Puslapio vaizdai

He saw the guard in his seat till the coach arrived there, and never observed any one near him. He also saw passengers on the outside of the coach. After coming up with the coach, he kept within twenty yards of it till it arrived at Kirkliston, then he drove to the stable door, the coach having gone to the door of the inn. Witness remained in the stable till the coach drove off.

Cross-examined.-A number of boys were going about the coach, but he did not see the panel there, nor any person carrying parcels.

George Jack, porter to the Leith bank, was at the post-office on the 18th December, to receive a parcel of money that was expected to arrive with the Stirling coach that night. Hume was the guard. He told witness that the parcel for which he came was gone, along with those for other banks, adding, at the same time, that he was a ruined man.

Cross-examined.-Hume appeared much distressed, and in great agitation.

James Logan, porter to the Bank of Scotland, Edinburgh, corroborated the preceding testimony.

Mrs Dobbie lived in Kirkliston. She saw the Stirling mail stop at Mr Linn's door on the 18th December last. When the coach stopped, she walked slowly towards it. The guard had left his seat, and she observed him looking at his time-piece. She saw the guard go into the house, and, as she came up towards the coach, a man leaped down at her feet from off the place where the guard usually sits. He made a run to the dark side of the road, and then went to the westward, followed by another man, who appeared to come from the stable door. One came close past her, and stared broadly into her face. He wore a grey great-coat and red comforter; both men had hats. She did not

observe the man till he leaped down, and she was somewhat surprised. The two men went to the west, and she followed them a few yards till she reached her own house. She soon lost sight of them from the darkness of the night, but heard them whispering for some time after. The road to Mr Dudgeon's house at Loanhead is on the road to Queensferry. She knows the house of Mr Ritchie at Kirkliston Mains. There is a road which leads from the Mains to Mr Dudgeon's house, parallel with the high road. There is also a lane to the westward of witness's house, which goes from the high road to Kirkliston Mains. The two men went towards that lane, or they might have got across a grass park to the by-road. Witness mentioned what she observed to her husband, and likewise to many others.

Cross-examined.-Cannot say that the prisoner is one of the two men.

Thomas Boyd recollected being at Kirkliston on the evening of the 18th of December. He left that place at twenty minutes past six o'clock, and proceeded along the Queensferry road to Milton, where he resides. John Leach was in company with him. At Loanhead, about 300 yards past the toll-bar, they heard the horn of the mail-coach blow; and 300 yards farther on, Leach picked up a lightcoloured great-coat, which was lying on the road. A few yards farther on, two men came up from behind, and passed them, going towards Queensferry. They had each a small bundle, scarcely the size of a hat, under their arms. They said nothing in passing. A little farther on witness found two mantles; the cloaks were of a hard texture, but the great-coat was of cloth; on searching the poc kets, they found a small parcel, and a coarse white neckcloth, such as coachmen wear in bad weather. The

parcel was wrapped in paper, and had a soft feel. A third man overtook them, following the others at the distance of about forty yards, and demanded the cloaks, saying they were his. Witness desired to know how that could be, upon which he informed him that they had been dropped out of a gig. Witness believed his story, gave them up, and got a shilling for his trouble. The two men who had passed on were walking at a quick pace; and the other person who came up appeared breathless with anxiety. The former were stout men, middling tall, and, as far as witness could judge, did not wear great-coats. He could not see their faces, the night was so dark. Next morning (Sunday) he was going towards Kirkliston with James Gifford. The latter was in advance, and called out to witness to run, as there was a horse and gig in the ditch. This was about three quarters of a mile from Kirkliston, on the road to Queensferry, and to the north of the place where the two men with the bundles had passed them the preceding evening. The horse was very exhausted, and the gig broken. Witness took the horse to Milton, and latterly to Mr Smith's, Rose Street, to whom it belonged. Saw there a dark cloak with red lining, which appeared to be the same which he had previously seen.. (On being shown the cloak, he identified it as that which he had seen at Mr Smith's.) He examined the road, and discovered the track which the horse and gig had made; saw marks of its having run on the middle of the road, till about the place where it was overturned; broken fragments of the gig were lying on the road. It had made a stop at Loanhead, and had been put across a quarter of a mile south of Mr Dundas's gate.

Cross-examined.-On the Sunday

morning, when he came up to the gig, he found the head of it turned to the north, and the horse's head looking to the south. It had turned itself, in its struggles to get at liberty.

John Leach and James Gifford corroborated the statements of Boyd.

Thomas Forsyth is a head constable at Newcastle. Was applied to in December last respecting a theft which had been committed at Kirkliston. From the information he received, he proceeded to Thirske in Yorkshire, along with Mr Edwards, and Sergeant Stewart of the Edinburgh police. After making some inquiry, he found the prisoner in bed at the inn. He was shown to his bed-room door, and forced it open. Witness asked his name, and he told him it was Graham; but on looking at the prisoner, he said he appeared very like a person of the name of Murray, whom the Edinburgh police were in pursuit of, on suspicion of having robbed the Stirling mail. He then seized him by the hands, and desired Mr Edwards to examine his legs. At this moment the prisoner said, " I am Murray;" and shortly after, in a subdued tone of voice, " It is up." Witness searched his apartments and his clothes. He found a L.10 Bank of England note, a L.10 post bill, 26 sovereigns, and 20 small English provincial notes. He cautioned the prisoner not to commit himself by saying anything which might be turned against him, and promised to take him to York if he chose, but he declined this. Witness then took him to Newcastle. In going down the stair, after being searched, the prisoner said, "They will get it again." There was no previous conversation which led to this. The prisoner had no luggage-he complained very much of the cold. In the course of his inquiries, witness discovered that

a man of the name of Graham had been booked as an outside passenger on the coach from Newcastle to York. Sergeant Stewart corroborated Mr Forsyth's testimony.

Mrs Wilson, with whom the prisoner had lodged while in Edinburgh, deponed, that he had been six weeks, all but one day, in her house. He left it on a Sunday. The day preceding he went out between eleven and twelve o'clock in the forenoon, and returned at half past eleven at night. She gave him his blue cloak with red lining before he went out. When he went away from her house, he did not tell where he was going, but said it was owing to an aunt's death. To the best of her knowledge, he left all his clothes behind. When he went out in the gig, he generally put a spotted shawl round his neck. (Witness identified the cloak and shawl as being the property of the prisoner.)

Mr Smith, stabler, stated that the prisoner hired gigs on the 7th, 14th, and 18th of December last. Witness had been out on Saturday evening, and when he returned home, found the prisoner waiting his return. He said he had been two or three miles beyond Queensferry, and had lost the gig in coming home. Witness next day got four L.10 notes of the Bank of Scotland from him, as a deposit, until the amount of damage should e ascertained.

Mary and Robert Halliday (of the Red Lion Inn, Queensferry,) proved that the prisoner and two other persons had refreshed themselves at the Red Lion. They took their departure at a quarter to six o'clock.

Archibald M Laren, waiter at Newhalls inn, stated, that the prisoner hired a post chaise on the evening of the 18th of December.

Alexander Adams, the driver of the chaise, took the prisoner, and a friend of his, whom they met by the

way, into Edinburgh. Both got out at Stockbridge.

Alexander Robertson, who keeps a public-house in Musselburgh, recollects the prisoner having hired a chaise to go to Haddington, on a Sunday in December last. Thinks he had a parcel under his arm. The prisoner paid him with a L.5 note of Ramsay, Bonar and Company's bank.

William Reid corroborated the preceding witness's testimony.

The declaration of the prisoner was then read. He stated that he was thirty-nine years of age; that he was born in London, and had been in the naval service of the East India Company; that he did not follow any line of business, but lived on the interest of money which had been acquired during his services in the East, or left by his mother-chiefly vested in India bonds.

Mr Alison shortly addressed the jury for the crown.

Mr Jeffrey, on the part of the prisoner, contended for a verdict of acquittal.

The Lord Justice Clerk shortly addressed the Jury.

The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a viva voce verdict of Not Proven, and the prisoner was dismissed simpliciter from the bar.

The case excited great interest, and the court-room was excessively crowded till the very close of the trial. Lord Abercromby, the Baron de Ende, Sir John Connell, and the Hon. Captain Duncan, sat on the bench beside their Lordships during the greater part of the day.

At the close of Murray's trial, he was taken into custody, on a charge of being a convict at large, and committed to jail till liberated in course of law. The same evening he was examined before the Sheriff, and identified by Mr Lavender, of the Manchester police establishment. The

following particulars of Murray's history are said to be correct :— When a boy, he was sentenced to transportation for life, under the name of Henry Herrings. He, however, returned from Botany Bay in the ship with Governor Hunter, by whom he was recommended to Mr Hookman, the bookseller, Bond Street, London. While in Mr Hookman's service, he managed to steal a ticket to the grand fete given by the Prince Regent in 1813, which he attended, but was detected stealing a gold snuff-box from Lord Normanton. For this offence he was tried, and sent to the Hulks, from which he made his escape. Soon after, a mail coach robbery took place; and he, along with others, was suspected of being concerned in it, and consequently apprehended, but the charge was abandoned. He was, however, put upon trial, for having been found at large without lawful cause; and on that charge was sentenced to be transported for life. This took place, it is said, at Bristol, about the end of 1814. About two years afterwards, he effected his escape from Botany Bay, by way of the East Indies, and returned to this country, where it is believed he has since existed by levying contributions on various bankers. Murray was rather surprised when given to understand that he was to be detained on the charge of returning from transportation, and maintained that Mr Lavender was egregiously mistaken. Lavender is quite confident as to his man-Murray wants the two first joints of the forefinger on the left hand-so did Herrings. He also has a cut on his right hand, similar to one upon Herrings. Herrings had a nose, however, which Murray has not. This may probably be a recent mutilation.

[ocr errors]



Thomas Menzies, appeared at the bar, accused of maliciously assaulting and beating William Auld, one of the magistrates of Leith, on the 20th January last, to the effusion of his blood, and danger of his life, on the road leading from Leith to Queensferry, near the Bonnington toll-bar.

To this charge Mr Menzies pleaded not guilty, and written defences were given in, in which he did not deny having met Mr Auld, but alleged that the meeting was accidental: That Mr Auld was the person who began the assault: That he had no malice against that gentleman, who had exhibited a placard designating his father a malicious liar: That he did not go to the place with any intention to commit a breach of the peace.

Mr Moncrieff, for the panel, stated viva voce at more length the defence for the panel, according to which the rencounter arose out of a dispute between Mr Auld and the panel's father, a ship-builder in Leith, in the course of which Mr Auld had exhibited a paper in Leith Coffee-room, in which Mr Menzies was designated a malicious liar.

After evidence was led on both sides, the Jury were addressed for the Crown by Mr Dundas, and for the panel by Mr Cockburn.

The Lord Justice Clerk then addressed the Jury, remarking, in reference to what had fallen from counsel, that the law of Scotland did not allow the son to be the avenger of his father's wrongs. The charge against the panel was one of a very aggravated nature, but before they could convict him, they must be satisfied that it was established in a conclusive man


He thought there was a want of legal evidence to support the indictment. The principal witness for the Crown was not only not supported, but flatly contradicted by another witness also for the Crown, who was present at the affray. It was for the Jury to reconcile their statements; but he really thought the prosecutor had not made out his case. If they therefore adopted his view, they would return a verdict of Not Proven. The jury, after consulting a few minutes, and without retiring from their box, returned a verdict of Not Proven.

The Lord Justice Clerk shortly addressed Mr Menzies. He said, in consequence of the verdict which had now been given, it was his duty to dismiss him simpliciter from the bar, and from the testimonials they had heard of his character, and the manner in which he had conducted him self during his trial, he was convinced he would not be so involved again.

The cause excited extraordinary interest, from the circumstance of the original dispute between Mr Auld and Mr Menzies, sen. having had its rise in the contention between some of the people of Leith and the city of Edinburgh, regarding the proposed Joint Stock Company Dock Bill; Mr Auld, in that affair, having stood forward as the champion of the Leith public, and Mr Menzies having ta ken the opposite side.

9.-JURY COUrt, Edinburgh.


This day the Court met for the trial of the following Issue, which had been prepared and sent to a Jury by orders of the House of Lords, in the

process of reduction brought by the Right Honourable James, Earl of Fife, against Sir James Duff and others, trustees and heirs of entail of the deceased James, Earl of Fife :"Whether the instruments of trustdisposition and deed of entail, both dated the 7th day of October, 1808, sought to be reduced, being in law probative instruments, were not, or either of them were not, the deeds or deed of the Earl of Fife? and whe ther the deed of alteration, of the 12th day of November, 1808, being in law a probative instrument, was not the deed of the Earl of Fife?"

The Lord Chief Commissioner, Lords Gillies and Pitmilly, took their seats on the bench a few minutes after ten o'clock.

Mr Cockburn opened the case for the pursuer. The address of that learned gentleman occupied two hours and thirty-five minutes. His arguments, both to Court and Jury, were principally, that there was a want of the solemnity required by law in the witnessing of the deeds under reduction, which rendered them null, and therefore not the deeds of the late Earl of Fife. That the absence of one witness to the signature was the same in law, as if there had been no witness whatever; and he would prove, that one of the testamentary witnesses signing the deeds of 7th October, 1808, neither saw the Earl of Fife sign those deeds, nor, at any subsequent period, heard him acknowledge his signature. If he established that fact, the jury must find that the deeds were not the deeds of the Earl of Fife.

The deeds under reduction, and some other documentary evidence, were then put in; one part of which was the averments of the pursuer, in some former stage of the trial, that the deeds were signed and the testing clause filled up in the charter-room

« AnkstesnisTęsti »