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.

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.

Circuit Court Trials, Perth

At the Circuit Court at Perth, on Wednesday last, Robert Ruxton, Jean McMillan, and Elizabeth Beattie, were found guilty of abetting and aiding the riots which lately disgraced the town of Montrose.  Ruxton was sentenced to banishment for seven years beyond seas - McMillan six months in the jail of Forfar - and Beattie four months in the jail of Montrose.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 28th April 1813.

Circuit Court Trials, Aberdeen

On Saturday evening, the Circuit Court of Justiciary was opened here by the Right Hon. Lords Meadowbank and Pitmilly.  The court did not proceed to business till Monday, when they met at ten o’clock.

The first case that occupied the attention of the court, was that of John Ferguson, accused of housebreaking and theft, in the shop of John Henderson, Bonnykelly, by forcing an entrance through the roof, and therefrom abstracting tea, sugar, &c. and about 16s. of money.  To all the charges the pannel pleaded guilty, and the libel having been, from the youth of the delinquent and other circumstances, restricted to any arbitrary punishment, he received sentence of transportation for 14 years.

Afterwards came on the trial of Charles Grant, of Airly, accused of falsehood and fraud, in drawing the allowance of a deceased Chelsea Pensioner.

The indictment being read over, and the pannel asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, answered that he was guilty in part, in the manner that would be explained by his counsel.  Mr Jeffrey then stated to the court, that his client was a person in a respectable station in life, who, in his youth, had borne his Majesty’s commission in the army, and had since lived on his own property with the esteem and friendship of all the gentlemen in the vicinity:  That after the death of John Grant, the Chelsea pensioner mentioned in the indictment, his widow had applied to him to see whether the balance of pension which she supposed to be then due, could not be recovered for behoof of his family, and for that purpose put into his hand the blank forms of certificate mentioned in the indictment.  Mr Grant put these forms into the hands of a person called Robert Roy, who appeared from the indictment, to have been guilty of a number of very improper operations on the certificates.  With the most criminal part of these proceeding Mr Grant was never made acquainted; but there were other parts of it which, upon reflection, he was satisfied were also extremely improper, to which he must confess he was privy.  After reviewing his whole conduct therefore in the transaction, he himself was opinion, that the fairest and most honourable course he could pursue, was candidly to admit that he had been accessary to the fraud and imposition by which a pension which turned out not to be really due had been obtained from Chelsea hospital; but at the same time to deny most solemnly that he knew any thing whatever of the forgery, or of the personating of the deceased by Robert Roy, with which he was charged; and also to deny that he ever had the most distant idea of applying to his own use the money which was thus obtained.

The depute-advocate declared that he would be satisfied with the evidence afforded by the qualified admission that had been mentioned; and at the same time would pass from the indictment in so far as it was laid upon the statute.

If this limited plea of guilty was admitted by the public prosecutor, and the case rested upon it, the matter might be easily adjusted; but if any attempt should be made to prove any further degree of guilt than what he had now admitted, the admission would be retracted before the jury, and the pannel would enter on his defence.

A jury was then impanneled, when the pannel repeated and adhered to the qualified plea which he had entered: and having obtained leave of the court, he called as witnesses to his general good conduct and character, Robert Garden, Esq. One of the baillies of Aberdeen; Adam Wilson, Esq. Of Glasgoego; and Mr John Kelman, a farmer in his neighbourhood.

The jury then returned a verdict finding the pannel guilty in terms of his judicial confession; upon which the court, after some consultation, sentenced him to four months imprisonment, and also to pay a fine of one hundred guineas for the use of Chelsea hospital.

Counsel for the pannel, Francis Jeffrey and Hugh Lumsden, Esqrs. Advocates.

Peter McKay, accused of deforcement, and Alexander Duff, accused of theft, were outlawed for not appearing.

The court then proceeded to the trial of Elizabeth Stewart, accused of housebreaking and theft, and of being habit and repute a thief.  The pannel pleaded guilty to the whole of these charges; and the jury, upon her own confession, returned a verdict of guilty.  An objection was stated by the counsel for the pannel to an irregularity in the verdict, the name of one of the jurors having been omitted in the enumeration of the jurymen.  This objection was however repelled.  Sentence to be pronounced tomorrow.

Tuesday 17. – The court met again this morning, and Elizabeth Stewart was brought to the bar and sentenced to two years confinement in Bridewell; and at the expiry of that period to find security for five hundred merks, or be confined for two years more.

The last business before the court at this time, was the trial of George Muirison, Alex. Noble, Margaret Noble, Jane Nicoll, and Mary Thain, accused of mobbing and endeavouring to prevent the shipment of grain at Fraserburgh.  All the pannels pleaded guilty of the indictment under certain qualifications; and, after a suitable address from Lords Meadowbank and Pitmilly, George Muirison and Alex. Noble were sentenced to imprisonment for one month; Jane Nicoll for two; and Mary Thain for three months.  The diet, from particular circumstances, was deserted against Margaret Noble, pro loco et tempore.

Counsel for the pannels, F. Jeffrey and Hugh Lumsden, Esqrs. Advocates.

There being no other business before the court, they proceed furthwith to Inverness.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 28th April 1813.

Trials of James Elrick, Alexander Walker & George Lyon

On Monday last, the Circuit Court of Justiciary was opened here by the Right Hon. the Lords JUSTICE CLERK and HERMAND.

The first case that occupied the attention of the Court was that of James Elrick, residenter in Aberdeen, accused of various acts of theft, and of being habit and repute a thief.  To the first part of the charge the Pannel pled guilty; and the libel having been restricted to an arbitrary punishment he received sentence of transportation for 14 years.

The Court afterwards proceeded to the trial of Alexander Walker, alias John Brown, accused of horse-stealing; as well as being habit and repute a thief, aggravated by his having returned from banishment for the same crime.  To the whole of this charge, the Prisoner pleaded guilty.  The Advocate Depute, from the state of Walker's mind, and other circumstances, was induced to restrict the libel in his case also to an arbitrary punishment.

Tuesday Morning, the Court met again, when Walker received sentence of transportation for life, after a suitable admonition from Lord HERMAND.

The Court next proceeded to the case of George Lyon, Vintner, and eldest Baillie of the Burgh of Inverury accused of malversation of office, in having celebrated Clandestine Marriages, and taken and received pecuniary recompence.  The libel proceded on the Act, 1661, cap. 34; and also on the Common Law. - JAMES GORDON and HUGH LUMSDEN, Esquires, Advocates, appeared as Counsel for Mr Lyon, and stated various objections to the relevancy of the libel, as laid in the indictment, the greater part of which, after considerable discussion, were sustained; and that part only of the indictment which charged the pannel with receiving pecuniary recompence was found relevant; Mr Lyon denied the whole of the charge; and his Counsel declared their readiness to meet the Public Prosecutor on it; but Mr HORNE, Advocate Depute, from various circumstances, moved the Court to desert the diet PRO LOCO ET TEMPORE.  The Lord Justice Clerk observed that, between the present case, and that which occurred at Jedburgh last circuit, there was a marked distinction, in so far as that the pannel in the latter, were accused, and found guilty, of assuming the clerical profession, and in that characater celebrating marriages according to the established forms of our national church; whereas in the present instance, no such accusation appeared. - Lord Hermand coincided in opinion with his Lordship, and Mr Lyon was dismissed from the bar.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 23rd September 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.

John Melvin accused of murder

On Monday last, the Circuit Court of Justiciary was opened here, by the Right Hon. Lord MEADOWBANK.  The only trial before his Lordship was that of John Melvin, residing near the Printfield, acused of the murder of William Shepherd, on the 8th of August last.  The pannel pled Not Guilty, and the case having been remitted to the verdict of an assize; after a trial which lasted the greatest part of the day, the jury returned a verdict of Not Proven, upon which the pannel, after a suitable admonition from the bench, was absoilzied and dismissed from the bar.  It appeared in evidence, that the deceased had met his death in a drunken scuffle at the last Greenburn Market, having received several mortal cuts in the groin, of which he died in two days afterwards.

Published in the Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 25th September, 1811.