the Jury, he certainly would have been one of the minority, as he never saw a clearer proof in that Court; in this opinion Lord Hermand concurred.

Counsel for the Crown, Mr Solicitor-General and William Boswell, Esq.; agents, Messrs James and Charles Bremner, writers to the signet. - Counsel for the prisoner, John Wood, Esq. and Samuel McCormick, Esq.; agent, John Tait, tertius, Esq. writer to the signet.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 16th September 1812.