had a letter for him and wanted only to deliver it; but Mr. Walker
replied that it might perhaps be dangerous to allow me to see him.[7]
The DEAN OF FACULTY--My Lords, without meaning any reflection on the
witness, whom I know and believe to be a very good man and an active
officer, the greatest part of what the witness says is “hearsay.” He
tells your Lordships that he was told one thing at Dunbar; that he
received another piece of information at Newcastle; that a coachman told
him so-and-so in London, and that Mr. Walker said this, that, and the
other thing. My Lords, this is exceedingly improper. I have been taught
to understand that in criminal trials the best evidence that can be got
ought always to be brought; and surely it will not be pretended that
that has been done in the present case. In a question of this kind,
hearsay evidence is not admissible. The witness has said that he was
informed so-and-so by coachmen; why were not these coachmen called as
evidences? He has given you an account of a conversation that passed
between him and Mr. Walker; why is not Mr. Walker brought here to speak
for himself?
The LORD ADVOCATE--My Lords, it was thought a material circumstance to
be proved that the prisoner, William Brodie, fled from this country;
that he secreted himself in London; and the witness, who was sent in
pursuit of him, was considered as a proper person to be examined as to
the fact. In the course of informing the Court what he himself did he
has necessarily mentioned what passed between himself and some other
persons. This cannot be said to have been hearsay evidence, being what
the witness himself knows.
My Lords, the Dean of Faculty has asked why the different post-boys and
coachmen who drove the prisoner to London, why Mr. Walker and others
were not all cited as witnesses? The bringing forward of such a variety
of witnesses is not only unnecessary but expensive. By the forms of
criminal procedure in this country a trial must be finished at one
sederunt; but, my Lords, if the mode contended for by the Dean of
Faculty had been pursued in the present case this trial could not have
been finished in a month.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--George Williamson, you will confine yourself to
what you know or did yourself, and do not speak of what you were told by
others.
WITNESS--I searched for the prisoner in London, but could not find him.
I also went out to Deal and Dover, but could receive no intelligence of
him. Accounts were afterwards brought to this place that he had been
apprehended in Holland and brought to London. I went to London for him.
He was delivered over to me at Tothilfields Bridewell, and I conducted
him to this place and lodged him in the Tolbooth.[8]
[Sidenote: Andrew Ainslie]
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--The next witness is Andrew Ainslie.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account