Lord HAILES--My Lords, the objection of _socius criminis_, if it ever was sustained in our law, has long since been obsolete. Nor can I understand how Sir George Mackenzie laid it down that _socii criminis_ could not be admitted in evidence, since in his time we have instances of their having been actually received as witnesses. This assertion of Sir George Mackenzie’s is, like many others in the same work, founded neither on principle nor fact. But the Dean of Faculty’s objection amounts to a kind of _reprobator_ against this witness. But even supposing that any credit could be given to the circumstances upon which this objection is principally founded, yet it could not affect the admissibility of this witness, as it is not pretended to be said that the alleged stipulation had taken place with the consent of the prosecutor for the Crown. I am therefore, upon the whole, for repelling the objection. Lord ESKGROVE--My Lords, there is no doubt that the objection of the witness being a _socius criminis_ cannot be admitted in the present state of our law, whatever might have been done formerly. By the common practice, such witnesses are every day admitted; nor do I see how crimes of this nature could be discovered if a contrary practice were followed. As to the special circumstances qualified by the Dean of Faculty, that a bargain was made by the Sheriff with Ainslie to procure him His Majesty’s pardon on condition of his accusing the pannel, I am likewise of opinion that these do not go to his admissibility. For your Lordships will observe that Ainslie cannot possibly be under any temptation now to accuse the pannel in consequence of that bargain. If I understand the law, my Lords, the calling any person as a witness on a trial is completely departing from any right to indict that person himself as being guilty of the crime concerning which he is called as a witness. Nor does it signify whether the pannel be convicted or not; it is clear that the witness can never be questioned for that crime; and Ainslie is quite safe from the consequences of his being accessory to the robbery of the Excise Office, if he was so. But, my Lords, it will be proper, before examining Mr. Ainslie, to inform him of his situation; and it will be proper, and the counsel for the pannels are entitled, to put such questions _in initialibus_ of his evidence as will tend to satisfy your Lordships and the jury whether such a bargain had been entered into with him by the Sheriff or not, and how far he considers himself bound by it. Lord STONEFIELD--My Lords, I am for repelling this objection.