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

FRET--Witness was one of the Judges in the Court of Justi-
ciary in 1819 ; recollected being present at the trial of Frances
Mackay, on the Ist February; 1819 ; he had no recollectien of
that, except by a reference to the marking whiCh he had then
. made on the copy of an indictment ; 'did net seeellect of any
particular circumstance, such as that mentiosed having been
stated either by the Lord Advocate or the, Sheriff; but some con-
versation passed in the robing-rooM ; could not say, although
such a conversation had taken place in the Court, that he should
have recollected it, nor did he recollect any third; having been
said at the time relative to the conduct of Mr. Gibson. On the
question being put, That were the observations. made in the
robing-room, soon after sentence was passed • and whether the
bord Advocate and the Sheriff' were. present ;hen those oberva-
were made—
Mr. JEFFREY said, if they would betaken as questions. by
consent he had no objection, but it must not be admitted as a
precedent.—The objection was allowed to pass sub silentio.—l-4s
Lordship recollected that the Sheriff', Sir William Rae, was
present, and it was from what Si' 'William then said that the
case was so. much impressed on his memory. The Sheriff stated,
that " if he had any idea that this woman was to have been
brought to the bar as a party, he would not have allowed her to
have undergone so many examinations," His Lordship did
not remember having given an opinion as to procuring a pardon
for this woman, or if he was consulted on that point. There
was no expres :on of disapprobation at the conduct of Mr. Gib-
son, in bringing this woman to trial, ma,de.at that time, as he
recollected.
Robert Mackay, examined by Mr. Cu ratio RAKE —Was fa-
ther of Frances Mackay, who was apprehended some time in
1818, on a charge of uttering forged notes. Frances confessed
her guilt from the first, he always advised her to. do so. Wit-
ness was never spoke to by any person as to whether any pro-
mise was made, or to be made, of not bringing her to*trial. Ile
. did not remember of having called on Mr. Gibson. .His dough-
: ter,upon the whole, had been well used.. .
Robert Aitkenekeeper of the Canongate Gaol, was next sworn
and examined ; but his testimony contained nothing beyond
the fact of Frances Mackay's having been confined. under his
charge in 1818 and 1819.
- Mr. Charles Ross, Advocate—by Mr.' .TEFFREY—Recol-
lected some proceedings relative to the trial of Frances Mackay.
Witness was employed in preparing and. revising, an indict-
ment against a man of the name of Cook; but the precognition
of Frances Mackay was sent him. Witness was present at a
consultation on the case, at which Mr. IL Drummond and. the.
Lord Advocate were present. Mr. Gibson. was particularly
anxious to bring Cook to trial, and not Mackay. The Lord
Advocate doubted' the propriety of bringing Cook fiffward.—
Witness took the liberty to differ front his Lordship, and gave
it as his opinion that it ought to be Cook and not Mackay who
.should be tried. The declaration of•Mockayformed part of the
documents sent to him along with the cases of Cook' and lions-
ton. Witness was not present at. thearial.
The case, as submitted to Mr. Maconochie, then Lord Ad-
vocate, andhii opinion thereon, which had been put in writing •
at the request of Mr. Gibson, was here read. to. the Jury. The
declaration emitted by Frances Mackay were also put in. The
last was taken on the morning of the very day on which the opi-
nion woO:given by. the Lord Advocate, It admitted having the
forged notes in her possession, and uttering, the same knowing
them to be forged...
Mr. David Christie—by Mr. Moil itarvat,—"Was a .partner. of
Mr. Gibson, and remembered, the charge being made. against
Frances Mackay; witness was present at one of the examinations
before the Sheritf, who cautioned the prisoner as to what she
should say, as it might - be• used in -evidence against herself ;
to which she answered; that her mind was made up to tell the
truth, and the whole truth, and. the was determined to do so.
No promise was made to his knowledge, and he understood
that they were not at liberty. to. make any such. The exami-
nation was conducted.against her as an accused person. appre-
hended for uttering of forged Bank of England notes. In
May or June 1821)4 'a precognition was taken relative to the
uttering of forged. notes in the neighbourhood of Ilawick,
against a person of the name of Oliver, he believed ; no prose-
cution, however, followed on thine .preeognitions ; they were
submitted to the Directors of the Bank.of England, who re-
turned them, saying they would not prosecute.
Cross-examined—Theseprecogninons were submitted' to the
Crown Agent after they liad7 been laid.before, the Directors of
the Bank ;, there has been no prosecution since that of M‘Kay
that he is aware of.
•By Mr. JErritr.x.—Witness did not. recollect what fol-
lowed the, communication with the Crown. Agent; there was
no prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor that he
recollected for any forged notes on the-Bank of England or any
• bank since thataime.
Mr. J. Balfour, W. S.—by Mr. MfolecarErF—Was a clerk
with Mr. James Gibson in 11118; and remembered the case of
Frances Mackay. Witness was occasionally present at her
examinations, as was Mr. Gibson.; never knew of any promise
being made to her if she would plead, guilty, nor ever heard
any. thingsaid by the Sheriff as to what she should suy while
giving her declarations. The Sheriff might. have done it, but
he had no recollection of the circumstance ; was present on her
trial bethre the High Court:of Justicary likewise, and did:not
hear any disapprobation expressed. with respect, to the conduct
-of Mr. Gibson. Sir W. Rae was present, and no remark was
made by that Gentleman that the witness.reinemliN•ed recol--
leeted the case of Knox, and' settled with the witnesses in that
case, with the assistance of Mr. Morison, one of the maters ;
I they lwere all paid agreeably to the Exchequer regulations,
land: were much disaatisfieth with the smallness of the sums paid
h them. It was the practice, while he was in the office of Mr.
Gibson, for the Bank of England to conduct pr4secutions by
their own agent and-counsel.
The deposition of Mr. Kay, Solicitor for the. Bank of Eng-
land, was next read. It stated that Mr. Uibson had been agent
ffir the. Bank twelve years. That all prosecutions were con-
; ducted•by hirn"for the Bank, in Scotland, during, that:period.
;'That the deponent had been. twenty-six years Solicitor for the.
Bank, during which period prosecutions have been conducted'
by the Bank's own Agents- and Counsel. In some instances
private individuals had proSecuted, aud.had applied.to the Bank.
to be reimbursed for the expellee theyhad been at. Mr. Gibson
'had conducted the trials or Knox, Campbell, and Watsons, in.
1817,.and.that of:Mackay in 1818.
Some discussion here tooknlace as to the right.of the defender
to have the whole or such parts of the deposition read-as would'
'amount.to a cross-examination.
.. •

The Loan CinEr ComanssloxEctsoid, there was a very.
great difference between evidence on paler and evidence viva
rocs; and.that the same questions. whieh would have been held
as cross questions; bad-the witness,beenpresent; ought to be al-
lowed to be read; always-understanding- that they were proper
questions.
Lord (iit.tzs,observed, that ill e pursuer-had a right to read-
the whole or- whatever part of the issues he thought proper ;
and the defender to move for• the other parts to he read as cross-
examinations.
The reading of the deposition proceeded—He approved, of
the conduct of Mr. Gibson, and never observed a desire earhis
part-to increase the numberofprosccutions. -
' By 'Mr. Ronr, irrsoN, forthe defender,--The cased, Frances
Mackay was submitted', to him by Mt. Gibson.
Sir It. Dundas, by- Mt. .LEFFREY—II ad- seen a paragraph of
the libel in which Mr. Gibson,waspursuer: Was, asked; Whe,
.ther the statements were likely to be inprious- to- a nianof but
siness ?: This wasobjectedlo as being-. or the Jury to consider,
and no opinion of Sir It. Dundas .could be received 'as-evidence
on a matter of. fact. M. Jeffrey observed, that in the case of
"General Kerr, v. the Duke of Roxburgh," such a, proceeding
was held as legal; and admitted.
On the suggestion of the bOan• CtztFF Commzserowzn,
the question was put in.an altered shape ; to which Sirlt. Dun.
des replied, that, he had not read. the issue so roinutely:as to
be aware that it applied to Mr. Gibson; but • could' not speak.
positively. On partof the issue being-read; Sir W. said; that
he thought .that -would •be highly injurious-to the pursuer •asa.
man -of business.
Mr. Guthrie Wright; auditor;X.Conrt, by Mr. MnwcniErr
—ldentified, several' accounts, as, having pass d. throitgh.his
hands, which had .been due by, the Bankelltglandtothepur,
suer, Mr. Gibson. These accounts related to. certain proseeu,
tions-for forgery. These-accounts- were moderately charged.
• Many attendances, which. might. have been: made good; and
would have been taken into account by reeNetaiilt agents( were
not - noticeci ,-- the eirarg cs _might have. cdso•been
Mr. David. Thomson, jun. %V. M. was acquainted' with Ihe.
&tinder, andilad known ,hicn since 1812;1 ws,also. aware, that
he had been printer and publisher:ofC a NewsPay:.r.called!Vt
Beacom. On being asked-if he >ever • had ti cad ;any nmieniea-
tionon with the defender.on any question i.elative tolibels ;which
had-appeared; in-. that:publication. Alt: Thompson. Said, that
his communications, had -ten. in•confiderres antlk he did,not
know how .far he wasjustiable in divedginwtheroto;ttre Mori.
But the Court on - being intinmedt thatthese-comusunicatiorcs
were not made in a professional manner as agentfor the :le-