OF FORGERY" Mr. George Henderson, Merchant in Edinburgh, THE time which according to the forms of our law, 1726 and the occult nature of this crime, is consumed in proving of a forgery, has occasioned trials for this offence generally to be taken before the Court of Session; because, in the Court of Justiciary, after the jury is appointed, and the evidence begun to be led, the whole must be completed, and a verdict pronounced, ere the jury are suffered to dismiss. As the criminal jurisdiction of the Court of Session does not amount to the power of awarding sentence of death, the following mode of procedure is observed. When the forgery appears to the Court to be of so deep a nature as to deserve a capital pun ishment, they declare the deed in question to be reduced, as being false and forged; and remit the pri soner to the Court of Justiciary: this sentence is called a ' Decreet of Reduction and Improbation, and Act ' and Remit.' The prisoner is then served with an indictment, setting forth, that he had committed for. gery; that he had been found guilty of the same by 1726 sentence of the Court of Session; and that, upon this being found proved by a jury, the prisoner should be condemned to suffer death, and confiscation of personal estate. The decree of the Court of Session, declaring the forgery, is then read over before the jury; it is held complete legal evidence, or what is called probatio probata, against the prisoner, who is thereupon convicted and condemned. In the beginning of May 1726, it was discovered * that one Petrie, a town-officer in Leith, held the Duchess of Gordon's bill for £58, which had been delivered to him, blank indorsed, by Mrs. Macleod, as a security for £6, for which sum her husband had been laid in prison. The bill was drawn by George Henderson, accepted by her Grace, indorsed by Henderson the drawer, to Mrs. Macleod, and blank indorsed by Mrs. Macleod; and in virtue of this blank indorsation Petrie the town-officer held it. The holder of the bill was apprehended and brought before the magistrates of Edinburgh: In a few days after Mrs. Macleod and Mr. Henderson were also brought before them. It was manifest that the Duchess of Gordon's acceptance was a forgery; but the point in dispute was, whether this forgery was contrived by Mr. Henderson the drawer and indorser, or Mrs. Macleod the indorsee. * Extracted Decreet of the Lords of Session, in the archives of Justiciary. Records of Justiciary, January 23, and Febru ary 4, 1727, Upon the 5th of May, Petrie was brought before 1726 the magistrates, and told the manner in which he came by the bill. Henderson was at the same time brought before them, who denied all knowledge concerning it. Mrs. Macleod was apprehended on the 7th, and examined; and she and Henderson being confronted with each other, the former did judicially declare, that the bill, and other deeds challenged, were written by Henderson; who judicially denied all knowledge concerning them. Upon which, both Mr. Henderson and Mrs. Macleod were committed close prisoners. A complaint against Mr. Henderson was presented to the Court of Session by Duncan Forbess of Culloden, Esq. his Majesty's Advocate, setting forth that the prisoner, Henderson, had counterfeited the Duchess of Gordon's acceptance to a bill drawn by himself for £53: That upon being informed, on the 3d of May, of the bill's being intimated to her Grace, he struck himself upon the breast, and exclaimed, All • would be ruined!" And that, upon his being told of the Duchess of Gordon's declaring she had no concern with the bill, he granted a fresh obligation for the sum, and subscribed the same before witnesses. And, therefore, craving their Lordships to take trial of these facts; and, upon their being proved, to inflict upon Mr. Henderson an adequate punishment. A complaint also against Mrs. Macleod was presented to the Court, at the instance of Mr. Henderson, setting forth, that she had counterfeited the above acceptance of the Duchess of Gordon, had deposited in the hands of William Petrie the bill so accepted in security for £6; and that, when the bill came to 1726 be challenged as forged, she counterfeited an obligation, bearing to be subscribed by Henderson before two witnesses, for £58, being the amount of the said bill. It was not without great reluctance that his Majesty's Solicitor General, in absence of the Lord Advocate, did grant his concurrence to this complaint. -Mr. Henderson also raised a summons of Reduction and Improbation of the deeds produced, said to be written by him. Mr. Henderson, in his complaint against Mrs. Macleod, alledged, that the bill was not fabricated by him; for, 1mo, The name of the drawer adhibited to it was not of his hand-writing, nor did it bear any resemblance to it. 2do, He had no acquaintance nor dealings with the Duchess of Gordon, so as to give a plausible colour to a forgery upon her Grace. 3tio, He had no acquaintance nor dealings with Mrs. Macleod, to whom the bill is indorsed, nor did he ever see her save once, about three years ago; although Mrs. Macleod, with an effrontery acquired by proper habits,' has been pleased judicially to declare, in presence of their Lordships and of himself, that it was he who indorsed to her this bill. 4to, That he did not grant her an obligation to pay the sum of £58, when it came to be discovered that the bill was a forgery. And, ultimo, That, on the 3d of May last, when he is said to have subscribed that obligation in a house in the Canongate, in presence of witnesses, he was not without the Ports of Edinburgh during the whole day; and at the hour of the evening at which it is alledged the obligation was subscribed, he was engaged with company in his own house. On the other hand, the Lord Advocate, in his com plaint against Mr. Henderson, and Mrs. Macleod,in her 1726 answers to the complaint at Mr. Henderson's instance against her, set forth, 1mo, That the bill produced in process was a forgery, which, indeed, was acknowledged on all hands; and so clumsily was it executed, in so far as it respected the acceptor, that it had but the half of her name, the first part being entirely wanting: for it was signed Gordon, without the Christian name Elixa, which was neither the usual manner of her Grace's subscription, nor that of any Peeress, except of those which are such in their own. right, and not in right of their husband. 2do, Mr. Henderson did use this forged bill, by delivering the same to Mrs. Macleod, drawn, accepted, and indors. ed, as it now stands. 3tio, That, when Mr. Henderson was told of the bill being intimated to her Grace, he struck himself on the breast, and said, All would be ruined!' 4to, He denied his having been in company with Mrs. Macleod for some years; whereas it would be proved, that, on the night of his granting her the obligation for £58, they were in company together in the house of John Gibson, wright in the Canongate, in presence of several witnesses. 5to, That, when the bill was discovered to be a forgery, he wrote a letter, now produced, to William Petrie, holder of the bill, requesting him to delay seeking payment till Saturday, when he, the prisoner Henderson, should take up the same. That he granted his obligation to Mrs. Macleod, the indorsee, for the amount of the said bill. 7mo, That the cause of the bill's being indorsed to Mrs. Macleod was as follows: She and her husband had taken a large house in Leith as a tavern, furnished Ss 6to, |