In the waning months of the year 1828 Scotland was scandalised by the sordid revelations that accompanied the apprehension and trial of Burke and Hare for the notorious West Port murders in Edinburgh. In the midst of the trial a less well-celebrated murder came to the public’s attention. The suspect in this new case was also an Irishman. His downfall was the venue for his ultimate crime; on board the Toward Castle steam boat from which there was no escape.
John Stuart was a 32 year-old unemployed blacksmith who had been living in the Newcastle area and decided to return to his native Ireland with his wife Catherine Stuart Wright. He made his way across the country and took passage in the Eclipse steam boat at the Broomielaw, bound for Belfast. Foul weather was encountered in the Kilbrannan Sound and the boat put in to Campbeltown to wait until the weather improved. There was some notion that the steamer would not sail until six the next morning and so Stuart and his wife went up to the town to find lodging. They returned to the quay at five o’clock only to find the Eclipse had sailed at midnight without them.
Next day the couple set out for Tarbert and arrived there two days later, on Saturday December 13th. They planned to take the Castle steamer back to Glasgow on Monday morning and duly gathered with other travellers that day in a public house at five o’clock in the morning. One of those in the crowd was Catherine M‘Phail, a whisky smuggler who was flush with cash and almost became their victim. They went on board the Toward Castle at seven and almost immediately they went down below to begin drinking in “a small place beside the steerage, with a table in the middle and a form fixed round it.”
Some time later, after a spell on deck, they returned down below where they found Robert and John Lamont. These two gentlemen were respectively a merchant and his second cousin, a farmer from the Parish of Kilninian on the Island of Ulva, on their way to Glasgow where Robert was to buy goods. John Stuart and Robert Lamont indulged in whisky and drank all the Porter that was on board the vessel. At some point after the vessel had called at Greenock, John Lamont raised the alarm with Captain William Stewart that his brother was taken ill and had been robbed.
Castle Company Steamboat off Dunoon
The text is taken from various pamphlets and broadsheets of the day. At the end is a lengthy transcript of the trial. The engraving by Joseph Swan above is contemporary with the event and shows one of the Castle Company’s steamboats off Dunoon.
The first broadsheet lists John Stuart’s Confession.
Confessions of John Stewart
An account of the different Murders to which John Stewart and his female associate has made confession to since their condemnation, making Eleven in all, with the names of the places where some of them were committed with the manner they took to Murder their victims, and then rob them.
Taken from the Edinburgh Scotsman, and Caledonian Mercury.
Stewart and his female associate, who received sentence of death on Tuesday, for the Murder of Robert Lamont, on board the Toward Castle steam boat, on the river Clyde, in the month of December last, appear to be monsters of iniquity worthy of being classed with the incarnate demons of the West Port. Even before his trial, Stewart admitted to some persons who had access to him that he done (murdered) seven persons besides Lamont, by administering to them what he called in his infamous slang, the doctor, that is by poisoning them with laudanum, and since his conviction, he has Confessed to three more murders, making eleven in all. Now if this be true which we are inclined to believe it is, it exhibits a woeful picture of the inefficacy of our criminal law, and of the fearful amount of chances of escape, which it affords even to the most hardened and daring offenders; for by this statement, ten mortal murders were committed not only with impunity, but without the fact of their having been committed at all, being known or even suspected by those whose duty it is to detect and punish crimes.
Is it any answer to say, “Oh, it is quite true that any man may commit eleven murders like Stewart, or sixteen like Burke, but it is quite certain he will be at last detected and hanged.” Our very ground of complaint is founded upon the fact of these monsters not being detected sooner, and this will never happen until we have the sense, or it would be more correct to say the humanity, to borrow from our neighbours their invaluable institution of a Coroner’s Inquest, which might easily be adapted to and engrafted upon our own institutions.
We know from good authority, that eight other murders, committed by the same or similar means, have been traced home to him, in a manner that leaves no doubt of his guilt, and in the list is included one which it may be remembered was perpetrated several years ago, in an unfinished building near Maitland street. The presumption is too, that this is but an imperfect catalogue of his most atrocious acts; and if he administered the deleterious drug, “the doctor,” as he called it in so many cases with fatal effect, we may readily believe that he gave it in many others in smaller proportions, where his object was merely to produce a temporary stupefaction. The dispute and scuffle betwixt Stewart and his wife, when he made an attempt as if he meant to drink the poisoned ale, and she wrung it from him, calling him a blackguard, and saying he would fill himself drunk—with his assuming an appearance of intoxication afterward were just in the style of Burke and Hare when they got up a sham quarrel, preparatory to the imoulation of their victim. It is to be hoped that the facts of the other murders we have alluded to will be published; although it should serve no other purpose than to impress upon persons of the lower and middle ranks, the danger to which men are exposed by their passion for intoxicating liquours.
Carmichael & Graham, Printer,Trongate.
A second broadsheet gives an account of the execution of John Steward and his wife.
Execution.
An Account of the Execution of John Stuart and Catherine Wright his Wife, for the Murder of Robert Lamont, by poison, on board of the Toward Castle Steam Boat.
Wednesday, Aug. 19, John Stuart, and Catherine Wright attoned for their atrocious crimes on the scaffold. With the exception of Burke, no criminal has excited so much public detestation as the hardened villain of whom justice has now ridded society. The fate of the woman, though in a legal point of view, was equally criminal with her husband, has excited comparatively a degree of compassion in the breasts of those acquainted with the circumstances in which she had all along been placed with regard to Stuart. Attached to him in an infatuated degree, she suffered every kind of abuse at his hands; and yet she continued to act as his coadjutor, and to serve him as faithfully as if he had behaved to her with incessant kindness. Stuart, previous to his trial, in conjunction with the criminals amongst whom he mixed in the prison, planned, and had actually commenced operations, by which he expected to effect his escape. His intention was to murder the turnkey who was in immediate attendance, and, after perpetrating this atrocity, to kill Mr Fisher, the lieutenant governor of the jail, in whose possession are the keys of the principal entrance. Luckily the scheme was discovered in time to counteract the daring operations of the prisoner.
Since they received sentence of death they have been regularly visited by the Rev. Dr Gordon and the Rev. Mr Porteous, chaplain to the prison, who have been unwearied in their administrations of religious instruction and consolation. They paid most implicit attention to the advices and admonitions of their spiritual instructors, they conversed freely on the wickedness and enormity of their past lives, and they deeply deplored their disregard of industry and morality, and their utter neglect of the holy precepts of the Gospel, which alone can insure comfort, prosperity, and respectability on this earth, and eternal felicity in the world to come.
At the suggestion of the ministers, they were daily brought together for a short time to hear the same exhortations, and they were inspired with the same grounds of hope. They spent most of their time in reading the Bible and such religions books as were allowed them by the ministers, and they were by no means so brutishly ignorant as they might be supposed to be from the enormity, of their crimes.
The unhappy criminals slept little during Tuesday night in the Lock-up-house, (being previously brought from the Calton hill Jail, when, upon parting with the humane Governor and Turnkeys who had them under their charge, they expressed their utmost gratitude for the humanity and kindness with which they were treated by them.) In the morning as soon as the Clergymen were announced, they left their cells, and entered immediately and to appearance seemingly anxiously, into conversation with these worthy men, who during their confinement in the Jail, were unwearied in their pious endeavours to bring them to a sense of the awful situation in which they were placed; and we are happy to say trial their exertions were crowned with success, for their last moments were solely taken up with enquiries after their future prospects; this alone occupied their thoughts, while the preparations were making for their final exit,—no earthly ideas seemed at this time to engross their attention. When the magistrates were announced, the executioner prepared to pinion their arms;—Stuart submitted with a degree of calm fortitude, but his frail companion shewed some signs of faintness at this doleful ceremony. At a few minutes after eight they left the Lock-up-house, and proceeded by Libberton’s wynd to the scaffold, which was strongly guarded by a body of Police, and around which, in a compact mass, were thousands, male and female, anxiously waiting to see the last sentence of the law put into effect. Prayers were offered up to Him, who alone is able to grant repentance for manifold sins, and a psalm chosen for the awful occasion was sung. They were then supported to the drop, and after shaking hands, and offering up an inward prayer, Stuart dropt the signal, and thus attoned for the awful crimes of which they were guilty.
John Stuart was 32 years of age, a native of Ireland, and a Blacksmith by trade. He married Catherine Wright about six years ago;—she was a native of Glasgow, and 22 years ages. During these six years, they have chiefly subsisted on the proceeds of their murderous and. diabolical resources.
A third broadsheet gives an account of the life and execution of John Stuart.
An account of the Life and Execution of John Stewart and Catherine Wright his wife, who were executed at Edinburgh on Wednesday the 19th August, 1829, and their bodies given for dissection, for the horrible murder and robbery of Robert Lamond, on board the Toward Castle steam boat on the 15th December, 1828; with the manner in which they behaved since receiving sentence.
Edinburgh, 19th August, 1829.—This morning these two unfortunate, but shockingly guilty creatures, paid, with their lives, the atonement due to the grossly offended laws of their country. With the exception of Burke, no criminals have excited so much detestation as the two of whom society has just been rid of. It will be recollected that Stewart and his wife were found guilty by the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, of administering such a quantity of laudanum to Robert Lamond, on board the Toward Castle steam-boat, as to occasion his death; previous to which, and while lying in a state of stupefaction they robbed him of his pocket book containing of £20 or thereby.
After their condemnation they were attended by the Rev. Dr. Gordon and Mr. Porteous, and were daily brought together for a short time to hear the same exhortations, and they were inspired with the same grounds of hope. They spent much of their time in reading the Bible and such religious books as were given them by the ministers. He was so settled in his mind, that from his manner no observer could believe that he was placed in the awful circumstances in which he stood. He spoke freely, and without the slightest remorseful allusion to the events of his past life. He was also particularly callous to the end which, awaited him. By those who had the best opportunities to observe the workings of his dispositions, he was considered to be one of the most accomplished villains that ever came under the cognizance of the law. He was ardent and fearless— resembling in these respects the lower animals, which rush forward with an impetuosity which nothing can impede. As an instance of this trait in the character of Stewart, we may mention, that after he was conveyed to Edinburgh for trial, he formed the diabolical plan, along with the other prisoners, of escaping from prison by murdering the turnkey and the governor. Luckily the scheme was discovered in time to counteract the operation of this daring villain. He was in chains; but the woman was allowed greater liberty, and was not manacled. She was very penitent.
At the usual hour the prisoners were brought from the lock-up (to which they had been conveyed the preceding night,) to the place of execution, attended by the Rev. Dr. Gordon and the Rev. Mr. Porteous, chaplain to the prison, who had been unwearied in their ministrations of religious instruction and consolation to the delinquents since their condemnation.—The concourse of people assembled to witness the execution was very great, and although not near so large as the multitude present when Burke was hanged, still from the peculiar atrocity of the offence for which Stewart and his wife suffered, the crowd was much larger than is usually brought together on an ordinary occasion.—After some time spent on the scaffold in prayer, and after Stewart had embraced his wife, the executioner proceeded to put the caps over the heads of the unfortunate couple, which office he performed to the female first and after every thing was adjusted, and they had continued for a few minutes in prayer with the ropes fixed around their necks, the signal was given, and the drop fell. The female struggled a good deal, but the man appeared to die easily. After they had been suspended the time required, the bodies were cut down, and delivered to Dr. Munro’ for disection, when the crowd quitely dispersed.—The crowd expressed their detestation of these, horrid murderers by hissing and other marks of disapprobation.
Stewart was a native of Ireland—he was bred a blacksmith, but had wrought none for l8 months previous to his apprehension, during which period this accomplished and notorious villain, had served a number of individuals in the same way as he did Robert Lamond.—His wife, who was about 22 years of age, was born in Glasgow,—she had been married to Stewart about six years ago at Gretna Green; and she acknowledged they had no place of residence, but had been travelling through Scotland in search of employment.
The sensation which was produced amongst all classes was almost as intense as that which was excited on the occasion of Burke’s execution. There is little to create surprise in that, when we consider how extensively, and how long the parties exercised their infernal calling.
Another broadsheet gives some details of the trial and sentencing.
Trial And Sentence.
An account of the Trial and Sentence of JOHN STEWART and CATHERINE WRIGHT, who were found guilty at Edinburgh on Tuesday last of the horrid Murder and Robbery of Robert Lamont on board the Toward Castle Steam Boat, and sentenced to be Executed at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th August next.—Glasgow, July 15, 1829.
EDINBURGH, JULY 14, 1829.—This day the High Court of Justiciary proceeded to the trial of JOHN STEWART, blacksmith, and CATHERINE WRIGHT, or STEWART, charged with having on the 15th December last on board of the Toward Castle Steam Boat on her voyage from Inverary to Glasgow, and when the said Steam Boat was on her way between Tarbet and Glasgow, did wickedly and feloniously administer to Robert Lamont, then a passenger on board the same boat, and lately merchant and farmer in the Isle of Ulva, and Shire of Argyle, a quantity of Laudanum or some other substance, which they had mixed up with a quantity of porter or ale, which they gave the said Robert Lamont to drink, and the said Robert Lamont having accordingly partaken of the said poisonous mixture, was shortly after seized with a profound sleep, and while in this state they did then steal from his person a black leather pocket book, 10 pound notes, a 2 pound note, and seven guinea notes, a black silk purse and some silver money, all in the lawful possession of the said Robert Lamont, and in consequence of having drank the said poisonous mixture, the said Robert Lamont lingered in a state of utter insensibility until the morning of the day following, when he died in consequence thereof, and was thus murdered by the said John Stewart and Catherine Wright.
They were indicted to stand trial at the Circuit Court of Justiciary which met in Glasgow in April last, but it was put off on some account or other, and they received fresh indictments to stand trial at Edinburgh on the 15th June last, when, owing to a relevancy in the indictment, it was again postponed till this day (Tuesday). Owing to the enormity of the crime it has excited great interest, especially, in Glasgow, and the Court was very crowded.
The prisoners on being put to the bar, pleaded Not Guilty. The Court then proceeded to the examination of the witnesses, a great number of whom were examined, and their evidence occupied the attention of the Court till about six o’clock.
The Lord Advocate then addressed the Jury for the Crown. He made a very eloquent speech, and contended that the crime was clearly proven, and asked a verdict of guilty against both the prisoners.
The Counsel for the prisoners, also made eloquent speeches in behalf of their clients, and contended that the crime was not proven.
Lord Gillies then summed up the evidence, and the Jury retired, and returned verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners.
Lord Gillies then, after a very eloquent and impressive address, sentenced them to be Executed at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th August, and their bodies to be given for dissection.
John Muir printer, Glasgow.
The final broadsheet also gives an account of the trial.
Account of the interesting Trial of John Stewart and Catherine Wright, for the Murder and Robbery of Robert Lamont, on board the Toward Castle Steam Boat, on her passage from Inverary to Glasgow, by giving him laudanum in his drink, whereby he became insensible, and after Robbing him of a large sum of money, he shortly afterwards died. The trial took place at Edinburgh on the 14th July, 1829; they are to be Executed at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th August next
Edinburgh, 14th July, 1829.—This day, came on the trial of John Stewart and Catherine Wright, accused of murder and robbery on board the above vessel.
The indictment charged the prisoners, while they were on board the said vessel, plying on the Clyde, then on her voyage from Inveraray to Glasgow, and when said Steam boat was on her way between Tarbert and Glasgow, with wilfully, wickedly, and feloniously, administering to Robert Lamont, then a passenger in said boat, and lately merchant and farmer, residing at Balligartan, in the parish of Kilninian, in the island of Ulva, and shire of Argyle, a quantity of laudanum, or some other narcotic or poisonous substance, which they had mixed up with a quantity of porter or ale, or some other liquid, and which mixture they, or one or other of them gave him, and in consequence of having taken the same, he fell into a profound sleep, and while in that state, one, or both of them, robbed him of a pocket book, containing nearly twenty pounds, and a purse with some money. That the, said Robert Lamont, in consequence of his having drank the said laudanum, or other narcotic substance on the 15th of December last, died in great agony on the 16th of the same month. The prisoners pled Not Guilty.
After a long and interesting trial, in which a number of witnesses were examined, (whose evidence is too long for insertion here), the Jury was addressed with great ability by the Counsel on both sides, after which the Lord Justice Clerk summed up the evidence in a clear and impartial manner, when the Jury were inclosed and ordered to return their verdict, which they afterwards did, finding both the pannels Guilty of the crime libelled.
The Lord Justice Clerk, previous to passing sentence impressed upon them the heinous nature of the crime of taking away the life of a fellow creature, and warned them to improve the short time allotted them here, in making up their peace with an offended God, whose laws they had broken.
His Lordship then passed sentence of death upon them, ordaining them to be Executed at Glasgow, on Wednesday the 19th Aug. next, and their bodies to be given to the Professor of Anatomy there for dissection.
The above is another horrid affair, and though not equal in extent to the murders which Burke committed, yet it is equal in enormity. Burke murdered that he might get money far their bodies; the pannels murdered that they might get money from their victim’s pockets. To invite a man, under the masque of friendship, to drink with them, and pass a social hour together, and, in the midst of this feigned friendship, to mix the deadly draught in the vessel out of which he drank, and at the same time avoid it themselves, in order that they might get possession of his property, is just another addition to those barbarous acts which lately occurred at Edinburgh. It is said that they were before this in company with two persons in Glasgow, who died shortly after drinking with them.
W. Carse, Printer, Glasgow.
The final document is the transcript of the trial with all the evidence presented.
TRIAL OF JOHN STUART AND CATHERINE WRIGHT OR STUART, FOR MURDER AND ROBBERY.
———————
On Tuesday; the 14th of July, 1829, the High Court of Justiciary met at ten o’clock, a.m. for the trial of the persons above-named. The Judges present were, Lord Gillies, Lord Pitmilly, Lord Mackenzie, and Lord Moncrieff: Lord Gillies presided. The Counsel for the Crown were, Sir William Rae, Lord Advocate; Robert Dundas, and Alexander Wood, Esqs. Advocates-Depute; James Tytler, Esq. W.S. Crown Agent:— And for the prisoners, David Milne, and William Forbes, Esqrs. Advocates; John Livingston, Esq. W.S. Agent.
After the Judges were seated on the bench, and the usual preliminaries gone through, the prisoners were asked by Lord Gillies, whether they were guilty, or not guilty?
They both pleaded, Not Guilty.
Mr Milne; as counsel for the male prisoner, stated; that he did not wish the indictment read; and took several objections to the relevancy.
Mr Milne:—Your Lordships are welt aware, that in every indictment the public prosecutor is bound to set forth distinctly such a specification of circumstances in the minor proposition, as will justify his averment of the commission of the crimes which are libelled in the major proposition. It is necessary that he should do this, not merely for the purpose of informing the pannels precisely of the nature of the offence charged against them, but likewise in order to enable the Court to judge whether the facts narrated amount to that species of crime which is stated in the commencement of the indictment: And the indictment cannot be held to be relevant, unless the public prosecutor has obtempered this general rule of Law. In this indictment there is a charge both at common law, and on the statute, of “administering laudanum or other narcotic substance, being a deadly poison;” and I pray your Lordships to attend to that part of the minor proposition, where the public prosecutor professes to support this charge. It is merely stated, that you the pannels “did, time and place aforesaid, wilfully, &c. administer to Robert Lamont, a quantity of laudanum, being a deadly poison, or some other narcotic substance, which you had mixed up with porter or ale in manner above libelled, and did prevail upon the said Robert Lamont to drink the same.” Now, my Lords, can this be held to be such a specification of particulars in the relation and history of the fact, as the prosecutor was bound to have set forth? We are indeed told, that the laudanum was administered “in manner above libelled;” but in no previous part of the indictment is there any mode of administration described more full and explicit than in the part which I have now read. And therefore the question just is, whether the mere statement that the pannels administered the laudanum to Robert Lamont by mixing it in ale or porter, which they prevailed on him to drink, can be deemed a sufficient specification of the mode in which it was administered. Now, on this point I beg your Lordships attention to the law laid down by Mr Barron Hume. He says, vol. II. p. 184, that “it is matter of substantial justice, and has been uniformly observed in the practice of later times, that the prosecutor shall not be held to have sufficiently explained himself when he charges the crime by its technical appellation, and affirms that he, the pannel, did commit or was guilty of that crime against such a person, at such a time and place: he must farther support and justify this affirmation with a statement of the particular fact,—on a specification of those circumstances which serve to distinguish this deed from others of the same class, and which any spectator would naturally mention, in relating what he had seen.” On looking at the present indictment in the spirit of the law thus laid down by Mr Hume, where is there to be found such a specification of circumstances as may serve to distinguish the deed charged against the pannel from others of the same class? We are told only, that the pannels prevailed on Robert Lamont to drink the poison,—a statement so vague and indefinite, that various modes are comprehended under it very different from one another. From any thing that we can gather out of the indictment, the pannel may have prevailed on him to take the laudanum as a medicine, and we know that it is frequently used for this purpose; or he may have prevailed on him to take it as an agreeable stimulant, a practice which prevails among the lower classes to a most woeful extent; or indeed it might even be, that he prevailed upon him to take it as a poison for the purpose of committing suicide, because the indictment does not aver that the laudanum was administered without Robert Lamont’s knowledge of its nature, and his full concurrence. I do not mean to argue that, according as one or other of these various modes was adopted, the nature or species of the crime would be altered, though that is a point of some doubt; but it is not necessary for me to carry my argument so far; because if I can shew that, under the vague and general terms used by the prosecutor, various modes of administration are comprehended, all essentially distinct from one another, then he cannot be held to have explained himself sufficiently. If it be that the laudanum was administered to Robert Lamont by false representations on the part of the pannel, and insidious solicitations to drink the poisonous liquor, under the pretence of conviviality, that mode should have been distinctly set forth. It cannot be said that the prosecutor has complied with this requisite by saying the laudanum was put into ale or porter, because that merely indicates the nature of the poisonous mixture, and not the mode in which it was administered.
In illustration of my argument, it is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with many decisions. But I may refer to the case of Mackay, tried for housebreaking, in which the indictment was not held relevant, because it merely charged the pannel with “breaking into and entering a house.” The Court held, that as there are various modes of breaking into and entering a house, the prosecutor should have specified the exact way in which entry was obtained: and in like manner, I submit to your Lordships, that as there are various ways in which the pannel may have administered laudanum, and prevailed on Robert to drink; so this indictment should also be held irrelevant, for not having distinctly set forth the mode in which the administration was effected. The case of Robert Smellie, for subornation of perjury, is another case exactly analogous. The indictment merely stated that you, the pannel, “did entice, induce, prevail on, and suborn you, the said to commit the crime of perjury, by falsely swearing,” &c. It was to this indictment objected that it did not set forth the means which the pannel had taken to entice and prevail on the persons to commit perjury—and in consequence the indictment was cast. The indictment accordingly was amended, and explicitly set forth, than the prisoner had enticed and prevailed on the above persons, by means of various rewards and promises, to commit perjury. My Lords, I deem it quite unnecessary to occupy more of your Lordships time in citing any more cases analogous to the present, of which I have a full note before me. But I may refer your Lordships to the general practice in framing indictments of this nature, in which it is always usual to set forth the nature of the means by which the prisoner prevailed on the individual to take the poison: Thus in the two very last cases which came before this Court for poisoning, those of Mary Wilson, and of Mary Smith or Elder, it was stated in the indictment of the former, that the prisoner prevailed on Francis Bannochie to take the foresaid poisonous mixture, by falsely representing that it would be agreeable to the taste, or some other false pretences to the prosecntor unknown; and in the indictment of Mary Smith or Elder, the prisoner was charged with “administering the said poisonous substance, by falsely pretending that it was a medicine, or that it would make her sleep better, or by some other false representation to the prosecutor unknown.” It is, true that Mr Baron Hume states, that in some cases the prosecutor may be allowed greater latitude in the mode of libeling the commission of the crime, when it “happens that the person: is killed in circumstances quite unknown to any but the perpetrators at the time,”—and, “when it cannot be ascertained by what species of injury the person perished.” But with respect to these cases, he makes the following remark, which plainly shows that the present case is not to be reckoned as one of that category. “It must always be remembered,” says he, “before closing these observations, that they relate to exceptions only, which have been allowed from necessity in rare and extraordinary situations; they are nowise an impeachment of the general rule,. which certainly obliges the prosecutor to set forth the manner of the criminal act, in a reasonable and sufficient way, in every case where this is, or may with due diligence on his part be known to him.”
The Court expressed themselves unwilling to hear any reply, and unanimously repelled the objection. Lord Gillies observed, that the indictment was sufficiently specific where it stated that the prisoners administered the laudanum by mixing it in ale or porter.
Mr Forbes next addressed the Court as follows:—
Mr Forbes.—As your Lordships will readily admit, that in a case of this importance it is our duty to state every objection to the relevancy and sufficiency of the charge, I now rise for the purpose of stating three grounds upon which we hold this libel to be faulty. There are two divisions of the libel, viz. the circumstances attending the death of Robert Lamont, and the injuries suffered by the three other persons mentioned in the latter part. It is to the first crime that our objection applies. Your Lordships will observe, that the pannels are accused of four different crimes,—murder, theft, the common law charge of administering laudanum to any of the lieges to the injury of the person, and the statutory charge of administering laudanum with intent to murder or disable.
Now no rule of law is more clearly established, or more universally recognised, than this, that when, in the major proposition, the injury to the person is a substantive part and necessary element of the crime charged, the minor should distinctly set forth the facts inferring injury to the person, and should tally in all points with the major; and if it should be held necessary to quote authority upon so plain a point, reference might be made to Hume, vol. ii. p. 181.
First, then, the act of murder is described, and an account is given of the circumstances giving rise to it, and then (as the Prosecutor appears doubtful whether the medical evidence will bear him out in the charge of murder) he brings an alternative charge of administering laudanum to Robert Lamont, both under the common law and the statute. Now, arguing from the rule of law above laid down, we might naturally expect that if administering to the injury of the person be the crime of which the prisoners are accused, that the subsumption of the minor in the alternative clause should distinctly state that Robert Lamont did suffer injury in his person; now the alternative clause merely states, that the prisoners prevailed upon Robert Lamont to drink of the poisonous mixture, and describes the various conflicting intents with which it was administered; but it does not say that Robert Lamont suffered injury in his person at all. Here then the injury is an inherent ingredient of the crime; and to prove that crime, a corresponding statement of facts must be set forth in the minor. In the analogous crimes of housebreaking with intent to steal, and assault with intent to rob, where these are charged, the prosecutor must prove the intent, by which is an element of the crime, (otherwise he proves nothing,) and the intent cannot be proved unless he set forth facts relating to it in the minor;—he cannot obtain a verdict for more than he libels for. In the case of Wright and Moffat, Syme’s Reports, vol. i. p. 137, the Court recognized the accuracy of the law as here laid down; and the law upon which the prisoners counsel, who was successful in his objection, more particularly founded, was to the following effect:—
“The objection stated was very plain, when the distinction between a substantive charge and an aggravation was attended to. When the prosecutor libelled any thing as an ingredient of a substantive charge, he must prove that ingredient to entitle him to a conviction under the libel ‘Assault, with intent to ravish;’ ‘housebreaking, with intent to steal;’ ‘assault, with intent to rob,’ were all known as substantive charges; and when the prosecutor accused of any of those substantive charges, he must make out the intent as an ingredient of the charge, or he could not get a conviction. He could not, for instance, get a conviction for simple assault without the intent, or for simple housebreaking without the intent. But when he libelled assault only as the substantive charge, and libelled the intent or any thing else as an aggravation, he could get a conviction of the substantive charge simply if he failed of his proof of the aggravations. This was the distinction between the two modes of libelling. (He proposed to quote authority, but the Court considered it unnecessary, and held that the law was clearly as laid down.)”
If these rules of law were established in that case, it ought equally to apply to the present. Moreover, if an aggravation be libelled, the prosecutor must state facts in the minor corresponding with the aggravation; and if this be so, how much more must he do so where, as in this case, the “injury of the person” is a substantive part of the crime? It may perhaps be replied, that a sufficient description is given of the state of Robert Lamont in the preceding part of the libel, which describes the murder; but the true way to test this argument is to ascertain whether no description of Lamont’s injuries could have been permitted, supposing the administering to the injury of the person at common law had been the only crime of which the prisoners were charged. I humbly apprehend that your Lordships would have little difficulty in setting aside a charge defective in so necessary a part. The Lord Advocate himself confesses his error, and I will convict him of it out of his own libel; for when he details the circumstances connected with Catherine M‘Pheely, he distinctly alleges that she suffered grievous injury in her person.
When the former libel was before your Lordships, in which the relevancy of the charge was very fully debated, the Lord Justice Clerk expressed a very decided opinion upon this point. The common law charge was worded in these terms: “The wickedly and feloniously administering any quantity of laudanum, or other narcotic and deleterious substance, to any of the lieges, to the grievous injury of the person, with intent to murder, or to produce stupefaction, and thereafter to steal and theftuously carry away the property of the person so to be murdered or stupefied.” But the outset of the minor did not correspond with this description of crime; it bore, “You are guilty of the said crime of feloniously administering laudanum, or other narcotic and deleterious substance, aggravated with intent as aforesaid.” The objection was taken that the major and minor propositions did not tally, for an inherent part of the crime was in the minor charged as an aggravation; besides sustaining this objection, his Lordship clearly expressed his opinion that the expression, “to the injury of the person,” was an element of the crime, and ought to have been expressly stated in the minor. The prosecutor has fallen into the very same blunder; he ought to have averred that Robert Lamont did suffer injury. Upon these grounds we submit that we are entitled to have the whole of that part of the alternative charge struck out, which is founded upon the common law charge.
2dly, The next point for the consideration of your Lordships, is the circumstance that there is no separate alternative applicable to the common law charge, so far as it respects. either Robert Lamont or Catherine M‘Pheely, and the others. The statutory and the common law crimes are perfectly inconsistent; the Jury cannot find the pannels guilty of both: If they find them guilty of administering laudanum to the injury of the person with intent to stupefy and steal, they cannot find them guilty of administering with intent to murder. Both crimes are essentially different; because the injury is not a necessary element of the statutory charge, nor is the intent of administering a matter of the slightest importance in the crime at common law. Many crimes are nearly allied in character, which, however, in law, are quite distinct, such as robbery and theft, and theft and breach of trust; in these cases, however, it does not admit of a question, that the prosecutor, when doubtful what the crime may be which the Jury may find from the facts proved in evidence, is bound to provide for all difficulties of this kind, by libelling the facts in an alternative form. The question is, has this been done here? The words in the alternative clause are, “And this you did, with intent thereby to murder, or disable the said Robert Lamont, or with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm,”—there ends the statutory crime—“and with intent to produce stupefaction in the said Robert Lamont, and thereafter to steal,” &c. This applies to the common law, and it surely cannot be said that the word and is equivalent to or, otherwise serving the purpose of distinguishing two separate crimes. The word and is plainly a copulative, and cannot by any ingenuity be inverted from its proper signification to mean a disjunctive or alternative. To be correctly drawn, the libel should at the beginning of the common law charge have recapitulated the subsumption, beginning at time and place, and should have repeated all the details. This is the constant practice; and I beg leave to refer the Court to the case of Mary Anne Alcorn, accused of the same crimes as the prisoners at the bar are, where the alternative form of libelling was used.
The third objection to the relevancy of the libel is grounded upon the fact, that the place of Robert Lamont’s death is not mentioned. The prisoners ought to have been made acquainted with the locus mortis; this being a circumstance of which they should have been informed, that they might prepare for their defence. The very object of an indictment being served upon a pannel fifteen days before his trial is, that he may be made aware of the principal facts which the prosecutor means to establish against him. Now here the pannels are accused of the crime of murder, and consequently it is manifest that it is of the last importance to the pannel to ascertain the place of death, because till Lamont die, no murder is committed; he may have been mismanaged, the stomach-pump may not have been resorted to in good time, or the laudanum may have developed some latent disease, in short, an hundred suppositions arise to invalidate the supposition that Lamont died of poison. Upon the face of the libel we obtain no information, nay, we are rather led into uncertainty. Here is a crime said to be committed in the course of a voyage between Tarbert in Argyleshire and Glasgow; it may have beep perpetrated in any one of the shires of Argyll, Bute, Dunbarton, Renfrew and, Lanark, but in which is a matter so doubtful, that this crime could only be competently tried by the High Court of Justiciary. Where then did Lamont die? Did he die at Tarbert, at Rothsay, at Glasgow, or in England? We obtain no answer to this question from the indictment. The inference is that he died on the voyage.
It is admitted that the time of death must be set forth, because if a considerable space of time elapse between the date of the injury and the date of death, a murder cannot be said to take place; and accordingly the time of the death of Lamont is correctly described. But is it not obvious, that the place of death is a fact of much greater importance to the party accused; because if he knew where to make enquiries as to the place of death, he might easily ascertain the time, and all the other particulars of the demise. It is also manifest that in some crimes, such as child-murder and reset of theft, which are of a more complex character, and infer more than one criminal act, the various steps must be correctly libelled. In child-murder, the place of the birth must be stated, as well as the time and place of death; and in reset, the prisoner must be informed of the place of theft, as well as the place of reset.
If it be argued that the pannels by administering, have acted their part, and done every thing in their power, and that whether death ensue or not was arranged in the councils of Divine Providence; I answer that, if such an argument were available, it proves too much, and it would not be necessary for the prosecutor to inform the prisoners of the time of death, or any of the material circumstances in the case.
Finally, this objection is corroborated by the uniform course of practice; for in a file of indictments now in my hand, the place is uniformly set forth except in one or two instances, where it is inferred, that the party assaulted died in his own house, or on the spot where the assault took place, which was already sufficiently described, where the prisoner could not be misled.
Upon the whole, then, we submit, that this indictment is faulty, and ought to be cast upon these three grounds; 1st, The subsumption of the minor proposition applicable to the common law does not state the injury to Robert Lamont; 2d, There is no separate subsumption applicable to the charge at common law; and, lastly, the place of death is not set forth at all.
After Mr Forbes had concluded, Mr Dundas shortly replied to his objections, and the Court briefly stated their opinions; repelling the objections to the indictment, finding the same relevant to infer the pains of law, and remitting the same as found relevant to the knowledge of an assize.
The objections to the relevancy being thus repelled, the following Jury was sworn in and impannelled:—
Thomas Buchanan, William Stephenson, George Mill, Richard Kemp, William Patison, James Fairbairn, John Hardie, John Biggar, James Dickson, James Mutter, James Allardice, Tho. Edw. Bridges Shillinglaw, Thomas Brown, David Scott, William Robertson,
The Clerk of Court then read the indictment, as follows:—
John Stuart, blacksmith, and Catherine Wright or Stuart, present prisoners in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, you are Indicted and Accused at the instance of Sir William Rae of St Catharines, Baronet, his Majesty’s Advocate, for his Majesty’s interest: That Albeit, by the laws of this and of every other well governed realm, Murder, as also Theft; as also the wickedly and feloniously Administering Luadanum, or other Narcotic or Noxious Substance, to any of the Lieges, to the injury of the person, especially when the same is administered with intent to murder, or with intent to produce stupefaction, and thereafter to steal and theftuously carry away the property of the person or persons so to be murdered or stupified, are crimes of an heinous nature, and severely punishable: And Albeit, by an Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of his present Majesty King George the Fourth, chapter 126, entitled, ‘An Act to make provision in Scotland for the further prevention of malicious shooting, and attempting to discharge loaded fire-arms, stabbing, cutting, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, and disabling his Majesty’s subjects,’ it is enacted, inter alia ‘That, from and after the 1st day of July 1825, if any person shall, within Scotland, wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully administer to, or cause to be administered to, or taken by, any of his Majesty’s subjects, any deadly poison, or other noxious and destructive substance or thing, with intent thereby to murder or disable such his Majesty’s subject or subjects, or with intent to do some other grievous bodily harm to such his Majesty’s subject or subjects, such person, being lawfully convicted of any of the foresaid acts, shall be held guilty of a capital crime, and receive sentence of death accordingly:’ Yet true it is and of verity, that you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart are, both and each, or one or other of you, guilty of the said crimes first and second above libelled, and of the said crime third above libelled, aggravated as aforesaid, and of the said crime fourth above libelled, or of one or more of them, actors or actor, or art and part; In so far as, upon the 15th day of December 1828, or on one or other of the days of that month, or of November immediately preceding, or of January 1829 immediately following, you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart did both and each, or one or other of you, on board of the Toward Castle steam-boat, plying on the river and frith of Clyde, then on her voyage from Inverary in Argyleshire to Glasgow, and when the said steam boat was on her way between Tarbert or Tarbet in Argyleshire, and Glasgow, wilfully, wickedly, and feloniously administer to Robert Lamont, then a passenger on board the said boat, and lately merchant and farmer, residing at Balligartan, in the parish of Kilninian, in the island of Ulva, and shire of Argyle, a quantity of laudanum, being a deadly poison, or some other narcotic, noxious, and destructive substance or thing to the Prosecutor unknown which you had mixed up with a quantity of porter or ale, or with some other liquid to the Prosecutor unknown, and which mixture, as aforesaid, you did both and each, or one or other of you, then and there, give the said Robert Lamont to drink, and did prevail on him to drink the same; and, in consequence of having drank the said poisonous or narcotic mixture so prepared and administered as aforesaid by you, or one or other of you, the said Robert Lamont lingered in a state of utter insensibility until the morning of the 16th day of December 1828, when he .died in consequence thereof, and was thus bereaved of life, and murdered by you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart, or by one or other of you: Or Otherwise, you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart did, time and place aforesaid, wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully administer to, or cause to be administered to the said Robert Lamont, a quantity of laudanum, being a deadly poison, or some other narcotic, noxious, and destructive substance or thing, which you had mixed up with porter or ale, or other liquid to the Prosecutor unknown, in manner above libelled, and did prevail upon the said Robert Lamont to drink the same: and this you did with intent thereby to murder or disable the said Robert Lamont, or with intent to do him some other grievous bodily harm, and with intent to produce stupefaction in the said Robert Lamont, and thereafter to steal, and theftuously carry away his property when murdered or stupified, or with one or more of said intents: As also, time and place above libelled, you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart did both and each, or one or other of you, wickedly and feloniously steal, and theftuously carry away from the person of the said Robert Lamont, a black leather pocketbook, ten bank or bankers’ notes for one pound sterling each, a two pound note of the Leith Bank or Banking Company, and seven bank or bankers’ notes for one guinea each, the said notes being all more particularly described in the Inventory hereunto annexed; as also a black silk purse and some silver money, being all the property or in the lawful possession of the said Robert Lamont; as also, time and place aforesaid, you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart, did both and each, or one or other of you, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully, and feloniously administer to, or cause to be administered to; and taken by, John Lamont, now or lately farmer, now or lately residing at Kilicheoun, in the parish of Kilninian, and island of Ulva aforesaid, by Catherine M‘Pate or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail, or M‘Pheely, wife of Michael M‘Phail or M‘Pheely, now or lately hawker, now or lately residing in Main Street, Gorbals of Glasgow, and by Margaret M‘Phail, daughter of, and now or lately residing with, Donald M‘Phail, now or lately porter at the Broomielaw, and now or lately residing in Main Street of Anderston, in or near Glasgow, or by one or more of them, a quantity of laudanum, or some other substance or thing to the Prosecutor unknown, being a deadly poison, or some other narcotic, noxious, and destructive substance or thing, which laudanum, or other substance or thing, you had, without the knowledge of the said persons, previously mixed up with a quantity of porter or ale, or some other liquid to the Prosecutor unknown, and which mixture as aforesaid you did, then and there, both and each, or one or other of you, give to the said John Lamont, Catherine M‘Pate or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail or M‘Pheely, and Margaret M‘Phail, or one or more of them, to drink, and did prevail upon them, or one or more of them, to drink the same; and this you did with intent thereby to murder or disable the said John Lamont, Catherine M‘Pate or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail or M‘Pheely, and Margaret M‘Phail, or one or more of them, or with intent thereby to do them some other grievous bodily harm, and with intent to produce stupefaction in the said John Lamont, Catherine M‘Pate or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail or M‘Pheely, and Margaret M‘Phail, or one or more of them, and thereafter to steal, and theftuously carry away their property when murdered or stupified, or with one or more of the said intents; and the said John Lamont, Catherine M‘Pate or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail, or M‘Pheely, and Margaret M‘Phail, having, all and each, or one or more of them, drank of the said poisonons or narcotic and noxious mixture or substance as aforesaid, were grievously injured in their persons, and seized with severe sickness and vomiting: and you the said John Stuart having been apprehended and taken before Walter Ferguson, Esquire, bailie of the river and frith of Clyde, did, in his presence at Glasgow, upon the 17th day of December 1828 and 10th day of March 1829, emit two several declarations, which were respectively subscribed by him in your presence, you having declared that you could not write: and you the said Catherine Wright or Stuart having been apprehended and taken before the said Walter Ferguson, did, in his presence at Glasgow, upon the 16th day of December 1828, and 11th day of March 1829, emit two several declarations, which were respectively subscribed by him in your presence, you having declared that you could not write: which declarations being to be used in evidence against each of you respectively by whom the same were emitted; as also the bank or bankers’ notes above libelled, having a label attached thereto, and all enumerated in the Inventory hereunto annexed; as also the black silk purse and black leather pocket-book above libelled; as also a black cotton purse; as also two small green bottles of different sizes, having a label or labels attached there-to; as also a medical certificate or report, bearing to be dated Glasgow, 16th December 1828, and to be signed James Corkindale, M.D. Joseph Fleming, surgeon; as also another medical certificate or report, bearing to be dated Glasgow, 20th December 1828, and to be signed Andrew Ure, M,D. James Corkindale, M.D. being all to be used in evidence against both and each of you at your trial, will, for that purpose, he in due time lodged in the hands of the clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, before which you are to be tried, that you may have an opportunity of seeing the same: All Which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an Assize, or admitted by the respective judicial confessions of you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart, before the Lord Justice-General, Lord Justice-Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, you the said John Stuart and Catherine Wright or Stuart, Ought to be punished with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming.
Dundas, A.D.
Inventory of Bank Notes referred to in the foregoing Indictment.
Four £1 notes of the Leith Bank. 2. A £2 note of ditto. 3. Five guinea notes of ditto.
Two £1 notes and two guinea notes of the National Bank of Scotland. 5. A £1 note of Sir William Forbes & Co. bankers in Edinburgh. 6. Two £1 notes of the Royal Bank of Scotland. 7. A £1 note of the Bank of Scotland.
Dundas, A.D
LIST OF WITNESSES.
Walter Ferguson, Esq. now or lately bailie of the river and frith of Clyde.
William Davie, depute town-clerk of Glasgow.
Andrew Simson, procurator-fiscal of the burgh court of Glasgow.
William Legat, now or lately clerk to the said William Davie.
Una or Euphemia M‘Niel Or Lamont, widow of the deceased Robert Lamont, and now or lately residing at Balligartan, in the parish of Kilninian, island of Ulva, and shire of Argyle.
Catherine Lamont, daughter of the said Robert Lamont, and now or lately residing with the said Una or Euphemia M‘Niel or Lamont.
John Lamont, now Or lately farmer, now or lately residing at Kilicheoun, in the parish of Kilninian, and island of Ulva aforesaid.
Catherine M‘Pate, or M‘Peak, or M‘Phail, or M‘Pheely, wife of Michael M‘Phail or M‘Pheely, now or lately hawker, and now or lately residing in Main Street, Gorbals of Glasgow.
Margaret M‘Phail, daughter of, and now or lately residing with, Donald M‘Phail, now or lately porter at the Broomielaw, and now or lately residing in Main Street of Anderston, in or near Glasgow.
Catherine M‘Corkindale or Campbell, wife of John Campbell, now or lately residing at Kilmun, Lochaweside, by Inverary, Argyleshire.
William Stewart, now or lately master of the Toward Castle steam boat plying on the river and frith of Clyde, and now or lately residing in Washington Street, in or near Glasgow, and in the barony parish of Glasgow.
John M‘Nair, lately steward of the said Toward Castle steam-boat, and now or lately waiter in the Royal Hotel, George’s square, Glasgow.
Alexander Stewart, now or lately assistant steward of the said steam boat, and son of, and now or lately residing with, Alexander Stewart, wright in Trongate street, Glasgow.
William Brown, now or lately seaman, and residing on board the said Toward Castle steam boat.
David Cook, now or lately engineer on board the steam boat Frolic, trading between the Clyde and Belfast, and now or lately residing in Clyde street, Anderston, in or near Glasgow.
Robert Somerville, now or lately pilot in the Dunoon Castle steam boat, and now or lately residing in M‘Alpin or Alpine street, Brownfield, Glasgow.
James Russell, now or lately steam boat harbour-master, at the Broomielaw of Glasgow, and now or lately residing in the police buildings in Robertson street, Glasgow.
James Young, now or lately police officer in the police establishment of the bailie on the river and frith of Clyde, and now or lately residing in College street, Brownfield, Glasgow.
Alexander M‘Pherson, now or lately officer in the said police establishment, and now or lately residing in Union square, North street of Anderston, in or near Glasgow.
Angus Cameron, now or lately watchman in the said police establishment, and now or lately residing in Union Place, North street of Anderston aforesaid.
Alexander Munro, now or lately officer in the said police establishment, and now or lately residing in Dobbie’s Loan, Townhead, Glasgow.
Duncan Falconer, now or lately water bailie officer in Glasgow, and now or lately residing in Lawson’s land, Brown street, Brownfield, Glasgow.
Gruer M‘Gruer, now or lately criminal officer in the Glasgow police establishment.
Alexander Stewart, now or lately criminal officer in the Glasgow police establishment.
John M‘Ewan, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in North Clyde street of Anderston aforesaid.
Joseph Fleming, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in Main street of Anderston aforesaid.
Andrew Ure, doctor of medicine, now or lately residing in South Wellington place, near Hutchesontown, Glasgow.
James Corkindale, doctor of medicine, now or lately residing in
Saint Vincent Place, Glasgow.
Malcolm Logan, alias Michael Clark, present prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
Archihald Anderson, present prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
John King, now or lately grocer, and now or lately residing in Muir’s land, Cross-shore street, Greenock.
Margaret M‘Kenzie or M‘Phail, wife of the before designed Donald M‘Phail.
James Maxwell, Esq. now or lately residing at Aros, in the parish of Kilninian, in the isle of Mull, and shire of Argyle.
Dundas, A.D.
The public prosecutor next proceeded to lead his evidence, when the following witnesses were adduced and examined:—
William Davie, depute town clerk of Glasgow, authenticated the declarations of the prisoners, emitted before one of the Magistrates of Glasgow in December and March last. He put some questions as well as the Magistrate in the course of the examinations; and the prisoners were warned in the usual manner, that they were not bound to answer questions.
William Legat, clerk to Mr Davie, concurred in the authentication of the declarations, &c.
John Lamont, farmer at Kilicheoun, in the parish of Kilninian, in the island of Ulva, deponed as follows:—I knew Robert Lamont; he was my second cousin; he lived near me. He was about 50 or 55 years old. I went with him part of the way to Glasgow, about twenty days before last new year. He was then in, and had generally good health. He was a merchant, and was coming to Glasgow to buy goods. We went into the Toward steam-boat at Lochgilphead. We passed through Kyles of Bute, and then Robert and I went down to the cabin. The prisoners were in the boat. I had not seen them at Lochgilphead. I saw on board Catherine M‘Phail, and Margaret M‘Phail a little girl. We went into a small place beside the steerage, with a table in the middle, and a form fixed round it. No one was there when we went down first. We were not long down when .the prisoners came down. They first looked in, and Robert invited them to come in, and they came in. I did not remain long, but left them with Robert, and went on deck. I heard the bell often ring. I was a good while on deck, Robert Lamont soon after came up, and invited me down, saying, “I’ve fallen in with fine company; you had better come down and take a share.” I went down, and porter and strong ale were called for. The boy said that the porter was all done, but we might have some strong ale. Robert Lamont asked for porter, and the boy said it was all done; and then the wife asked if they had ale; it was 9d. the bottle. Robert said it was dear, but paid for a bottle of it. Then Catherine Stuart called for another bottle. Robert then said to me, “you must give a bottle.” I refused, but said I would give 4d. which I laid on the table; and then Mrs Stuart took the money, and went up stairs for another bottle. She brought down another bottle, and we drank it. It cost 9d. a bottle. I then left them, and soon after we got to Greenock. When the boat stopped there, Robert Lamont came upon deck, and I thought him the worse of liquor. Soon after we left Greenock, he came up and asked me about Mrs Stuart, if I had seen her? I said, no; and I looked for and did not see her; and then we went down and found, John Stuart sitting, and soon after Mrs Stuart came down. Then Robert Lamont said to Stuart, why had his wife a Rob Roy tartan cloak? She shewed one under her cloak. Mrs Stuart sat at the door of the little place, and liquor was given to her. She was always next the door, and got the liquor. John Stuart sat between her’ and Robert Lamont. Mrs Stuart then went away and brought down Mrs M‘Phail. There was only one tumbler used for drink. Mrs Stuart, with Mrs M‘Phail, brought down another bottle of ale. The first tumbler was poured out to Catherine M‘Phail, and when she preed the ale, she said, what a bad taste the ale has; I never tasted the like of it. She then put out some into her loof, (palm) from the bottle, but did not say any thing. She then gave the glass to the little girl. John Stuart then wanted to drink, and said he would drink the whole; but his wife (if she is his wife) would not let him, and spilt the tumbler on his breast. I drank a tumbler, and Mrs Stuart coaxed Robert Lamont to drink, saying, “this is your drink, drink: some of it;” and he did so. The ale had no very bad taste to me, but I am not much acquainted with malt liquor. I know porter from ale, and I’m sure it was ale. I went on deck then, and I left them three, but am not sure if Catherine and Margaret M‘Phail were. I did not feel myself bad so soon on deck. I did not go down to the cabin till at Paisley water. Then, a boat came off shore. When coming near Glasgow, I thought of going down to the cabin, and found Robert alone. I found him in a state of insensibility, and his head between his knees, sitting on a form. I tried to move him, but he could not move any member of his body. It then struck me that the prisoners had robbed him, and I felt his pocket, but the book was not there. I did not see Robert Lamont have money that day, but the day before; I saw it in his book then; the money was in pound notes—a bundle of them, more than 10 or l2, but I could not say. He put it back into book, (identified book.) He put it into left oxter pouch. There was a thick place on his coat which made it visible, and missing this, I was led to think it was away. I went upon deck, and told the Captain that he was robbed, and to see after the people who were in company with him. The Captain was at the gangway waiting for a boat. Some woman said, you should not be trying that man’s pocket, when I was in the steerage. I said to her that he was a friend of mine, and I thought he was robbed. The Captain came down to the cabin. The Captain asked me if I knew he had money on him; I said, yes. Then the Captain took the candle that was on the table, and looked, and found the book on the floor, with the letters all scattered about. It was impossible for the book to fall out of his pocket, as it was very strait, and he sometimes had great difficulty about putting it in. His coat was not buttoned. I gave the book to the Captain. The prisoners were laid hold of on this; John Stuart, his wife, and Catherine M‘Phail. Captain asked Stuart if he was in company with Robert Lamont. He said, Yes, and very good company he was, till he got drunk. Captain then said to Stuart, “have you got any money?” to which Stuart replied, I have, Captain, plenty, nearly £20. Captain asked him to shew it, on which Stuart pulled out a book and put it on the table, and took out a black purse: the Captain counted the money, and he said there was £19, 7s. some of them guinea notes. I don’t know if there was money in the purse. By this time we arrived at the Broomielaw, when the Captain sent for surgeons. Robert died at half-past five next morning. We got to Broomielaw about six o’clock afternoon. He died in the steam-boat. Before landing I sat beside my friend to hold him up. I felt myself unwell, but I thought it was owing to my having been in a passion. I heard some of them saying, that Robert Lamont looked as if he had been poisoned; and I said, that if so, I got a share of it. I was very sick that night, and very ill for some days after. I had taken nothing which could have made me ill. I was in perfect good health. I was not sea-sick, being used to the sea. I tasted ale in the council chamber some days after; but I could not say that it was of same taste as that I had in the steam-vessel. I saw Robert Lamont’s purse with silver in it. He did not change any notes. Mrs Stuart took at first an equal share of ale. I did not see her take any afterwards.
Cross-questioned for Prisoners.
Knew Robert quite well; he was very often in Glasgow, and went there once a year. They came down together; they had a gill of whisky before prisoners came down; they did not refuse to come in. Robert and John commenced speaking; Robert invited them to come in, and said that they would get a side of the table. Does not know what kind of coat John had on, but not the present one. Heard them singing drinking songs together. They seemed exceedingly happy and well pleased with one another. Saw none sea-sick, when upon deck occasionally. Does not recollect of seeing a girl with a straw hat on. John Stuart gave Robert a knife, but got nothing in exchange. John Stuart had been drinking a good deal, and was worse of liquor. Mrs Stuart sat next the door. Before I went on deck the last time, he seemed to be drunk; but when he was brought down by the Captain, he seemed as sober as myself. I was quite sober. Mrs Stuart brought down one bottle, and helped to drink. I observed no particular taste of ale in Sheriffs office.
Catherine M‘Phail, wife of Michael M‘Phail, hawker in Gorbals, Glasgow, deponed as follows:—I was at Tarbert last December. I came to Glasgow in Toward steam vessel. I was in public-house there. I had occasion to change a £1 note to gauger in Tarbet, about an hour before we went into the steam vessel. I had £16: 10: 8½, in notes, silver, and copper. I had no occasion to shew the rest of the money, but as I could not read, I asked if the note was a guinea or pound note; porter told me it was a guinea, and I put it into the heart of my bundle, and into my bosom. The prisoners were in kitchen; they were at the fire sitting taking their gill at the time. I was then taking my coffee, and gave her (Wright) a cup of coffee. The prisoners went into steam boat. After being some time in steam boat, Catherine Stuart came and said she was sorry for my loss of whisky: the gauger had seized two gallons from me. Mrs Stuart then wished me to come down stairs and drink whisky, which I refused at first, but afterwards I agreed to go. When we went down into a small room near the steerage, we found Stuart and the two Lamonts, the one that is dead, and the man that is to the fore, sitting together. Mrs Stuart called for a gill. It was drank. I went up soon after on deck, and Mrs Stuart came three times for me to come down. The Lamonts were still there. There was strong beer on the table; Mrs Stuart handed me some to drink. I could not drink it from bad taste; it was very bitter; I never tasted such infernal strong beer in my life, and I spat out every drop, and wiped my mouth with my apron; I put some on my loof from the bottle, and tasted it; the bottle was not so bad as the tumbler; the ale in the loof was not so bad. Mrs Stuart said, “Drink this, Catherine, and damn my soul you’ll drink every drop.” I then drank down to the rim of tumbler, and gave the rest to the child. This was worse than what was in the bottle, and it had a bad, bad, bitter taste. I tasted some strong beer in the council chamber, and the taste of beer on board was rather worse. John Lamont drank some of the tumbler that I had first refused. Robert Lamont drank a full tumbler of ale and whisky. I had been chewing a bit of birch bark, but it could have no taste. John Stuart was going to drink the tumbler, when Mrs Stuart, his wife, pulled it from his mouth, and spilt it over his breast, and he damned her for it, when I interfered, and said, don’t strike her. Betwixt Dunoon and Greenock, the little girl was hanging her head; and Robert said, is the little girl ill, and I then took her up on deck. After this I was quite nonsensical, and did not know what happened; and have since been very ill in my inside. I am accustomed to drink ale. I never drank any thing like it, except what I got in Sheriffs office at Glasgow.
Cross-examined for Prisoners.
Saw John Stuart drinking a little whisky, but not ale. Mrs Stuart told me their trunks were away to Belfast, which obliged them to sell John’s watch, worth £4 for £1, to carry them on the road, at Campbelton. I was down in drinking room before boat came to Greenock. Drank the bad ale before coming to Greenock. Had birch bark in my mouth.
Margaret M‘Phail, (a young girl, not sworn,) declared:—I was in the steam boat, and Lamonts and prisoners were there. Mrs M‘Phail called me down stairs into a small room. They were drinking whisky. Mrs Stuart put the tumbler in below her mantle. I saw her do it. She kept this for five or ten minutes, and then put it on table, and poured more ale into it. Mrs Stuart then gave it to Mrs M‘Phail. She drank down to the rim, and gave it to me, and I drank all the rest, I felt ill in two or three minutes after, and remained ill.
William Legat.—I gave some strong ale to Mrs M‘Phail, which I sent for by one of the officers. I desired him to ask for the best, and I put about a tea spoonful and a half of laudanum into a large wine glass full. John Lamont tasted it also. It was not from the steam vessel I got the ale.
John King, grocer in Greenock.—I came in the Toward Castle steam-boat on 15th Dec. last. I heard of one of the Lamonts being ill. I was in the steerage at the time; and there a woman said to me she thought if some assistance was not rendered, he would be choked. I then went into a little room near the steerage, and was followed by a woman and a child. The man was in an indescribable position; his limbs refused to do their office, and he had sunk down, and was lying with his mouth against the seat. I went upon deck, and told the Captain that a man below was ill, and I thought he had been robbed. When I came down, I found John Lamont. I went up again to the Captain, who said he would come down directly, as soon as two boats had passed. He came down, and went again on deck to see after the people who had been drinking. I saw Mrs Stuart leaning over the water-closet, and I asked her where her husband was; she said her husband was in the water-closet; she then rapped at the door, and I saw her husband come out. He had two waistcoats on, one of them loose. Mrs Stuart then said, that I wanted him to go down; and Mrs Stuart said that if anything happened to the Highlander, he must be answerable. John Stuart then reeled towards the bow of the vessel, as if he were drunk, though I thought he only affected to be drunk. The Captain soon after asked them if they had been drinking with the Highlander, and they said, yes, and came down. Then I said to them, why not offer to be stripped? Then they began to strip, and I said, no use that, and then John Stuart pulled out some notes, saying he had near £20. I said there is not £20 here; and on my saying there was less, they pulled out more silver. There was only £l9, 7s. I observed that the difference might have been owing to paying the fare of their passage. I saw something black fall out of the prisoner’s pocket, and I afterwards found a black purse. It was not the largest now shewn, but something like this small one.
Captain Stewart, master of Toward Castle, deponed:—The prisoners entered my vessel at Tarbert, and paid their fare. They scrupled at first, pretending they had no money. They said their property had gone by the Eclipse: they paid 3s. each. Before we came to Renfrew ferry, John Lamont came twice, and said that his friend was drunk and robbed. I went down as soon as two boats had passed. The man had slipt off the seat on his knees. I found the pocket book lying open, and the letters scattered about, when I lifted him up. I went up myself for the prisoner, and I took him down. He seemed to be tipsy, but I thought he was manœuvring and pretending it. We told him that Robert Lamont was robbed, on which he took out a pocket book, and said he had nearly £20, and there turned out to be £19, 7s. There was a £2 note among them. I remember seeing a black purse falling down from John Stuart, and I think John Lamont said it was his friend’s purse. Mr Russell, harbour master, got the notes; and he sent the police officers. Three doctors came: one of them applied the stomach pump; but Robert Lamont died at 5 o’clock next morning. I gave a bottle of ale to Dr Fleming. A boat came at Paisley water foot, and took off one passenger from the steam-boat. Prisoners offered to strip.
Catherine M‘Corkindale.—I was on board the Toward Castle when the prisoners and deceased were there. I remember the prisoners speaking together just before they were taken up. Mrs Stuart said to the other prisoner, “If any thing happen to this man, you’ll be blamed for it.” On which he gave her a dunch, and she held her tongue.
Alexander Stewart.—I gave eleven bottles of ale and three of porter. There was no more on board. I drew the corks, and put them on the table. Mrs Stuart paid for the bottles of ale. Mrs Stuart got one upon deck. About three gills, three bottles of porter, and a dozen of ale were drank altogether that day. Only one other person got a bottle of ale, and all the rest, namely eleven bottles, went to the small cabin.
Una or Euphemia Lamont, (Examined in Gaelic by a sworn interpreter.) I remember my husband going from home for Glasgow, to buy merchandise. He had some money. He took £13 from home, paper money. I know there was a £2 note among them; he got a £2 note; I know it, and can identify the pocketbook. It is only from the red mark that I identify the note. I did not give my husband the note that morning, for he had it long before in his pocket-book. I had it in my own hand. My husband did not say what bank it belonged to. It is from the red mark alone that I can know the note. There is no other mark on the note by which I can know it. I had seen other notes with red marks; I do not think there is any difference. I know that my husband had a purse, and think this to be like it.
Catherine Lamont. (Daughter of Robert Lamont.) My father had a black silk purse. I sewed it myself; and I don’t know the other (shown.) I did not see my father put this purse into his pocket, but I know he never went away without it.
William Brown. I saw two prisoners on board. I was in the room off the steerage. The Captain charged prisoners about money. Stuart took some change out, besides some notes from pocket-book. A purse fell out of the pocket of John Stuart. I did not pick it up: I found it afterwards. This (purse shown) is the purse. I saw Mrs Stuart forcing Catherine M‘Phail to drink. John Stuart was not there then.
Mr Maxwell. I knew Robert Lamont. He called on me to receive payment on the 11th December last, and I paid him £3, notes of Leith Bank, having a picture, not of King’s landing, but of the pier and shipping. There are four of these in parcel shown.
Dr Fleming. I went on board the Toward Castle steam-vessel on 15th December. Robert Lamont was supported by two other persons. I felt his pulse. His extremities were quite cold, his pulse imperceptible and insensible; and his lips swoln and livid. Some one said he was intoxicated, and I then got the stomach-pump, and applied it. I ordered the stuff to be put aside, as I was more anxious to get out the contents of the stomach, than to examine them. We took a small quantity out first, and then we injected water. The whole was then put into one vessel. I afterwards saw a jar in the council chamber, and at Dr Ure’s. I did not see it put into a jar before I left the ship. These are the bottles shewn to me. One of them smelt to me as containing laudanum. I smelt it that night in the Police Office. I went and got a bottle of ale from the Toward Castle two days after, which I gave to Dr Ure, and he made experiments on it. I did not remain on board till the death of Lamont, which happened I was told between six and seven. The contents of the stomach were put into an open vessel, which I ordered to be laid aside. There was a considerable quantity of liquid.
James Russell. On the arrival of the Toward Castle, I went on board. I saw Dr Fleming apply a stomach-pump. The contents of the stomach were pumped into a basin, and afterwards put into a jar, which was taken to the Police Office.
Angus Cameron. Dr Fleming applied the stomach-pump to the man. The jar was locked up in the Police Office. I carried the jar from the jail to Dr Corkindale. I saw Munro take the jar to the jail from the Police Office.
Alexander M‘Pherson, Police Officer. I searched the prisoner the night he was apprehended. I took the large bottle
out of his pocket, and I saw Young take the small one out of his coat. It had a smell of laudanum.
James Young. I took the bottles taken off prisoner. I found a disagreeable smell in the small one. They were taken to the council chambers. The small bottle had in it a few drops which were white. It smelt like laudanum. There was a smell of whisky in the large bottle, and there was a cork in it.
Dr Corkindale, read the chemical and medical reports. Laudanum might have caused death. I saw the jar, which was brought to me by a woman who was examined to-day. It was kept by me. The quantity might have been sufficient to cause death. The effect of intoxicating liquors adds to the effect of laudanum. The sickness is such as what laudanum produces generally in persons unaccustomed to it. Laudanum does not produce griping; for, on the contrary, it allays pain. The time that elapsed was such as I expected, for time to produce the medicine’s effects. I saw a bottle on 18th, which had a distinct smell of laudanum in it. But though I signed my name to the label, I don’t see it here. I examined a bottle of ale brought to me by Mr Fleming, which contained no laudanum. We put in some laudanum and found it was the same.
Cross examined.
I could not ascertain the quantity; only laudanum contains two principles. We did not succeed in obtaining alkali; only the acid. I do not know any substance in human spittle which makes this colour with iron. It would have been more satisfactory if we had discovered morphia. Death by intoxication may have happened from a person drinking ale, and porter, and whisky to excess. The symptoms were equally consistent with death by intoxication. My opinion only amounts to a probability that he died of laudanum.
Dr Ure.—I received the jar from Dr Corkindale, and subjected it to a very careful chemical analysis. There was about a gallon of liquor in the jar, in consequence of the surgeon’s having introduced a quantity of water by pump, in order to wash out the stomach. I ascertained the presence of opium or laudanum, both by the characteristic and very peculiar smell of that drug, and by chemical tests. The morphia of the opium was sought for with much diligence; but, in consequence of the laudanum having been mixed with so much beer, it could not be obtained in a separate form. But the test by red muriate of iron was very satisfactory. By my suggestion, Mr Fleming procured a bottle of the same stock of ale that was sold in the Toward Castle steam-boat. That ale was diluted with water to apparently the same degree as in the liquor from Lamont’s stomach, and a few drops of the muriate of iron were added to it, when a fawn or drab-coloured precipitate fell, but when with the same diluted beer a few drops of laudanum were mixed, it afforded with muriate of iron, the cherry red colour characteristic of the meconic acid principle of opium. I have tried other ales since, and find they give a fawn colour with the muriate (or tincture) of iron. The smell of opium is quite peculiar; and I know of nothing that has a smell at all analogous, or which can be mistaken for it.
Question by Lord Gillies. Dr Ure, you have heard the whole evidence on the trial to-day; what do you conceive to have been the cause of Lamont’s death? Do you believe that he was killed by laudanum?
Dr Ure.—I think it amounts to a very high probability. My conviction is, that he died of Narcotism from porter and strong beer, aggravated by opium.
By Mr Milne.—Dr Ure, do you know of a substance present in the saliva, which will redden muriate of iron, as the meconic acid does?—Answer. No; I know no such substance.—Question. Do you know, that sulpho-cyanic acid has this effect on iron, and that it has been found in the saliva?—Answer. I know very well that sulpho-cyanic gives a red colour with iron; but I do not believe that it exists in the saliva, or that the saliva will have that effect on muriate of iron. There is much false physiology afloat. Ten drops of laudanum may be made manifest in half a gallon of clear water, as Dr Hare says, though that cannot be said of ale; but a very small quantity of laudanum may be detected in ale by that test.
[We understand that Dr Ure performed a long series of experiments on the liquor from Lamont’s stomach, but they were too complicated and technical for the comprehension of a common jury, and the general results alone were given.]
Question by Mr Milne.—Are vegetable poisons more difficult to detect than mineral?
Dr Ure.—Much more so, particularly as to quantity. I inferred, that there must have been a considerable quantity of laudanum mixed with Lamont’s drink, to enable its smell to predominate over that of the beer, even when so greatly diluted with water.
Malcolm Logan deponed, that the prisoner told every person who came into jail about his case; that the steam-boat left for Ireland; that he fell in with a woman at Tarbert, drinking coffee in a public house at Tarbert; that the exciseman got change of a note from Mrs M‘Phail; that she gave him change, and put the remainder in a purse or a kind of a trash-bag. He told witness that he kept in with M‘Phail, that he might try to do her on her passage betwixt Tarbet and Glasgow; that he went on board the steam-boat, and gave her a dram for her cup of coffee, and there happened to be a Highlandman there and his friend with him; that he made up acquaintance with the deceased, and gave him a knife; that he went on till once they got pretty well on with drink. John said they were tired drinking whisky, and they got some porter, into which Mrs Stuart put some laudanum; he said nothing of quantity. They had all taken a good deal of the laudanum, and John took a good deal too. Stuart said that the man (Robert Lamont) denied having any money on him, but he saw something sticking in his breast pocket. They all went on deck, when he (John Stuart) took money from deceased, but did not touch the letters; he said he could not get back the pocket-book into the same place, being large, so he dropped it. He said the laudanum was contained in a square bottle; he took the bottle from the wife and made water into it; gave it again to his wife, but the cork was in the bottle; it still retained the smell of the laudanum. It was nearly half full when they first set out; they kept it for tipping anyone the doctor whom he met, meaning, that he gave them a doze of laudanum, and set them to sleep.
Cross-examined for Prisoners.
Has been in jail since the 8th of last December; was tried before the Sheriff and a jury; was sentenced to six months imprisonment, and banished the city three years thereafter; he was never tried before that. Tried by the magistrates; sentenced to six months imprisonment, and banished the city three years. The prisoner imposed no obligations of secrecy upon witness, when he told him his story; he told it also to others not here. Witness was never in the town of Hamilton in his life; never robbed near Hamilton; never saw prisoner till he saw him in prison
Archibald Anderson knows John Stuart the prisoner, and was in prison with them; John told his story generally; mentioned coming from Tarbet to Glasgow; that he saw M‘Phail; gave her a drink of ale when two Highlandmen were there. His wife put the laudanum into the ale: it was given to other people, but not so much as to the deceased, who became insensible from what he had taken; the prisoner also stated that he took a pocket-book from the deceased containing £19, and some Silver
Cross-examined for Prisoners.
He came from jail to day. Had been six months in confinement. Has been taken upon a charge before. He is a carrier by trade, not at Dowhill. He was a witness in Andrew M‘Beath’s case at Glasgow; no socius criminis. He was not in Edinburgh two years ago. He did not break into a house there. Was not acquainted with one Wilson, or concerned in poisoning an individual between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Never saw John till he was in prison at Glasgow. There were no obligations of secrecy to divulge what he told witness. He was in jail at last circuit, but received no indictment.
Gruer M‘Gruer.—I took up the prisoners to the police office. I brought prisoner from bridewell to the council chamber, and back again, on 10th March. Had some conversation with him. He enquired if I thought whether the evidence of two persons in confinement with him could be taken, for he had been very foolish in telling them, and if their evidence were good he said he was undone. He mentioned Anderson. We got a gill of whisky, and prisoner got half of it. It was both before and after this, that prisoner made acknowledgments. He got bread also. A friend came in and got a gill also.
Dr Scruton.—I keep an apothecary shop in Glasgow, and sell a good deal of laudanum. I know it is much used as a stimulant among the working classes in Glasgow. I have known from three to four ounces taken for the purposes of intoxication. The smallest quantity we sell is a drachm, it contains about 60 drops, and costs a penny.
Dr Milner, druggist, High Street, Edinburgh.—I know that the practice of taking laudanum prevails very much in this city; sometimes a dozen come in a day. I have known two cases in which 14 ounces have been taken twice a day as a stimulant.
The Declarations of the prisoners were then read as follows:—
Declaration of Catherine Wright, 16th December 1828.
At Glasgow, the 16th day of December 1828, in presence of Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River and Frith of Clyde,—
Appeared Catherine Wright, who being examined, declares, That she was born in Glasgow, but brought up in the neighbourhood of Dumfries, is in the 22d year of her age, and is wife of John Stuart, blacksmith, now in custody: That she was married at Gretna about six years ago. And being interrogated, where she and her husband had since resided? declares, That they have been in many a place, and not long in one place at a time: That the last place in which her husband wrought was Newcastle, but he and the declarant were there only three weeks: That previously to that, they were in Gallowayshire, but only a few days; and previous to this again, they were in England at Workington, Newhaven, and other places. Interrogated as to their reason for thus going from one place to another, declares, That it was seeking work. And being further interrogated, declares, That they came to Glasgow last night in the Toward Castle steam-boat from Tarbert: That they sailed from the Broomielaw on Monday was eight days, in the Eclipse steam-boat, for Belfast, where they intended to reside: That it became stormy, however, and the vessel had to stop at Campbeltown, where the declarant and her husband, and four more passengers, went ashore on Tuesday evening: That it was then said that the vessel would sail at six o’clock next morning, and the declarant and her husband went to the quay at five o’clock, but were informed that the vessel had set off at twelve the night before: That they in consequence lost their passage, and they remained in Campbeltown till Thursday, and travelled to Tarbert, where they arrived on Saturday, and remained till Monday morning, when they took their passage in the Toward Castle, intending to take their passage again at Glasgow for Belfast. Declares, That John Lamont, now shewn to the declarant in court, was a passenger on this occasion in the Toward Castle, and the declarant observed another man in company with that person: That the declarant and her husband were deck passengers, and they remained on deck from about eight o’clock, when they left Tarbert, till between ten and eleven forenoon, when they went to a small cabin in the fore part of the vessel, and had half-a-mutchkin of whisky, of which a woman on board, and now in attendance, got a share: That after this they went upon deck, and after walking about for some time they went below, and had another gill; after drinking which, they again came upon deck, and by and bye her husband insisting to have one other gill before they reached Glasgow, they returned below for this purpose, and the woman abovementioned went with them: That upon their going into the cabin, they observed Lamont and the other man above referred to sitting together, and the declarant’s husband was for coming away; but the other man said there was plenty of room, and insisted they should come in: That they went in accordingly, and had a gill, and after this some porter and then strong ale, which the said two men partook of, the company being as it were one party: That there was only one glass for the whisky, and one for the porter and ale; and when it was the declarant’s and the other woman’s turn to drink, they took only a glass or tumbler between them, it not being proper that they should take more, as it was not likely that they could stand it so well as the men. Declares, That in the course of drinking, the other man referred to, became very fond of the declarant’s husband on account of his name being Stuart, and the man belonging to the Highlands and they sat together for about two hours: That the declarant was present all the time, unless it was when she was a little sick, when she went upon deck, but returned immediately: That when they were getting near Glasgow, her husband was very drunk; and having slipt away from the declarant’s side, the declarant went in quest of him, in case he should fall overboard, and found him lighting his pipe, where the engines were working: That this, however, was before they came to Greenock. That they then returned to the cabin, and had a tumbler of more ale: That after this her husband went upon deck again, and the declarant went after him in case of accident, and after being about five minutes on the deck, they again went to the cabin: That when they went to it at this time, the said other man appeared to be sleeping, but was sitting up with his back against the side of the boat: That Lamont was not in the cabin at this time, nor does the declarant think there was any person in it but the man, the declarant, and her husband, and the woman above-mentioned: That the declarant does not know the name of this woman, as she was a stranger to her, but now hears her state that her name is Katey M‘Phail. Declares, That the said other man awakened after this, and conversed with them, and shewed more of his fondness for the declarant’s husband; but again fell asleep, and whether he awakened again, the declarant could not say, as she believes she herself became the worse of liquor, for she had taken a good deal, to prevent her getting sick. Declares, That Lamont became alarmed about the man above mentioned, in consequence of his being unable to rouse him up; and he felt the man’s breast for his pocket book, and could not find it, but discovered it and a number of letters or papers lying at the man’s feet: That the declarant’s husband was searched on board the packet, at least his money was examined, but the declarant was not examined, till they arrived at the Broomielaw. Declares, That her husband had nothing upon him but his money, being nineteen notes, some of them pound notes, and others guineas: That they had twenty pounds four shillings altogether when they went on board the vessel at Tarbert, and her husband had all the money except four shillings, which the declarant had. Interrogated, whether she is certain her husband had nothing upon him but his money when he was searched? declares, That he had the bottle which the declarant points to, on the court table: That he had had whisky in this bottle, but there was nothing in it when they went on board. And being interrogated regarding the other bottle now on the court table, and which is smaller than the one first mentioned, declares, That that is one in which her husband kept laudanum, on account of a liver complaint, for which he was advised to take it; but her husband is getting better, and has less occasion for this medicine now than formerly: That there was no laudanum in the bottle when they went on board the vessel; both bottles were then empty, and there was nothing put in them when they were on board: That her husband had no other bottles, and she herself had none: That they had a bundle with them, which contained nothing but their clothes. Declares, That there was nothing mixed with the liquor which the party had on board the steam packet; That she thought, however, the porter had a strange taste, a kind of bitter taste, but she did not refuse to take it on this account, nor did any of the party make any objection or remark about it. Declares, That her husband got the money above mentioned at Newcastle, on account of work: That it was from his master he got it, but the declarant has forgot his master’s name: That Lemington, however, is the place at which her husband wrought: That her husband was about three weeks in that quarter altogether. Declares, That on the way to Tarbert her husband sold his watch for a pound, and this part of the money that was taken from him in the boat: That her husband had the money in the old red leather pocket book, now on the court table. Declares, That the last quantity of laudanum which her husband had was bought in Wigton: That after the declarant and her hushand went below, and found the man apparently asleep, they had only one tumbler of ale, which was standing on the table when they went down, and which they drank among them: That after this, they had no more liquor of any kind. And this declaration being read over to the declarant, she adheres thereto as truth; and declares that she cannot write. And the Magistrate subscribes each page of the declaration in the declarant’s presence, and before these witnesses, Mr William Davie, depute town-clerk of Glasgow, and William Legat, his clerk.
Declaration of John Stuart, 17th December 1828.
At Glasgow, the 17th day of December 1828, in presence of Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River and Frith of Clyde,—
Appeared John Stuart, who, being examined, declares, That he is a native of Ireland, 32 years of age, and by trade a blacksmith; and he was married about five years ago to Catherine Wright, now in custody. And being interrogated, Where he has wrought and resided of late? declares, That he was last in Newcastle: That he wrought there for about fifteen months, in the employment of Mr Crawford at Lemington, but that is eighteen months ago, during which he has been in bad health with a liver complaint: That he was in Newcastle lately, but not working, unless it were making a few sparables for his shoes; and indeed has not wrought any for these eighteen months, for the reasons above stated: That he had good wages, however, while he wrought; and he has been supported for some time by his brother, who travels the united kingdom buying and selling horses: That the declarant and his wife left Newcastle about three weeks ago and came to Glasgow, where they took their passage for Belfast, but landed at Campbeltown owing to the storm, and lost their passage owing to the vessel starting sooner than was expected: That after remaining a day or two at Campbeltown, the declarant and his wife set out for Glasgow, there to take their passage again, and arrived at Tarbert on Saturday night, and took their passage there on Monday morning in the Toward Castle steam-boat, in which they arrived at the Broomielaw the night before last. Declares, That in the Toward Castle he fell in with two male passengers, one of whom was John Lamont, whom the declarant has just now seen in the court-room, and heard state that the other man’s name was Robert Lamont, but the declarant does not recollect hearing their names mentioned till now: That in the boat, they also got acquainted with a female passenger, Catherine M‘Phail, now introduced into the court-room, and whom they had seen in a public-house in Tarbert; but to whom, as well as the two men, the declarant and his wife were strangers. Declares, That on the passage the declarant and his wife, and Catherine M‘Phail, went below and had some liquor: That on some such occasion they got into the company of the two men above mentioned, as well as of other persons who were drinking in the apartment, and the liquor which they had went round among them as one party: That the declarant had some whisky in the earlier part of the day; and after he fell in with the party, he and they drank porter and ale, of which they had a number of bottles: That the whisky was bad, but the ale was good; and as to the porter, he thought it had a strange taste, being as he thought sourish, and not what he had been accustomed to drink: That Catherine M‘Phail poured a little of the porter in the hollow of her hand, and tasted it in this way, but said nothing; and the declarant put the bottle to his head, and took a little of it: That his reason for doing so, was Catherine M‘Phail’s tasting it in the way she did, and he meant to return the bottle in case it was not good: That the contents turned out to be strong ale, at least the steward said so; and the steward also said, that the porter was done. Interrogated, Whether he made any remark regarding the porter and ale? declares, That when he saw Catherine M‘Phail pouring it in her hand, he asked her why she did so; but the declarant has forgot what answer she made, for by this time he was the worse of liquor: That he cannot say at what time of day this was: That it was early in the day when he began to drink on board the vessel, and he was the worse of liquor when he fell in with the two men; and he thinks the party continued drinking till they arrived at the Broomielaw: That the declarant, however, was occasionally upon deck: That he cannot say what effect the liquor had upon any of the rest of the party: That one of the two men, not the one whom the declarant has seen to-day in the court-room, shoved the declarant off the seat at one time, and the declarant told him to be easy, and the man replied that it was in diversion, and that the declarant need not take offence: That this man and the declarant did not get very gracious, but the man spoke about the Stuarts, as this was the declarant’s name, and this man and the declarant were free enough in conversation: That to the best of the declarant’s recollection, that man sat on one side of the table and the declarant on the other; but now and then, the man, like the rest of the party, went upon deck, and returned: That when the declarant went below at one time, he found that man leaning with his head upon the other man’s breast, apparently sick, and this other at the same time feeling about the man’s legs; and the declarant also saw him have a pocket-pook in his hand, but the declarant did not observe what was in the pocket-book, but he thinks he observed the man looking at letters in it, and he thought he saw the man take it out of his companion’s pocket: That the declarant was at the foot of the stair at the time: That he went in, but did not interfere, nor say any thing about the pocket-book: That he sat down, and the man went up stairs, taking the pocket-book with him, as the declarant thinks: That after being a good while up the man returned; but the declarant never saw the pocket-book again, till some of them were taken prisoners, on account, as that man said, of the other man having been drunk and lost his money: That the declarant was very drunk himself at that time: That he thinks, that when he saw the pocket-book upon their being taken prisoners, it was in the bands of the man himself whom he saw to-day in the court-room, at least he thinks so, and that the master of the vessel was looking at it, and that it appeared as if some letters had dropped out of it. Interrogated, What state the other man was in, while the man, whom the declarant saw to-day in the court-room, was upon deck, after the declarant had seen the pocket-book in this person’s hand? declares, That he was sitting in a comer, with his back against the side of the vessel: That his eyes were open, but the declarant cannot say whether he was sensible: That the declarant however spoke to him, and he does not recollect the man’s making any answer: That the declarant does not think day-light had gone at this time, but he is not sure; for a lighted candle was brought in several times, on account of their smoking. And being required to state in what condition the man was, or what happened to him after he sat up, with his back against the side of the vessel as before stated, declares, That the other man John Lamont, as he calls himself, came down, and after this the man, who is said to be dead, fell off the seat, and John Lamont and the declarant lifted him up; after which John Lamont went upon deck, and the declarant followed him: That the man who is said to be dead appeared to be insensible with drink, but was not dead at that time, for the declarant heard him breathing: That when the declarant was upon deck after this, the steward of the vessel came and asked what money the declarant had, and the declarant told him that when he left Tarbert he had twenty pounds, and some odd shillings: That the steward took the money from him: That this was down in the room in which the party had been drinking; and the declarant thinks the vessel was then at the Broomielaw Quay: That there were several persons in the room at the time, and the man was lying on his side snoring, and apparently inclined to vomit: That John Lamont was present, and said he had searched the man’s pocket-book, and had found no money in it, but thought that the man should have had money. Declares, That upon their arrival at the Broomielaw, the declarant and his wife were taken prisoners, on account, as was said, of the man having lost his money: That the declarant did not see the man take out his pocket-book in the course of the passage, nor did he know that the man had a pocket-book till he saw John Lamont take it out and look at it: That he did not see any bank notes in the man’s possession, nor money of any kind, except that with which he paid his share of the reckoning: That he heard the man say that all the money he had was three and sixpence. Declares, That when he went on board the boat, the declarant had nineteen bank notes, most of them as he thinks pound notes, and the rest guineas; besides which, he and his wife had twenty-five or twenty-six shillings in silver, at least he thinks so; but his wife is more correct as to these matters than the declarant. Interrogated, Where he got the money? declares, That he got it from his brother in Newcastle about three weeks ago: That his brother gave him twenty-five pounds altogether, to buy tools and begin to work: That on the way to Tarbert, the declarant sold his watch for twenty shillings; and his reason for doing so was that it did not go well. Interrogated, Whether his wife was aware of his having got the said money from his brother? declares, That she was not, for his brother did not like her; but when he was the worse of liquor at Tarbert, he told her he had twenty pounds: That he did not tell her how or from whom he had got it: That he does not remember whether he showed her the notes: That his brother’s name is James: That he has no particular place of residence, but goes about from one place to another, the whole year round, and has no family: That the declarant does not know the name of the house at which his brother stopt at Newcastle, or in any other town; nor does he know how he would address a letter to him, if he were going to write him: That it was by accident he fell in with his brother in Newcastle, when the declarant came down one day from Lemington: That the declarant resided at Lemington in the house of a John Crawford, the man with whom he wrought: That the money which he got from his brother was Newcastle notes, and the declarant exchanged these for Scotch notes as he came along the road: That the declarant and his wife travelled from Newcastle together: That he exchanged the notes two or three different places beyond Lanark, and in public houses: That his wife did not see him exchange them: That it was from travelling men he got the Scotch notes for Newcastle ones: That he did not know any of these travellers: That he is no scholar; but he thinks the notes that were taken from him were for one pound, or one guinea each, and he does not think there was a five pound note among them, or a two pound note: That if not all Newcastle notes that he gave in exchange, they were all English notes, and each of them was a pound or a guinea note. Declares, That in the steam-boat there was a bottle taken from him, in which he was accustomed to carry whisky, but which he thinks was empty: That there was also a small bottle taken from his wife, who sometimes carried rum in it, and sometimes other kinds of spirits. And being interrogated regarding the two bottles now on the court table, with sealed labels attached to them, declares, That the larger of the two is the one that was taken from him, and the other is like the one that was taken from his wife: That whisky was the last thing the declarant had in his bottle; but he cannot say what his wife last had in hers, whether whisky, rum or shrub. Declares, That he has sometimes bought and used laudanum for his liver complaint: That the last which he purchased was a penny’s worth in Newcastle, and he used it there: That it was in a phial he got it, and the phial is lost. The declarant adds, that his wife also uses laudanum for a complaint in her stomach: That he does not know when she last used any: That the declarant did not bring any laudanum to Scotland, nor did he buy any in Scotland, so far as he remembers: That neither he nor his wife had any laudanum in their possession on board of the steam-boat: That as he was the worse of liquor, he cannot say whether more than one bottle was taken from him in the steam-boat: That he did not mix any thing with the liquor, which he or the persons above mentioned were served with, nor is aware of such a thing having been done; That he cannot account for the death of the man above mentioned. Interrogated, Whether he ever had any laudanum in either of the bottles on the court table, or in bottles such as these? declares, That he never had, never in his life. Declares, That he did not take any thing from the man who is said to be dead, unless it were a glass of porter or ale, as it was handed over. Declares, That he has been in Glasgow before, but the last time previous to his coming to it from Newcastle on this occasion, was four years ago: That he thinks it was on the Saturday before last he and his wife came to Glasgow. And being specially interrogated, declares, That previous to that, he was not in Glasgow for several years, and as he thinks about four: That he never was in custody in Glasgow till now, and never was in custody in any other place. And this declaration being read over to the declarant, he adheres thereto as truth, and declares that he cannot write; and the Magistrate subscribes each page in the declarant’s presence, and before these witnesses, Mr William Davie, depute town-clerk of Glasgow; Andrew Simson, procurator fiscal of Glasgow; and William Legat, clerk to the said William Davie,
Declaration of John Stuart, 10th March 1829.
At Glasgow, the 10th day of March 1829, in presence of Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River and Frith of Clyde,—
Appeared John Stuart, a prisoner in the prison of Bridewell, being brought into court at his own desire, intimates, that he has something farther to state, than is contained in the declaration which he formerly emitted. And his declaration emitted on the 17th of December last, being read over to him, declares, That he has no alteration to make thereon; but he has since recollected, that he received from his wife, the bottle that was taken from him upon his being apprehended, and that there were two bottles taken from him on that occasion: That he had them in his great coat pocket: That he got them from his wife in the house in which they lodged at Tarbert, and that they were both empty: That this is all he wished to say. And being further examined, and shewn a black silk purse, with a sealed label appended to it, on which a doquet is now written as relative hereto, declares, That it is not his, and he can say nothing about it; but the declarant adds, he had a black purse in his possession, and he thinks another black purse now produced is the one. And having taken this last mentioned purse into his hand and examined it, declares, That he thinks it is his, the tobacco stopper in it is his, purse and all : That he had the purse in his possession when he was taken into custody, and he gave it to the officers on the way to the Police Office at the Broomielaw: That that purse appears to him to be of cotton; and a doquet is written on the label attached to it in reference to this declaration. And being interrogated, Whether, when the investigation took place on board the steam-boat regarding the deceased man’s money, the declarant put a purse of that description down upon the table? declares, That he put his own purse upon the table, but took it up again and put it in his pocket: That the reason why he put it down was, that the master of the steam-boat wished to know what money he had: That he had some silver money in it, but no notes: That he does not remember putting down another purse, nor does he remember having any other in his possession: That he does not remember seeing his wife put down a purse; but he adds, he is sure his wife had one, a black purse and smaller than his; but whether of silk or cotton he could not say: That he does not recollect seeing her have it on board the boat: That he could not identify it, and cannot say whether the black silk purse first above mentioned is or is not the one. Declares, on being farther interrogated, That he had no other bottle in his possession than the two which his wife gave him at Tarbert, as before mentioned: That he thinks he had them in his pockets all the time he was in the boat: That a small green bottle, now shewn to him, with a seal and label appended to it, on which a doquet is now written as herein referred to, is like the one which he has recollected of since he was last examined: That he had nothing in that or the other bottle while he was in the boat. And this second declaration being read over to the declarant, he adheres thereto as truth, and declares he cannot write. And the Magistrate Examinator subscribes each of these seven pages in the declarant’s presence, and before these witnesses, Andrew Simson, procurator fiscal of court; William Davie, one of the clerks of court; and William Legat, clerk to the said William Davie.
Declaration of Catherine Wright, 11th March 1829.
At Glasgow, the 11th day of March 1829, in presence of Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River and Frith of Clyde,—
Appeared Catherine Wright, prisoner in the jail of Glasgow; and her declaration emitted on the 16th of December last being read over to her, she adheres thereto. And being further examined, declares, That her husband received five or six pounds of the money that was taken from him in the steam-boat; and her husband informed her of this before they left Dumfries: That her husband wrought for the rest that was taken from him: That the money was chiefly in notes, and part was silver: That she saw it in her husband’s possession at Campbelton and Tarbert, and also on their way from Dumfries to Glasgow. Interrogated, Whether she or her husband bad a purse in the steam-boat from Tarbert? declares, That they had a black cotton purse, which was made by the declarant; and she thinks, but is not sure, that she had it in the boat, and that it was in their bundle when they were taken into custody: That her husband or she had no other purse. And being shown two black purses, one of cotton, and the other apparently of silk, and smaller than the former, and each having a sealed label appended to it, declares, That the purse first mentioned is the one which she made; but she never saw the other till now, and can say nothing about it. And being farther interrogated, declares, That she did not see a purse put down by her husband, or produced by any person when the hurry arose about the man’s money, and in short she did not see a purse at all on board the boat. Declares, That neither the declarant nor her husband had any laudanum, or any thing of that kind, in their possession while they were in the steam-boat: That the declarant has used laudanum for pains, but has not used any these twelve months: That the two bottles mentioned in her former declaration, were in her husband’s possession on board the steam-boat: That the declarant was not possessed of any bottle there, and she never had in her possession either of the two above-mentioned: That she did not give a bottle to her husband at Tarbert: That her husband got these two bottles at Dumfries: That they were in their house there: the larger one had belonged to the declarant’s mother, and her husband bought the small one in Dumfries, to carry whisky; but when at Wigtoun he bought threepence worth of laudanum to take at night to make him sleep. Declares, That neither the declarant nor her husband put any thing in the porter or ale, which they or the other persons they were in company with, were served with on board the steam-boat: That her husband and she were not in Glasgow for about two years or better before they came to embark for Ireland, as stated in her former declaration. Declares, That the name of her husband’s brother, from whom he got the five or six pounds, is James: That it was money which her husband had given him in loan: That her husband’s brother was at that time servant to Mr White, a gentleman residing at Blackwood, eight miles from Dumfries: That it was in Dumfries he gave the money to her husband, and the declarant saw him there: That her husband’s brother resides at Maxwelton, near Dumfries, in lodgings, in the house of a woman, whose name however the declarant does not know: That he was about a year in Mr White’s employment ; but he left Mr White before the declarant and her husband came from Dumfries. Declares, That her husband got no notes on the way to Glasgow; and the notes that were taken from him were these that he got from his brother and from his master at Lemington. And this second declaration being read over to the declarant, she adheres thereto as truth; and she declares she cannot write. And the Magistrate Examinator subscribes each page hereof in the declarant’s presence, and before these witnesses, Andrew Simson, procurator fiscal of court; William Davie, one of the clerks of court; and William Legat, clerk to the said William Davie.
Medical Report on Robert Lamont, 16th December 1828.
This is to certify, that this day, under the authority of a warrant from Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River Clyde, we inspected and carefully examined the body of Robert Lamont, lying in the house of John M‘Lean, vintner, at the Broomielaw.
There were no marks of external violence; neither in the head, chest, or belly, could we discover any thing different from the ordinary structure or appearance. The stomach contained about a pound of water, somewhat discoloured, and having the smell of spirits, which had been introduced into the stomach after it had been washed out by the use of the pump.
Upon considering this examination in reference to a charge of poisoning by laudanum, we have to state, that the total absence of morbid appearances is unfavourable to the supposition that the man died of disease; and it is consistent with our knowledge, that poisons of the narcotic or stupifying kind, such as laudanum, are wont to occasion death, without producing in any part of the body such changes as are discoverable by dissection.
This we attest to be truth,
(Signed) James Corkindale, M.D.
Joseph Fleming, Surgeon.
Chemical Report on Fluid taken from the Stomach of Robert Lamont, 20th December 1828.
We, Andrew Ure and James Corkindale, Doctors of Medicine. hereby certify, that, under the authority of Walter Ferguson, Esq. Bailie of the River Clyde, we carried on for four days an examination of a liquor contained in an earthen jar, brought to the laboratory of the Andersonian University, George’s Street, Glasgow; which liquor was said to have been pumped from the stomach of the deceased Robert Lamont, on board the Toward Castle steam-boat.
I, the said James Corkindale, certify that the above mentioned earthen jar was on the 16th current, about five o’clock afternoon, deposited in my presence by Angus Cameron watchman, and James Young officer, both of the Broomielaw police establishment, within a safe in my premises, Glassford Street. I immediately locked the safe, and kept the key in my possession until eleven o’clock forenoon of the 17th, when the jar was taken out, and carried under my eye to the laboratory of the chemistry class of the Andersonian University, and there delivered into the keeping of the said Andrew Ure.
I, the said Andrew Ure, likewise certify, that I received the jar in the manner above mentioned, and that the materials of the analysis in the intervals of the different days, during which the examination was carried en, were kept under lock in a press standing in the laboratory, where they could not be disturbed without my knowledge.
We are both satisfied, by frequent trials, that the fluid contained in the jar had distinctly the peculiar and well marked smell of laudanum. We subjected the fluid, evidently consisting chiefly of malt liquor, to the operation of various tests, which we know from the science and practice of chemistry are calculated with more or less precision to detect the presence of opium, or its spirituous solution commonly called laudanum. As the ultimate result of these different trials and experiments, carefully and laboriously made, we are led to the opinion, that the liquor contained in the jar had a quantity of opium or laudanum mixed with it. It was impossible to ascertain what quantity of opium might be contained in the whole fluid submitted to our examination; nor though this could be done, would it enable us to say how much was originally taken into the stomach; for we are convinced that opium, and particularly laudanum, begins to be changed by the process of digestion soon after either of them is swallowed.
(Signed) Andrew Ure, M.D.
James Corkindale, M.D.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The Lord Advocate then addressed the Jury for the Crown. He said the two unhappy pannels at the bar were charged with a crime of a most atrocious description.—They were charged with murder, and murder committed under circumstances of the most atrocious and most aggravated nature. It was a crime of such a dark description, that in former times, by the laws of this country, it was held to be a species of treason. In every thing for eating, in every thing they drank, they run a risk of death by noxious and deleterious ingredients, provided there were wretches to be found so unprincipled and sordid as to administer them—therefore, from the very commencement of the proceedings, he never had the least inclination to restrict the punishment of the persons at the bar. It was a crime that required the severest punishment. If accidental circumstances, or stronger constitutions, preserved the lives of those who tasted the poison, it was no merit of theirs—they had done their part—and were certainly as deeply culpable as if death had followed. His Lordship then went over the evidence, and concluded with stating, that the country required protection at their hands; and whatever their verdict might be, they and the public must confess that he had done his duty.
Mr Forbes and Mr Milne, on the part of the pannels, also addressed the Jury.
Lord Gillies then proceeded to charge the Jury. His Lordship stated, that the Lord Advocate and the Counsel for the pannels deserved the highest praise, for the able manner in which they had conducted this case. They had discharged their important duties in a manner highly creditable to themselves, and, he was sure, highly satisfactory to all who had heard them. But important as their duties were, his Lordship and the Jury had one of still greater importance to discharge to the law and to the country. It was certainly a most grave and serious consideration, that innocent persons should be protected from the heavy punishment the law had awarded to transgressors; but at the same time, when murder and robbery had been committed, it would be a matter of serious regret if the perpetrators of such atrocious crimes escaped punishment. His Lordship said, it would have afforded satisfaction to his mind in this, as in every other case, where any doubt existed, to have recommended to the Jury that they should give the accused the benefit of such doubt. But in the present instance there was no doubt whatever. It was clear a murder had been committed, and equally clear that a robbery had been committed. It had been stated by the learned counsel for one of the pannels, that the man now deceased might have taken the laudanum himself; but is it reasonable to conclude that he would at the same time rob himself? And there was no doubt that he had been robbed while under the influence of the deleterious narcotic by which he was ultimately bereaved of life. It had been proved by Dr Corkindale, a man among the most eminent in his profession, and Dr Andrew Ure, who he believed held a place among the first practical chemists of the day, that in their belief the body was quite healthy, and that death had been occasioned by laudanum. It is true, the medical gentlemen admitted in their cross-examination, that there was a possibility that death might have been occasioned by some other cause. Now they were all well aware of the frail and uncertain tenure by which human life was held, and there never had been a murder yet committed, but it was possible that the individual might have died at the time from some other cause. It was quite extravagant to suppose that the deceased had taken the laudanum himself. It certainly had been proved that the working classes in the great towns of Edinburgh and Glasgow had for some time been in the practice of using opium to a surprising extent; but was it for a moment to be supposed that the deceased Robert Lamont and his friend, reared in the remote island of Ulva, who did not know laudanum when they saw it, and did not even know the taste or smell of it in strong ale, were in the habit of using laudanum for the purposes of intoxication and stupefaction? With respect to the robbery, it had been clearly proved that the pannel Stuart had no money when he came on board, and in a short time afterwards, after the poisoned ale had been ordered, it was proved that he was possessed of a considerable sum, not only about the amount, but of the very description of the notes that had been the property of the deceased before he had been robbed. This was a strong corroborating circumstance; but there was one of a still stronger nature—it was that of the little black purse. It had been distinctly proved that the deceased Robert Lamont had been possessed of a black purse; it had been proved that a black purse dropped from the pannel Stuart; ·the black purse was proved to have been the property of the deceased; his own friend saw him have it while on his journey, and his own daughter, who ornamented the purse by sewing, identified it the moment it was shown. Now if the pannel had rifled the pockets of Lamont of this little trifling article, it was a fair conclusion that he had rifled them of their more precious contents—the money of which he was possessed. If there had been a single doubt on his Lordship’s mind with regard to the prisoner’s guilt of the robbery, he would have gladly stated it for their serious consideration, but he was sorry to say that, for his own part, he had none.
In the course of the defence, they had been met with a new principle of law, which would doubtless startle them as much as it did his Lordship. It had been stated as law, that if laudanum were administered to a person even if death should follow, it was not murder, because it was not administered with a view to murder, but only to produce stupefaction that the drug had been given. Such a distinction would never do as a defence or mitigation. A robber going to the high way might attack a man, and after knocking him on the head with a bludgeon, and killing and robbing him, might with equal plausibility plead that he did not intend to murder, but only to stupify his victim by the blow. He would not trespass longer on the time and attention of such an intelligent Jury, as he had the honour to address, than merely to say, that such a doctrine was as contrary to law as it was to common sense, and that it would give in some degree a license for the most appaling crimes. [His Lordship then read over all the evidence in detail, and concluded his charge nearly in the following terms.] With respect to the murder, it is beyond question that the woman cuts by far the most conspicuous figure. She brought in the ale in which the poison was infused; She neither tasted it herself, nor, aware of its fatal contents, would she allow it to be tasted by her husband. She pulled it from him when he put it to his mouth, while he was intimating his resolution to swallow the whole; and he would only refer them to the common feelings of mankind, if it was reasonable to suppose, that she would put herself to so much trouble and expense, without some interested feeling or prospect of immediate gain. The more rational conclusion was, that the prisoners, aware of each other’s object, were acting in concert, and were manœuvring to each other’s plan of operations with a view to deceive the witnesses, and achieve their common object. He came next to the evidence of the two prisoners, Logan and Anderson, and he was well aware of the suspicion with which this kind of testimony was to be received by a Jury; but this case was a sort of exception, and their evidence could not possibly be produced otherwise than by the confession of the prisoner, unless the Jury believed the witnesses, and Logan in particular, possessed of ubiquity. Their evidence gave a clear and distinct narrative of the whole affair; and in all the main facts, indeed in all the minute circumstances, they were substantially corroborated by the evidence. His Lordship said, he could not refer to the declaration of the little girl M‘Phail as legal evidence, and they would therefore throw it out of their view. He left the case entirely in their hands. It was plain that a murder and robbery had been committed—that suspicion rested on none but the prisoners at the bar. They had the means in their hands, and they had the opportunity and resolution to use them. He was quite confident their verdict would be one according to justice, and one that would give satisfaction to the country.
The Jury retired, and after an absence of a few minutes, brought in a unanimous verdict, finding the prisoners guilty of the crime of murder and robbery as libelled.
Lord Pitmilly said, after the verdict of the Jury, all that remained for the Court was a duty of a most distressing and painful nature, but it was one in which there was no difficulty whatever. All who had heard the long and important evidence that had been led respecting this novel and most atrocious crime, must have come to the same conclusion as the Jury, that it was perpetrated by the pannels at the bar. This was, however, a circumstance which the Court had not now under consideration. All that remained for their Lordships was to pass the sentence of the law on the prisoners, for the crimes of which they had been convicted. He would not at such a late hour take up their Lordships time longer than to propose that the prisoners be hanged at the common place of execution in this city, on the 19th of August.
Lords Mackenzie and Moncrieff concurred in the proposition of Lord Pitmilly.
Lord Gilles then proceeded to address the unhappy culprits previous to passing the last and awful sentence of the law. He said, in substance, that they had been convicted of a crime of a most atrocious nature. Through their instrumentality an innocent man had been bereaved of his life, and for his murder they must now atone to the outraged laws of their country. It was a crime of a most novel, most dangerous, most subtile and daring nature. He then cautioned them, as they valued their eternal welfare, to turn all their thoughts to the important concerns of another world, and avail themselves of the attendance of pious ministers of the Gospel, who would be very ready to lend them assistance. They were then sentenced, in the usual form, to be executed on the above day, and their bodies to be given to Dr Monro for dissection.
APPENDIX.
John Stuart’s private Declaration to his Counsel before Trial.
Catherine M‘Phail, John Lamont, Robert Lamont, and my wife, were all sitting round table in cabin, in the morning. We intended to poison Catherine M‘Phail, as I saw in public house that she had about £10; Robert Lamont drank first after John Lamont, and then Catherine M‘Phail. My wife filled tumbler under table. Catherine M‘Phail would not drink it, and handed it over to my wife, insisting she should drink it, but she would not, and spilled it. Then I said that I would insist on no one drinking, as we had to pay. I paid for the most drink, but Robert and John did also.
I was at Newcastle; came to Glasgow; took passage for Belfast on Tuesday; steam-vessel could not go from Campbeltown. We went ashore and took lodging, as vessel was not to sail till six next morning, but she sailed at twelve that night. We got to Campbeltown on Tuesday night. On Thursday we left Campbeltown for Tarbert, and got there on Saturday night, and staid Sunday, and went aboard the Toward Castle on Monday at seven a.m. for Greenock. In a public house at five o’clock we fell in with Catherine M‘Phail. She was smuggling whisky, and exciseman wanted change, which Catherine M‘Phail gave him. Then she put her note into her pocket-book; when I saw that there were others. She put the notes into a basket which she left, and went out to see if steam-vessel was going. She gave my wife a cup of tea that morning. Margaret M‘Phail was in public-house also, but I saw no money.
When we went on board, my wife first proposed to Catherine M‘Phail to give her a gill of whisky for the tea, which she agreed. Then my wife asked me to come down, which I refused at first; but I went down after them; had first two gills of whisky; wife called for them; and then porter; there were about eight or nine, to about nine or ten bottles. M‘Phail did not drink much. I drank most. We came up three or four times on deck. My wife was getting drunk. M‘Phail gave me the notes (about ten) to look at if they were correct. I told her that the exciseman and landlord had cheated her, which induced her to take them out. But she began this conversation first, ridiculing him. I gave them back to her in three minutes; this was about eleven; she put them back into her breast. My wife, after seeing the notes, insisted too much on her drinking. About this time, (after seeing notes,) my wife put some laudanum out of phial into tumbler glass of porter; I was between my wife and Catherine M‘Phail, and kept her in conversation that she might not see. We were about an hour on deck, for Catherine M‘Phail wanted to look after her whisky. When we went down a second time, we found Robert and John Lamont sitting drinking porter. This was about eleven. My wife asked Catherine M‘Phail down. Robert Lamont was rising to go; and he said that he would leave the room for us; but I said there was no occasion to leave the room, as he was paying for his way as well as I was. Soon after this the little girl came down; she was watching the whisky, for there was an exciseman there. We drank all the porter in the vessel. About three o’clock we got to Greenock. Robert Lamont and I began singing; he asked my name. Robert had got quite tipsy. He said he was quite sure I was a relation of his, as he was a Highlander. John would not drink much. Before we took the porter, we had one or two gills brought by the steward, which I paid. I drank rather more than my share. Robert paid for part, and so did John; Robert paid for three or four bottles. When we got to Greenock, Robert said he would go on deck; accordingly he and the two women went up. After quitting Greenock, I and my wife went on deck; my wife then prevailed on Catherine M‘Phail to go down again, but I asked Robert first to go down. I was pretty tipsy; then we were all four down. The porter being all done, we drank strong beer at 8d. per bottle. Robert said that I was very kind, for I gave him a knife; he said that he did not know how to make me a recompense for knife and drink; but he said that he would give me as good a meal of meat as any in Greenock or Glasgow. He then added that he had no money, but he would be trusted. I said, that no need for that, as I had plenty of money myself; but this denial of his assured me that he had money. Before this we had agreed to try Robert Lamont. About Greenock, I heard Catherine say to a woman, (who went out at Greenock,) she had never before been so tipsy. Catherine, after passing Greenock, put some of the stuff into her hand, suspecting something; there was just half a tumbler full of porter left then on the table. She said it was bloody bad, and laid it down. I then took up the bottle of beer, and taking a good drink of it, I asked if this was beer or porter; she then said, oh that’s the difference, it’s the remains of the porter; the porter in tumbler, and strong ale in bottle. I drank a great deal of it, M‘Phail took very little. Soon after the drink was put round again and my wife prevailed on her to take it. She was refusing to drink it, and handed it over to my wife; but she said, just take this glass, and drink to my health. She said, that she would not drink it, but would drink the half of it; however my wife spilt it out too cautiously. (sic.) Catherine having drank the first half, she said that she was getting sick, and my wife drank the rest nearly. She then filled up the, tumbler with beer, and gave it to me; I drank it all. Robert Lamont said it was his turn next; but I said no, it’s my turn, I then began to tell him a long story, and shewed to Robert and John a penknife. Meanwhile my wife put some of the doctor in. My wife then said, that Robert should get this tumbler, as it was the last, though it was my turn. He drank the last tumbler full, and I saw that he was gripped. John did not take his share. I had previously laid down a law that we should drink each his tumbler full. After Robert took the last tumbler full, he was quite dogged stupid. It was sitting so long which knocked him up; but he was up eight or ten times; and at first he went himself without my asking. Then John, and Catherine, and my wife went upon deck; Catherine first, John second, and my wife third. When they were up, I took the pocket-book out of his coat pocket. He knew I was taking it, and he seized it; but I took out the notes, and tried to put back the book into his pocket, but being large, I could not do so. I put it into his breast, and put a button over it, as some one was coming. I leaned him back to do so, and then he leaned forward again on table. I went up, and was on deck a while, when John went down, and then when I was going down, I met John coming up; I then got down and followed him. I then saw the pocket book lying between Robert’s feet. I followed John to ask him to drink, but he said that he would not drink. John shortly after went down to cabin, and I followed him. John then took pocket book up off floor, and looked at it, and missed the money, but seemed quite surprised; he then went up, leaving me in cabin, but I did not follow. John came down again with the mate, before which I had leaned up Robert, and he fell on the table, which he broke. John also helped to lean him up. The mate came down about the breakage of glass, &c. which I said we had broke betwixt us. This was when the vessel was near Broomielaw. Soon after she got there, when I was still in the cabin, the master and mate came down and asked what money I had. I said that I had £19 notes and 25s. when I left Tarbert. They asked me where I got it; I said from my brother in Newcastle, who was a horse-dealer. I gave them seven guinea notes, and ten £1 notes, and a £2 note, and the remaining silver. Captain said nothing. Money was in my pocket-book; I laid it on table, and opened it out, and he took out the notes; there was a string round the pocket-book which fastened it. I was taken prisoner in cabin. The captain asked John Lamont, who the party were that were drinking, and on this he sent for them; then Captain went away with money, leaving with me in cabin seamen and a number of strangers. This was all Robert’s money, for at Tarbert I had only 20s. for my watch. I said to captain he had better take care what he was about with my money. We had only paid our passage to Greenock. The captain was going away with money, when I challenged him about carrying away my money, on which he returned with it and counted it over again; I then discovered for the first time that there were eighteen notes, as he counted them above his breath. After the captain came for money, I sat still. A gentleman (before captain) came down and asked me how much money I had, and I said £25; then Catherine M‘Phail, and she took out about £8 or £9, she did not say she had lost any; it was in her breast.
The large bottle was about half full of laudanum, (about 18d. full,) there was nothing but whisky in the small bottle; they were both found on me in the office. The wife had two small phials which were full that morning; they were filled in the steam-vessel; just before the vessel got to Greenock, we filled the two phials in the cabin by ourselves, being then emptied; they were filled in the morning before going on board; I emptied my large bottle of the remaining laudanum into the water-closet, and made my urine in it, and then dripped it out. There was no whisky in the other, but the smell was strong; there was half an ounce in each; I had a large blue great coat with a pocket at side; my wife had on a Rob Roy tartan cloak; I forgot to give Rohert Lamont’s purse; I took it out of his right breeches pocket, and there were 3s. in it. I threw it from me; I tried to put it in his pocket, but could not; it was on his seat. I took my own purse out of pocket before captain on table, and took out the above 3s. from it. I put my purse back again into my own pocket. On going up to prison from Broomielaw, I asked for some whisky, (being drunk,) and the officers asked me for money, I then pulled out the purse.
Anderson told me he had been implicated with Wilson, and Clark said that he had killed one or two. I told them that whoever it was that gave the stuff to them, it could not have been intendedly. Anderson confessed that he had given the stuff to a man between Edinburgh and Glasgow who died. Wilson was tried but got off; Anderson got six months confinement in Glasgow Bridewell. He said that he had been several times (three) before the Lords; the last time before the Lords for three crimes, about this time twelvemonth, at circuit Glasgow. About half a year before his last sentence, Clark was banished for housebreaking five years from county before the Sheriff at Glasgow, eighteen months ago.
He is now indicted for stealing clothes, &c. &c.; his trial was fixed on the 13th February, and convicted by a jury. Clark and I had a quarrel, and we came to blows. I said that I thought it was Catherine M‘Phail who had given it to him; I had cast up to him about killing the man; this was before my quarrel. I told Clark I had used laudanum for liver complaint; he asked me about the bottle which he mentioned had been found on me; I said I had made my water into it. I said I had £25, which I had got from my brother, who was a horse jockey. Anderson did not hear all this, not being in; Anderson wrote to Mr Simpson that he wanted to speak to him about this; Anderson has the practice of doing this, and he transported two in this way. John Lamont said he thought Robert had a little money, but he alluded to silver, not notes.
I saw no boat go away from the ship after leaving Greenock.
When I was sitting on the chest upon deck, I had the notes then.
Catherine M‘Phail was tipsy, for she was vomiting.
John Lamont paid ninepence for a bottle of strong ale before coming to Greenock. John was singing “Royal Charlie” with Robert. When Robert said he had no money, John was present and Catherine M‘Phail. Robert afterwards pulled out a little black silk purse, and paid ninepence for a bottle; he said that he had no more money, but he would get some in Glasgow when he would give us a good dinner. Robert Lamont said, that he had been back and forward to Glasgow for twenty years. A well-dressed young woman with a leghorn bonnet and veil and tartan mantle, was very sick, and also another with a drab mantle, both near Greenock. A woman with a blue cloak sitting beside Catherine M‘Phail was throwing up at eleven and one o’clock. Gruer M‘Gruer asked me what was in those two bottles, and I said I never had any thing but whisky. He said the surgeons had examined them, and found laudanum in one of them; on which I said that they were empty. He then said that there was as much in one of them as would hang me; on which I said that I thought they could not hang me for having two empty bottles on me. He then said that they were going to get two of the prisoners in jail to be witnesses against me; I then asked them if he thought their evidence would be taken against me. He said no, but another man said yes, for they would swear to whatever I had said. He asked me also if I knew Mr M‘Neesh of Stranraer. He said that he knew my name to be John Broadfoot, and not Stuart, and he asked me if it was true. I said it was a matter of no consequence. He said that he was informed I had broken out of Stranraer prison, and £10 offered for me, and he asked if it was true; and I said it was a lie. He asked me whether I was going to plead guilty or not guilty, and I said that I was not going to plead guilty to what I was innocent of. He said if I pled guilty, I would be hanged. He said he would send Mr Calder to me. Alexander Stewart, police officer, went with us. On going to bridewell, we met a person who is steward to steam-vessel between Stranraer and Glasgow. This man told me to tell the whole story and confess, and that it would not be so bad with me if I did; and I said that I knew nothing about how the man died, and I was as clear of it as him. We were then in the public house very near bridewell. We were there better than half-an-hour. When in public house we had three gills, and I had my share. I paid for none. Gruer did not drink so much as me, nor other police officer.
It was in Jannary that I told Logan and Anderson when in jail. On the 30th January I was taken up to bridewell, where I did not see them. I never told the story to any other prisoners.
Clark once gave in Hamilton, sugar and whisky and snuff, to a man driving an ass through the country and cart, with basins and dried fish. He told this to Anderson the day after Anderson was put in. They were previously acquainted. I had told Clark by this time.
Catherine Wright.
One morning I met Catherine M‘Phail in public house at Tarbert. She treated me to a cup of coffee and a loaf of bread. Then after this an exciseman came in, and took her rum from her in bladders. I was sitting at fireside drinking a gill of whisky with my husband. Then in came the gauger and asked for change, which Catherine gave, and changed the note. After she had lost the rum, she ran out to the pier with the basket, and put the housewife into it. She came back to house, and put her hand to her pocket, and finding it not there, she ran out, and took out the housewife and counted it on the quay. I was standing at this time about six yards off. John Stuart was in the public house at the time. I asked her at same time if she had it; she said, yes. Soon after we got on board, I asked Catherine M‘Phail to come down, and have a gill, as it was a cold morning, and as she had given me a cup of coffee. Before the porter was called, we had three gills of whisky, which a little boy brought. We went down again, and found four men sitting drinking; before this we had a little porter. When she tasted laudanum, she said it was sour, and she said it might be owing to the birch bark which she was eating, with which I agreed. When Catherine M‘Phail gave back the tumbler, I drank some of it, but spat the rest in my handkerchief. I think that I spilt some of it. After remark about its being sour, she returned the tumbler to me, and I took apparently a good drink. I said it was sour also. I then filled it up with good drink, and gave it to John Stuart. Only one tumbler. Robert Lamont sometimes handed tumbler to John, but not the pannels. They did it most frequently, but sometimes the others. John Stuart always called for more drink, but I opposed it. Catherine M‘Phail took out her notes, to see if it was a guinea or a pound she had got from gauger.
When we came down to cabin, John said he would leave the room for company. Robert bid him come in, for there was plenty of room, and the two went away. One gill of whisky. John rung the bell for porter. John drank almost all the tumbler, and Robert only got two altogether; half of phial each time. At Greenock we were all on deck together. Catherine M‘Phail was selling eggs. Robert was very dull and stupid. There was no other woman except Catherine M‘Phail who got stuff. Beer not much changed in colour. After Greenock, John said it was my turn, and Robert was huffed at being prevented, insisting it was his turn. Catherine M‘Phail got a very little, but she went up immediately and vomited. I went up to her, and asked what was the matter with her; she said, she was very ill about the heart. I saw her vomiting also a second time. Lamont did not vomit or the others. I was vomiting a great deal; no one saw me. After that John had drunk, (past Greenock,) I filled a tumbler of good stuff for Robert Lamont; he handed it to me, telling me to drink his health, which I did to half, but putting in some more stuff then handed it to him, telling him to drink my health; he drunk it all. Neither of us tried to jump overboard. We were apprehended before we came to shore. John Stuart said to captain before we were committed, that he had, just £19. Catherine M‘Phail was taken up as prisoner at first, and liberated next day. Doctors came on board before we left. When we were at Greenock, John was drunk, and he had lost his hat.
I paid 10s. to the steward soon after leaving Tarbert. I had about 20s. of silver in black purse. Soon after when in cabin drinking, I gave the purse and money to John, to pay for the drink.