The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-14 00:00:00

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1822.

whether they or their agents liked it or not, to submit to
have forgers of their notes tried and convicted like other al-
mina's, at the public expence ' • for so much inconvenience, ir-
regularity, and'hijustice, was found to arise from the officious
interference of persons who possessed none of the requisite
qualifications of public prosecutors, in the administration of
criminal justice, that since the case of Frances Mackay or. Car-
rick, which occurred within the last two or three years, no
bank or bank agent has been permitted to interfere in the prose-
cution and conviction of-forgers. In this ease, the agent of the
Bank of England induced a young woman, by a promise that
she would be taken as a witness against others, to make a de-
claration admitting her guilt, and giving full information at
to the way in which the crime was committed ; he after-
wards thought proper to haveher tried, end by concealing from
the Lord Advocate the way in which her confession had.
been obtained, induced him to give his instance to an in-
dictment against her. She was accordingly brought to trial,
and, after the confession and information which had
been elicited from her, in her declaration, she had but one
course left—to plead. guilty. She was found guilty, in terms
of her own confession. The Lord Advocate had moved fin.-
sentence, which the Court were pronouncing, when the Sheriff
(the present Lord Advocate), in whose presence-the declaration
had been emitted, happening to come into Court, expressed to'
his predecessor his surprise that he should have brought.to trial
any person whose confession was obtained in the way the pannel's
had been. It was by this time too late to prevent sentence from
being passed ; but the Court, on being informed ;of the circum-
stances of the case, expressed their high disapprobation of what
had taken place, and the Lord Advocate immediately procured
a free pardon for the prisoner. After this, I ask, whether the
Whig or the 'Tory mode of administering justice deserves the
. preference ?—X." Whether the whole or any part of the words
areoland corncerning the pursuer, and were 'published with
the maliciqus purpose and intention of injuring, and do injure
the pursuer in his private and professional character, and do
falsely and injuriously hold forth the pursuer, in capacity of
agent,ifor the Bank of England, as' having unnecessarily
brought prosecutions for forgery, for his own private advan-
tage, and having -unnecessarily expended large sums of Mo-
ney in conducting the same ; or of officiously interfering in re-
gard to the said forgeries, and of conducting trials and proiee
cntions for the same, injuriously to the interest of the Bank and
of the public, andunfairly to the person accused ; or of•
having induced the Lord Advocate to give his instance against
the said Frances Mackay, by concealing the promise: and
whether the said words do falsely and injuriously set forth,
'that the Court. of Justiciary, on. being informed by Sir William
Rae, Baronet, the former Sheriff of the County, of the circum-
stances set forth in the said newspaper relative to the said F.
Mackay, expressed its high disapprobation of the pursuer's con-
duct, to the damage and injury of the said pursuer : whether
the 26th number of thesaid newspaper was printed 'anti pub-
lished on or about the 30th day of June 1821, and contained
the following words, or words of the following tenor and effect,
viz. " We beg leave to assure our friend in Forth-street, that
we should not have inserted X.'s letter, had we not previously
ascertained all his statements to be correct, especially that re-
specting Mr. James Gibson ; which, indeed, could otherwise
never have remained unnoticed by a person whose character is so
deeply involved in it." Whether the said words are- of and con-
cerning the purauer, and are false and injurious, and to the
damage and, injury of the pursuer,: whether the 27th numberof the said Newspaper was printed and published' On or about
,the 7th day of July 1821, and contains the following words, or
words of the. following tenor and effeet, viz.—.,"• In a late num-
ber, and as one of a series of discussions concerning the law re-
specting forgery, we inserted, not without inquiring as to its ac-
curacy, a communication in which the name of Mr. James
Gibson (meaning the pursuer) was introduced." And the fol-
lowing words—" Edinburgh, 3d July, 1821."—Sir I am fa-
voured with your (meaning the pursuer's) letter of this date,
and in consequence of its unsatisfactory terms, beg leave to de-
cline your (meaning the pursuer's) proposal of examining the
author of any article in The Beacon. I have, as yet, no reason
to think that any passage in The Beacon concerning you (mean-
ing the pursuer) is false,
_calumnious and malicious.' I am
not aware of having asserted any right to dictate to you (mean-
ing the pursuer) against whom you (again meaning the pur-
suer) should proceed.—l am &c.
To James Gibson, Esq. W. S. (Signed) .Totiv NiM MO."
Whether the said words are of and concerning the pursuer, and
.are false and injurious to the damage and injury of the pur-
suer: Or, whether the pursuer did induce the said Frances
1. Mackay, by a promise that she would be admitted as a witness
against others, to make a
.declaration or declarations, admitting
.her guilt, andilid afterwards, notwithstanding said promisee
arid by concealing the same, and the way in which her confes-
ision had been obtained, induce Or prevail upon die Lord Advo-
, cate to give his instance against her, and did afterwards bring
her to trial, upon the first day of February 1819 ?—Damages
laid at 5,000/.
On Frances Mackay being called,
Mr. ROBERTSON, for theldefendant, said, he did not mean
to object to the admissibility of this witness, but only to state
that she had been convicted of an offal.: which would' have dis-
abled her from appearing here as a witness, if it lied not been
• for a pardon subsequently obtained from the Crown. She now,
however, appeared here as a witness de novo ; and all that lie
wished to remark was, that although she was legally competent
as a witness, the moral stain had not been removed.
Frances Mackay examined by Mr. MONCRIFF.—WaS ac-
cused of uttering forged notes in the year 1818, Jou., 41' i a per-
son of the name of Cook ; was first examined by &Tn. Brown,
Superintendent of Police, Edinburgh, and afterwards by Mr.
Wm. Rae, the Sheriff; her declarations were taken dbwn in
writing, and signed by her. When first taken before Captain
Brown, she told the truth—she could not do otherwise, being
apprehended with two forged notes-in her possession without a.
, lawful excuse. The determination to tell the truth arose from
a desire to avoid capital punishment. Witness made the' same
statement to Sir William Rae as she had previously done to
Captain Brown; but she does not recollect- if the Sheriff gave
her any warning as to how she should answer the questions put
:to her. Witness never spoke to Mr. Gibson, until last week,
in.her life; he never made any promise to her of not- bringing
'her to trial if she confessed, and she never looked for any thing
'else but a trial, although she always expected the capital
charge would be passed from ; Witness did not recollect how
-many charges there were against. her at the time, and she
!thought herself well treated indeed.
Cross-examined- by Mr. ROBERTSON—Both the names of
Cook .and Houston were mentioned; the latter confessed. the
, whole himself'; witness was more teased by Captain Brown than
by: Sir William Rae ; she had no Counsel or Agent • some of
her relations wished her to employ 'Counsel, but her father said
.it was of no use ; both Mr. Aitken,. keeper of the Canongate '
'gaol, and her father, advised her to
,throw herself on the mercy
of the Court.
[On:Mr. RoBERTSoI; putting the question, if.she had-given.
a written promise to plead guilty, the witness was withdrawn.]
Mrs JEFFRY objected to it: , He understood thatehis Learn.
'ed Friend intended to argue that this had been obtained after
the indictment had been served. The grounds of his objection
were :—first, that the defender had taken no issue on this
point ; and, secondly, as no issue bed been claimed, the de-
fender was barred putting such a question. The Learned
Gentleman argued on these points at considerable length.
Mr. ROBERTSON, in reply, said it was the wish of his, side
of the bar to have this matter set at rest as soon as possible.—
Every thing contained in the issues for.the pursuer, the de-
fendant was entitled to prove as facts, relative td what took
place with respect to this woman. Mr. R. argued that he was
entitled to prove every circumstance connected, with the trial
and-conviction of this woman, though they were tied down to a
particular issue. Was the fact, that a written promise had been
given, to be shut out from the Jury ?
Mr. JEFFREY said a few words in answer to Mr. Robertson.
The LORD CHIEF COMMISSIONER--The question was, did
you give any written promise subsequent to the receipt of the
indictment? This was a question in cross-examination.; and
it-was not for the Court to interfere, or to point out what (INCR.
• tiens 'should be- put•by Counsel. The firstcherge in thisdibel
was for professional extortion. The second, inducing a party
to ,confessi, with a promise of not bringing her to trial. This
-might go in confirmation of the truth of the last issue. The
Lord Chief Commissioner thought the question could 'notthen
be asked.
Lord ,GILLIES conceived• she pleaded-guilty in consequence
of a-prorniseernade at the time of giving. her declaration*: This
was what the libel contained; she was therefore under the neces,
sity of pleading guilty,- when brought to trial, from what. had
previously taken place. And the accusation against Mr. Gibson
was his having concealed this pledge from the Lord Advocate,
and having induced his Lordship to give his instance.
• A.notetf,this-nuestion, and arguments-on it, was required to
be taken, as it-might be,the grounds of a bill of objections here-
after . • -
Lord Pitmilly sworn on the J3encb...-Examined by Mr. JEF-