James Hamilton of Little Preston deposed in terms 1678 of the preceding witness, with this variation, that the prisoner said, He was afraid he had done it.' Edward Watson saw the prisoner and the deceased fighting with drawn swords; the deceased went to a bookseller's shop to look at his wound, staggered, and fell on the street. Lieutenant Joseph Douglas heard the prisoner, on being taken into the guard, say, he had parried two or three thrusts made at him by the deceased. John Bain heard the prisoner say, the deceased had made three or four thrusts at him. John Paterson, gentleman of the guards, heard the prisoner acknowledge he had killed the deceased, and declare, that, if it were to do, he would do it again. Ensign George Murray heard the prisoner say, the deceased and he had been combating, and that he was sorry the wound was not through the deceased's heart. Thomas Hamilton deposed, that, after words had passed between the prisoner and the deceased, they went down stairs together and drew: he heard the prisoner say, he was afraid he had killed the deceased. Hall, the surgeon, deposed, that the wound and the prisoner's sword tallied; the wound was ten inches deep, and the deceased died of it in forty-eight hours. The prisoner sent for the deponent the day after the combat, and desired him to use all means under heaven for the deceased's cure. The jury pronounced the following verdict:- 1678 w upon the deceased Archibald Murray, and that with 6 one vote. As to the second part, relating to the 'pannel's self-defence, the assize finds no such thing proven; but, on the contrary, that the pannel and the deceased came both out from the company, • most likely upon one and the same design.' He was sentenced to be beheaded at the Grass-market on the 3d of July, and his moveables to be forfeited. Much interest was used to obtain him a pardon: the Privy Council granted him a short respite; but, as the Duke of Lauderdale declined to interfere in obtaining him a pardon, the sentence was executed on the 19th of July, and he suffered with great resolution. John Chislie of Dalry, for the Murder of the Right 1689 THE prisoner was brought to trial before Sir Magnus Prince, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, as High Sheriff within the city, and James Graham, John Charteris, Thomas Young, and William Paton, baillies; the murder having been committed within the city. The prisoner was brought before the Lord Provost on the 1st of April, 1689, to be examined concerning the murder of Sir George Lockhart, com mitted on the day preceding. Sir John Lockhart of 1689 Castlehill, brother, and Cromwell Lockhart of Lee, nephew of the deceased, appeared in Court, and, in their own name, and in that of the children of the deceased, gave in an act of the meeting of Estates of Parliament, passed that very day, of the following púrport: That the Estates having considered the supplication of the friends of the deceased Sir George Lockhart, for granting warrant to the magistrates of Edinburgh to torture John Chislie of Dalry, perpetrator of the murder, and William Calderwood, writer in Edinburgh, an accomplice; therefore, in respect of the notoriety of the murder, and of the extraordinary circumstances attending it, the Estates appoint and authorise the Provost and two of the baillies of Edinburgh, and likewise the Earl of Erról, Lord High Constable, and his deputes, not only to judge of the murder, but to proceed to torture* Chislie, to discover if he had any accomplices in the crime. And they appoint two of each bench, viz. the Earls of Glencairn and Eglinton; Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyne, Sir Archibald Murray of Blackbarony, Sir John Dalrymple, younger of Stair, and *By the act and declaration which the Estates of Parliament passed, just ten days after this trial, declaring King James to have forfaulted the crown, by illegal assumption and exercise of power, they declared, That the use of torture, without evidence, and in ordinary crimes, is contrary to law. Act of Estates, 11th April, 1684. The Scottish Parliament composed but one house. It consisted, after the Revolution, of three classes, the Temporal Peers, the Barons, i. e. knights of the shire, and the Burgesses, or representatives of the royal boroughs. Y 1689 Mr. William Hamilton, advocate, assessors to these judges. The Estates, at the same time, declare, that this extraordinary case shall be no precedent to warrant torture in time coming, nor argument to ratify it as to the time past. The Lord Provost then entered a protest, that this act of the Estates of Parliament should not infringe the ancient liberties of the city; and Mr. David Drummond, advocate, one of the Earl of Errol's deputies, protested, that the Lord High Constable's absence should not affect his right to judge in the like cases, the murder having been committed during the meeting of the Estates. Being desired to concur with the magistrates in sitting on this trial, he refused to sit, unless the Earl of Errol, or his deputies, were sole judges. The prisoner was then put to the torture, and declared, that he was not advised to the assassination of Sir George Lockhart by any person whatever: that, when at London, he told James Stewart, advocate, that, if he got no satisfaction from the President, he would assassinate him; and told the same to a person there of the name of Callender, and to Mr. William Chislie, his uncle. He confessed that he charged his pistol on Sunday morning, and went to the New Kirk, and having seen the President coming from the church, he went to the close where the President lodged, followed him, and, when just behind his back, shot him: that he was satisfied when he heard of the President's being dead; and, on hearing it, he said, he was not used to do things by halfs.' He also confessed, that, when at London, he walked up and down Pall-Mall with a pistol beneath his coat, lying in wait for the President. The indictment against the prisoner was raised at 1689 the instance of John Gibson, procurator-fiscal of the city of Edinburgh, of Sir John Lockhart of Castlehill, and Cromwell Lockhart of Lee. It set forth, that assassination, murder, and man-slaughter, were contrary to the laws of God, nature, nations, and the laws and acts of Parliament of this kingdom: that, nevertheless, the prisoner had, of forethought felony, without the least provocation, murdered Sir George Lockhart in the manner already mentioned: that the prisoner was caught red-hand, by a multitude of witnesses, before whom he boasted of what he had done, as if it had been some grand exploit: by all which he was guilty of murder, or at least was art and part accessary to the same; for which he ought to be punished with death, and his moveables confiscated. * The jury consisted of ten landed gentlemen and five merchants of Edinburgh. The prisoner judicially confessed the crime libelled, and declared that he committed the murder because he thought the deceased had given an unjust sentence against him. Being asked, If it was not a sentence pronounced in favour of his wife and children for their aliment? he declared he would 'not answer to that point, nor give any account 'thereof.' Red-hand is a term in the Scottish law, signifying a criminal's being caught in the fact. Art and part is also a term in our law, denoting that the person to whom it is applied is aiding and abetting in the case. Art and part is a translation of ope et consilio. ན་ |
