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

PRICR SEVENPENCE.

fender, over-ruled the objection of the witness.—Mr. Thomp-
son then proceeded :---" 'While speaking to Mr. Stevenson of
the libels against Mr. Gibson, (he could not say, however,
whether it was after the action had been raised or not that the
conversation took place, it was about the time,) he said he
ought to have some guarantee, or he should be ruined."—
" Ruined," he replied, " he was backed by people who would
steed for a million of daniaFes."
Cross-examined—Thougnt that Mr. Stevenson was serious
when he said so ; did not recollect any thing having been said
about the IVlaigs of Fife ; witness understood by Mr. Steven-
son's declaration, that he was backed to a large amount; Te,a-
tioned this circumstance to Mr. Gibson, without thinking any
notice would have been taken of it. The conversation took
place with Mr. Gibson accidentally, a considerable time after
the action had , been commenced, and the communication Was
quite voluntary.
The itstlictment against Frances Mackay, with the correction
on the mhrgin in the hand-writing of Mr. 'Tonle Drummond,
was submitted to the Jury, as were two letters of Mr. Scott,
the Procurator-Fiscal.

Here closed the evidence for the pursuer.
Mr. Du NCAte M`NEIT. addressed the. Jury on the behalf of
defender ; and called the following evidence :
Win. Mitchell, Esq. sworn; examined by Mr. ROBERT..
SON— Witness is cashier of the Royal Bank ; he received a let-
ter this morning from the Bank of England, addressed to their
cashier, from Lord Sidmouthe has no objection to produce-this
letter.—[ Letter produced.] -
Laid Meadowbank sworn; examined by Mr. ROBERSON.—
"Witness being shewn Lord Sidmouth's letter, and desired to say
if he knows his signature, depones—considers it to b his
signature. Witness held the situation of Lord Advocate in
11319 ; recollects the trial of Frances Mackay ; he correspond-
ed with Mr. James Gibson,, W. S., regarding that trial; be
communicated with him the evening of the trial, or next
day thereafter. (Being shewn his letter to Mr. Gibson of Ist
February'lBl9).—This letter was written by him, and he pre-
sumes it was sent on the day it bears date. Being asked to read
the letter,
Mr. JEFFREY rose—lle considered the.letter to be inadmis-
sible as evidence, as the writer of it was alive and present.
The LORD CHIEF COMMISSIONER sustairecl the objection,
but allowed the witness to read the letter that he might refresh
his memory.
Examination continued—Witness communicated with Mr.
Gibson on the topics statedin his letter.—[After some little dis-
cussion part of the, letter was allowed to be read by the wit-
ness.]—Witness being shorn another letter, bearing date the
2d of February, also addressed to Mr. Gibson, said it was writ-.
ten by him, and transmitted the day after.—[At the request
of the defender's Counsel, Mr. Gibson's answer was read.
It was dated the 2d of February 1819.]—Witness received a
free pardon for Frances Mackay, for the reasons stated in
his letters to Mt Gibson. His principal reason for apply-
ingfor the Royal mercy was from an idea that the prisoner
understood she was not to be tried. The facts with regard to
the implied promise were made known to witness in the Jus.
ticiary Court, while Mackay's trial was going forward ; and
after it was finished he retired to the robing room, where he
found Sir 'Wm. Rae explaining the circumstances to the Lord
Justice Clerk.
Being asked if he recollected what Sir Wm. Rae stated to
the Lord Justice Clerk, witness declined to answer this question
without the authority of the. Court.—(Question dropped:
Witness received a letter from Sir 'Wtn. Rae after the 2d of Fe-
bruary 1819, in which he (Sir William) stated, that although
no express promise was given to Mackay, yet he understood,
from the course of investigation pursued with respect to her,
that a promise was implied.
Cross-examined by Mr. JEFFnEr.—The communication
from Sir Win. Rae, induced the witness to suppose that the
prisoner expected to receive the Royal mercy. Being asked to
mention the grounds on which he preferred his application to
the Secretary of State, witness declined to answer this interro-
. gatory without the authority of the Court, as it was contrary to
his oath of office to divulge his confidential communications
with the confidential servants of the Crown ; but thus far wit-
ness might state, that copies of the correspondence between
hint and Gibson were transmitted to Lord Sulmouth.

..... ,
Sir Wm. Rae, Lord Advocate, examined by Mr. ROBERTI
SON.—Witness was Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh in Feb.
1819. Recollects of the trial of' Frances Mackay for uttering
forged notes. She was examined before him, and emitted about
sor 6 declarations. He came into the Justichtry Court when
the trial of Mackay was nearly finished, and sentence about to
be pronounced. Lord Meadowbank, at that time Lord Advo-
cate, was then in Court. Witness expressed his surprise to his
Lordship that Mackay should have been brought to trial, as,
from the way in which she was dealt with, he understood she
was to he a witness against Cook. Witness's impression was de-
cidedly to this purpose He does not think he Would have al-
lowed so ninny declarations if she were to have been brought
to trial. Witness is not aware that any questions put to her
were different from those commonly asked of a party who is
supposed to be accessary to a crime.. The Lord Advocate's ex--
pression of surprise seemed to originate from the facts witness
communicated being new to him, ; witness complained to the
Lord Advocate and the Crown Counsel for indicting Mackay •' he
went into the robing room after the trial ; does not, at this dis-
tance of time, recollect what passed on that occasion ; Mr_ Gib-
son was then agent for the Bank of England, and in that capa-
city was present at all the examinations of Mackay, and on all
other occasions when the matter was investigated; Mr. Gibson
wrote witness a letter on the subject to which an answer was
returned ; identifies his letter. There had been no trial con-
ducted by the Bank of" England, for forgeries in their notes;
but there have been several trials at the instance of Scotc
hanks since witness has been. Lord Advocate, although not
before the Supreme Criminal Court; A short time before: the
death of Mr. Warrender, W.S. (the late Crown Agent), a.
rule was fixed between him and his late lamented friend the
Solicitor General, in which witness concurred, that all trials
fur forgeries shouldhe conductetl by the public prosecutor at•
the public expense. Mr. Warrender died early in the year
1820. Witness identified Lord Simaith's signature to the
letter formerly. alluded to:
Cross-examined by Mr. JEFFREY —Witness does not recol-
lect any case, while he was Sheriff, where the prisoner made
more than two declarations. In Mackay'S case there were re-
peated declarations. The circumstances which induced. wit;.
ness to think that that woman. would not he tried was, partly
from the number of declarations, and partly because the pantiel
stated what other witnesses had. said to. her. In the firstciri-
mination, Mackay-was warned-of the consequences of admitting
her guilt; and notwithstanding this caution' she persistedin
repeating, it. Beibre• the rule was established; the Bank de-
frayed the expences of the prosecution.
Re-examined—Witness understood. that the declarations of
Mackay were for the purpose of bringing Cook to trial; never
saw so many declarations milt, similar case during the time he
was Sheriff. Witness wrote a letter to Mr. Gibson, fully
ex-
plaining his ideas regarding thatrial ; and'as the circumstances
were then fresh in.his (witness's) memory, they will show his
sentiments better than any thing he. has. already deponed,to.—
(The letter was accordingly read.)
Adam Rolland, Esq. Agent for the Crown, was called,' but
not sworn.

The pursuer's Counsel then replied at considerable length ;
after-which

The LORD CIIIEF • COM/41631011ER proseedectio sum up
the evidence. He said, that in every case, bearing the aspect
of the -present, there were certain leading principles which ought
to be strongly imprinted' on the mind .of every Juryman. These
he would.give in.the words of two of the ablest: Judges that
ever satin Westminster Hall. (He alluded, we presume, to
Lord Mansfteld'and Lord,Chief.Justice de (hay' -who, in the
rnemorablepersecution of Horne Tooke, delivered, this opinion
—" It is the duty: of the Jury, to construe plain words and clear
allusions to matters, of universal notoriety, according to their
obviaus-meaning; and 'aritvery.botly else who reads must un-
derstand them." Holt. on Libels, p. 220. His Lordship then
commented at some length on the evidence, and applied it, with
'a skilful .hand, to the libellous matter-contained:in the,issues:—
He followed the example of the pursuers Counsel, in.the reply,
in dividing the case into two branches; and after a short.but
'luminous. survey of the features -of, the whole case, he gave it as
the decided opinion of the Court, thatin both branches the paa:.
ragraphs.in the newspaper. libelled. on the cond'uct atiLcha-
'ratter cf Gibson. _ _

• 'The Jury, after. retiring about ten, minutes; delivered their
:verdict by/the mouthof.Sir Jamerli. BAUM., their chancellur,
unanimously finding for the pursuer on all the issuei-1.4-
wages;
.5001.
'llie-trinflasted frorn,ten,o'clock in the morning till t• n at
!night: The Court:was crowded; ausi.the.dernand far admission
~so loud and, elt.mLrous as often, to. interrupt the protcteditre
within Abors. Shortly beftire the verdict:was given the doors
,orttlt, JUstice were beserwith v pcironveht :awaited:43k
I issue.