\ v/ V 1 '2l 1 Pll /. ■ i^yy//eyu^ .l^^^^t^/'. Rotable Scotti9b trials Mrs. M'Lachlan. NOTABLE SCOTTISH TRIALS. Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan Smith, F.S.A.(Scot.). City of Glasgow Bank Directors. Edited by Sheriff Wallace, Campbeltown. Dr. Pritcliard. Edited by Wm. Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh. Eugene Marie Chantrelle. Edited by A. Duncan Smith, F.S.A.(Scot.). Deacon Brodie. Edited by Wm. Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh. James Stewart. Edited by David N. Mackay, Glasgow. A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, B.A.(Oxon), Advocate. Tlie Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis Steuart, Advocate. Captain Porteous. Edited by Wm. Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh. Oscar Slater. Edited by Wm. Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Edited by Wm. Roughead, W.S., Edinburgh. Mrs. Jessie M'Liachlan. (From the -portrait published after the Trial.) Trial of Mrs. M'Lachlan EDITED BY William Roughead Writer to the Signet GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY 4- PRINTED BY WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 1911 TO ANDREW LANG THIS ACCOUNT OF THE SANDYFORD MYSTERY IS WITH HIS PERMISSION DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR. PEEFATOEY NOTE. The present account of the trial of Mrs. Jessie M'Lachlan for murder in Glasgow, known as the Sandyford mystery, has been prepared from the following sources: — (1) The original record in the Books of Adjournal of the High Court of Justiciary; (2) " Copy of the Proceedings at the Trial of Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan for Murder and Robbery at Glasgow in September, 1862, and of the Evidence taken at the subsequent Inquiry before Mr. Young, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 19th May, 1863," which is the official report; and (3) the reports in the contemporary newspaper Press. The text of the evidence at the trial contained in the Parlia- mentary papers is plainly an unrevised reprint of the separate report published in pamphlet form at the time (Glasgow : J. H. Hastings, 1862), which, in tui-n, was reprinted from the columns of the Morning Journal. As, upon examination, numerous inaccuracies, common to each, were found, ranging from inconsiderable errata to the omission of one witness, that evidence has been collated with the very full and excellent report in the North British Daily Mail (18th to 20th Septem- ber, 1862). The additional evidence taken by the Crown Commissioner, which appears to be correctly reported, has been reprinted from the Parliamentary papers. The official report of the trial does not include either the addresses of counsel or the judge's charge. These are here supplied from a careful and somewhat laborious collation thereof as reported in the Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald, the Morning Journal, and the North British Daily Mail (20th and 22nd September, 1862), it is hoped with satisfactory results. PREFATORY NOTE. Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement is printed from the original document signed by her and read by Mr. Clark at the trial, preserved in the Justiciary Office, Edinburgh, the versions previously published being far from immaculate. The history of the case, as narrated in the Introduction, is chietly based upon the chronicles of the local Press for the years 1862 and 1863. No account has hitherto been available of the extraordinary events ensuing upon the trial, which are of sufficient interest and importance to warrant the detailed relation now given. All the portraits reproduced in the present volume are contem- porary, and the plans of the locus are facsimiles of those prepared for the trial. W. R. 8 OxFOKD Terrace, Edinburgh, February, 1911. CONTENTS. Introduction, xiii Table of Dates, xcvii The Trial— First Day — Wednesday, 17th September, 1862. The Indictment, 3 Inventory of Articles, &c. , referred to in the Indictment, . . . 5 List of Witnesses, 6 List of Exculpatory Witnesses, 9 Additional List of Witnesses in Exculpation, 10 Interlocutor on the Relevancy, 10 List of Jury, 11 Special Defence lodged for Pannel, 11 Evidence for Prosecution. 1. Alexander Strathern, - 11 2. John Gemmel, - - - 12 3. William Hart, - - - 13 4. John Fleming, - - - 13 5. John Fleming, junior, - 19 6. James Fleming, - - - 21 7. Dr. Ebenezer Watson, - 36 8. Dr. Joseph Fleming, - - 41 9. Alexander M 'Call, - - 48 10. Donald Campbell, - - 51 11. Audley Thomson, - - 54 12. William Smith,- - - 54 13. Christina Fraser, - - 55 14. Margaret M'Kenzie or Campbell, - - - 55 Second Day — Thursday, 18th September, 1862. Evidence for Prosecution (contimied). 15. Mary Black or Adams, 16. Sarah Adams, 17. Jane Lambert or M'Gregor, 18. Thomas Millar, - 19. Thomas Robb, - 20. David Barclay, - 21. Aaron Wharton, 22. Marion Rae or Chassels, - 23. James Chassels, - 24. Mirrilees Chassels, 25. John Hamilton, - 26. Elizabeth Pollock or Gibson, 27. William Gibson, 28. Margaret Gibson, 29. Marion Fairley, - 30. Daniel Stewart, - 31. Andrew Cooper, 32. David Dewar, 33. Elizabeth M'Crone, - 34. Elizabeth Coulch or Rainny, 35. Elizabeth Steel, 61 36. John Murray, - 83 66 37. Robert Luudie, - 83 71 38. James Lean, 84 72 39. William Smith Dunlop, - 84 72 40. James Fullarton, 87 73 41. John Rorke, 88 73 42. Archibald M'Millan, - 89 74 43. William Kerr Craig, - 89 75 44. Robert Blair, 90 75 45. Robert Young, - 91 76 46. Elizabeth M'Lachlan or 76 Reid, - - - - 92 77 47. Donald Laurie, - 93 77 48. Alexander Martin, - 94 79 49. James Hughes, - 94 80 50. John M 'In tyre, - 95 81 51. Margaret Maclnnes or 81 MacLachlan, - 95 81 52. Mary Downie, - 96 82 53. Margaret Fleming, - 97 83 CONTENTS. Third Dat — Friday, 19th September, 1862. Evidence for Prosecution {concluded). 54. Andrew Sloan, - - - 98 55. John M'Allister, - - 99 56. William M'Kim, - - 100 57. Thomas Somervail, - - 100 58. Elizabeth Brownlie, - - 100 59. Andrew Darnley, - - 103 60. Charles O'Neil, - - - 104 61. Hugh M'Cairley, - - 105 6*2. Thomas Railton, - - 106 63. David Caldwell, - 107 64. Alexander Baxter, - - 107 65. Dr. George H. B. Macleod, 108 66. Dr. Frederick Penny, - 114 67. Bernard M'Laughlin, - 116 Objections to admissibility of Pannel's Declarations, .... 117 Objections repelled, 120 First Declaration of Pannel, 121 Second Declaration, 128 Third Declaration, 131 Evidence /or Defence. 1. George Paton, - - - 132 2. Donald M'Quarrie, - - 133 3. Mary Fullerton or Smith, - 134 4. M a r y M ' P h e r s o n or M'Kinnon, - - - 135 5. Martha M'Intyre, - - 135 The Advocate-depute's Address to the Jury, 140 Mr. Clark's Address to the Jury, 165 6. Alexander Cameron, - - 135 7. Ann M'Intosh, - - - 136 8. Robert Jeffrey, - - - 137 Alexander M'Call (recalled), 138 9. Colin Campbell, - - - 139 Fourth Day — Saturday, 20th September, 1862. Lord Deas' Charge to the Jury, 184 The Verdict, 219 Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement, 220 The Sentence, 229 APPENDICES. I. Letter from the Prisoner's Agents to the Newspaper Press regard- ing the preparation of Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement, and its employment in the Defence, ....... 235 II. Letter from the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the Sheriff of Lanarkshire to the Home Secretary, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 4th June, 1863, .... 236 III. Papers relating to the Case of Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 19th May, 1863, (1) StatemeiUs of Witnesses taken hy the Procurator-fiscal before the Sheriff, in the case of Jessie Mcintosh or M^ Lachlan, relative to the preparation of the Prisoner's Statement, furnished to Mr. Young. 1. William M. Wilson, - - 238 2. Joseph Anthony Dixon, - 243 3. John Strachan, - - - 248 4. David Brand, - - - 251 5. Gordon Smith, - - - 251 6. James Galbraith,- - - 253 7. Agnes Wardrope or Christie, 253 8. Catherine Fairley, - - 256 CONTENTS. (2) Notes of the Statements of Yotmg, Esq., Advocate, M^Lachlan. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. John Fleming, - 257 18. Robert Stewart, 258 19. John Fleming, junior. 260 20. Mary M'lntyre, - 261 21. Ann Campbell, - 262 Jessie M'Kenzie or Walker, 263 22 Donald M'Quarrie, 265 Charles O'Neil, - 267 23. Mary Brown, 268 24. Colin Campbell, - 271 25 Alexander Cameron, - 275 26 Robert Jeffrey, - 276 27 Sarah Adams, 278 28 Mary Black or Adams, 279 29 Ann M'Intosh, - 280 30 Sarah Adams {recalled). 281 31 Elizabeth Halliday, - 282 32 Mary M'Pherson or 33 M'Kinnon, - 284 Witnesses Examined before Oeorge in regard to the case of Mrs. PAGE James M'Lachlan, - - 285 19. Mary Fullerton or Smith, - 286 Helen Vance or Mitchell, - 287 Elizabeth Naroni or Mar- shall, - - - - 288 Emily Cumming or Clot- worthy, - - - - 288 23. Daniel Paton, - - - 289 Elizabeth Mitchell, - - 290 Agnes Dykes, - - - 290 George Paton, - - - 292 James Thomson, - - 293 Dr. Fleming, - - - 294 Dr. Watson, - - - 297 Dr. Macleod, - - - 299 Dr. Mathie Hamilton, - 305 Martha M'lntyre, - - 305 Jane Pollock or Brown, - 306 Mary Brown {recalled), - 307 (3) Witnesses luho were examined by the Procurator-fiscal before the Sheriff", and their Statements furnished to Mr. Young, although they were not re-examined by him. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Alexander Blair, - - 308 James M'Ginn, - - - 309 Bernard M'Laughlin,- - 309 Daniel Paton, - - - 310 Mai'garet M'Lean, - - 311 Jessie M'Lean, - - - 312 Peterina M'Lean, - - 313 Agnes M'Lean or Turnbull, 314 William Turnbull, - - 315 Isabella M'RivenorM'Kay, 315 Allan M'Lean, - - - 316 Elizabeth Murray, - - 317 Janet Kay, - - - 317 Ann Ross, - - - - 318 Jessie Miller, - - - 319 Mrs. Jessie Walker, - - 319 17. William Gilchrist, - Excerpts from Session Minute-Book, Anderston a. P. Church, 18. Rev. John Logan Aikman, 19. Peter M'Kinnon, 20. Robert Nelson, - 21. Janet Bell, 22. Elizabeth Halliday, - 23. Martha M'lntyre, - 24. James Thomson, 25. Ann Gilbert, 26. Mary Shaw, 27. Alexander Sheridan Knowles, 28. John Ritchie, - (4) Letter from, Mr. Young to the Right Honourable Sir Oeorge Grey, Bart., M.P., IV. Statement by Mrs. M'Lachlan's Agent regarding the alleged Confession made by her to him, V. Correspondence and Documents relating to the Interview between Mrs. M'Lachlan and her Agent in the General Prison at Perth, VI. A Brief Bibliography of the M'Lachlan Case, - - - . - 321 322 322 324 324 325 326 326 326 327 327 328 328 329 330 334 336 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Mrs. Jessie M'Lachlan, Frontispiece No. 17 Sandyford Place, Glasgow, facing page xvi James Fleming, ------- Facsimile of Isometrical view of sunk floor, - Mr. George Young, the Crown Commissioner, Facsimile of Isometrical view of street flat, - Mr. Adam Gifford, Advocate-depute, Mr. Andrew Rutherfurd Clark, The Honourable Lord Deas, . - . - Facsimile of ground plan of sunk floor, - , XXVlll xxviii , Iviv , Ixxviii 140 165 184 at end of volume. MRS. M'LACHLAK INTRODUCTION. Midway in a walk westward along Sauchiehall Street, an artery of traffic in the commercial capital of Scotland, the curious in matters criminal will call to mind that about his path, and within an inestensive radius, were formerly com- mitted four great crimes. In the street itself is the dwelling- house, adapted to mercantile uses, where the victims of Dr. Pritchard met their cruel fate. On the one hand, though now in the sober occupancy of an insurance company, stands, in Blythswood Square, the mansion which sheltered the dark and passionate secrets of Madeleine Smith ; on the other, the house in Queen's Terrace, but recently the scene of Miss Gilchrist's tragic end. Further west, in a backwater of the busy fairway, respectable, and a favourite habitat of physicians, Sandy ford Place has given its name to a mystery still more perplexing and, once, more notorious than these. How did Jessie M'Pherson meet her death? Nobody loiew for certain at the time, now, probably, nobody cares. Yet the question was, in its day, a burning one, which, like that later problem, the identity of "The Claimant," disturbed the peace of families and agitated a generation. The crime itself — a sorry and sordid business enough — apart from the complexity of its circumstances and its remarkable results, would speedily have passed from the memory of men. The murder of a servant girl in the house of a middle-class Glasgow family might well have aroused but a temporary and local interest. Was the dead woman silenced by a wicked old master to avert her threatened disclosure of his misdeeds, or did she fall an unsuspecting prey to the treachery and greed of her familiar friend? Such was the puzzle that, once upon a time, set the people of Scotland by the ears, and even occupied the grave attention of Parliament itself. The former was the more popular opinion ; at the trial judge and jury unanimously took the latter view. The oracles of the Fourth Estate spoke with divergent voices. Each faction had its leading organ — the R xiii Mrs. M'Lachlan. ^' M'Lachlanites," as they were termed, being loudly cham- pioned by the Morning Journal, while the Glasgow Herald vigorously upbore the flag of the " Flemingites." The names •of the rival parties might, to the iminitiated, suggest some new variety of Scots dissent. The battle, raging for over a year, was no sham fight ; shrewd blows were given and received without respect of persons. The issue inclined to favour the forces of the doomed woman ; a respite, an extrajudicial inquiry, a conditional pardon, and two lengthy Parliamentary debates left them the nominal victors. The dust of contro- versy, however, rendered only more obscure the cloud of mystery by which the subject was encompassed. One living person, or perhaps two, could dissipate that darkness — the prisoner and old Fleming. The first declared much, and pro- portionally lied; yet, was her famous "Statement" wholly false? The other told once, in the witness-bos, a story possibly true, though, pace the Herald and the learned judge, unsatisfactory and strangely improbable. Where, if with either, lay the truth? Let those who, as Mr. Andrew Lang has somewhere said, "like legal mysteries and the arts of the litei-ary detective " decide. For such as care for none of these things, this trial, apart from its interest as a problem in the law of evidence, is sug- gestive of reflections upon the administration of our system of criminal investigation and the means which our criminal code has provided for obtaining redress in the event of a possible miscarriage of justice. The special defence lodged for the prisoner, that the murder with which she stood charged was, in fact, committed by the chief witness for the Crown, is as dramatic as it is unusual. The elaborate " Statement," purporting to be that of an eye-witness to the deed, read by counsel at her request after the verdict had been returned — probably the most remarkable document ever read in a Court of justice — and the strong opinion of its utter falsity expressed extempore by the judge in passing sentence, are equally note- worthy ; while the subsequent inquiry into the matter, involv- ing the examination of new witnesses before a member of the bar as Commissioner appointed by the Government to that end, is unique in the criminal practice of Scotland. For these, if for no other reasons, it would seem desirable that some record of a case so singular should be included in the present series. Introduction. In the year 1862 there lived at No. 17 Sandyford Place, ^Glasgow, the family of Mr. John Fleming, a reputable accountant of that city. In addition to his town house, Mr. Fleming, like many of his well-to-do fellow-citizens, had a country residence on the Clyde coast, Avondale Lodge, situated between Innellan and Dunoon. Thither in the summer months his domestic establishment, consisting of his sister, two daughters, and the servants, removed. During the week it was the habit of Mr. Fleming and his son John, a lad of twent}', to attend their office in St. Vincent Street, sleeping in Sandy- ford Place and going down to Dunoon for the week-ends, at which periods the sole occupants of the Glasgow house Avere his father, James Fleming, an old man, said to be eighty-seven years of age, and one of the servants, Jessie M'Pherson, who was left in charge of the premises. The latter had been for some years in Mr. Fleming's service, and enjoyed his entire confidence. At ten o'clock on the morning of Friday, ith July, Mr. Fleming and his son went to business as usual, leaving the old man and the sei'vant alone in the house, and proceeded to Dunoon in the afternoon without returning home. They came back to Glasgow on Monday, the 7th, going straight to the office on their arrival. At four o'clock that day young Fleming went home. The door was opened by his grand- father, and the lad naturally asked where was the servant? "She's away, she's cut," said the old man; "I have not seen her since Friday, and her door's locked." Young Fleming at once inquired if he had never thought she might be dead, to which the old gentleman rejoined, " Dead or not dead, she's away." Mr. Fleming, arriving at the moment, was informed by his son of what had passed, the latter adding, * ' She may be lying dead in her room for anything he [the old man] knows." The house is one of three storeys: base- ment, street floor, and flat above ; and is peculiar in respect that the sunk front area, 6J feet in depth, surmoimted by a railing 3 feet 9 inches high, is not accessible either by steps from the street or by door from the house, but solely by a wicket in the stanchions of the pantry window opening thereon beneath the area bridge. Mr. Fleming, accompanied bv his father and son, went downstairs to the kitchen. Finding that the door of the servant's bedroom was locked, his first thought was to get out into the area by the wicket so as to Mrs. M'Lachlan. look through the bedroom window ; his second was to try the key of the pantry door which adjoined that of the bedroom. It opened the lock, and they entered the room. The blinds were drawn, and one half of the shutters was closed. Upon her face, on the floor beside the bed, lay the dead body of the servant, almost naked, the upper part alone being covered by some dark cloth. Father and son were struck with con- sternation, and the grandfather, holding up his hands, exclaimed, '' She's been lying there all this time, and me in the house!"! They then went upstairs together, and Mr. Fleming, rushing out for assistance, got Dr. Watson, with whom he returned to the house. On their way Mr. Fleming told Dr. Watson that, when he imlocked the bedi-oom door with the pantry key, there was already a key in the lock inside, which he struck out, and which fell within the room. The doctor examined the body, and found various wounds — over forty in number, as after- wards appeared — upon the head, face, neck, and wrists, and also " one remarkable bruise " upon the lower part of the back. " This is evidently not a suicide," said Dr. Watson to Mr. Fleming; "you had better call in the police." This was accordingly done, and Constable Cameron and Dr. Joseph Fleming, surgeon of police, arrived on the scene about half- past four o'clock. To Cameron Mr. Fleming repeated his statement as to seeing a key in the lock, pushing it out with the pantry key, and hearing it fall inside the I'oom. He also mentioned the fact to Mrs. Walker, a neighbour, who came to the house about five o'clock. Cameron looked for the key, but failed to find it. Yet at the trial, when cross- examined upon this point by Mr. Clark, Mr. Fleming not only denied that there was any key in the lock at all, but that he had ever said so to the witnesses. Drs. Watson and Fleming then examined the condition of the basement fiat. In the kitchen, where a fire was burning, they saw blood stains on the jawbox {Anglice, sink), and also upon the back of the kitchen door and the doorpost, four or five feet above the floor. The mat in the doorway was bloody, and adhered to the floor. In the lobby they observed a trail of blood, as if caused by the dragging of a body, extending from 1 Disbelievers in the innocence of old Fleming will be reminded of Lady ^Nlacbeth's similar exclamation — " What, in our house ! No. 17 Sandyford Place, Glasgo'w. (The two windows in the area are those of Jessie M'Pherson's lieilrooiu.) Introduction. the kitchen to the bedroom, where the dead woman lay. These stains were obvious and unequivocal ; further traces of blood were subsequently found in various other parts of the lower flat. These, and the condition of the bedroom, which afforded ample evidence of the tragedy, we shall afterwards consider. The doctors next made a remarkable discovery. The floors of the kitchen and bedroom and the stone flags of the lobby had been partially washed, as also had the face, neck, and chest of the corpse. " The lobby," said Dr. Fleming at the trial, ' ' was perfectly moist ; it was very damp, as if it had been recently washed. The kitchen [floor] was drier, but still there was a damp appearance. They had the appearance of not having been done on the same day." When Superintendent M'Call, with two detectives, examined the premises at ten o'clock that night the floor, though appearing to have been recently washed, was then dry. In the course of their investigations these ofiicers found, in a drawer of the kitchen dresser, an iron cleaver, of which they took possession. In the bedroom they noticed the servant's box, open and almost empty, its contents in confusion, " as if some bloody hand had been working among them " — the dead woman's best clothes had disappeared. On the bedroom floor, outside that portion which had been washed, were seen three bloody imprints of a naked foot. There were also discovered in a chest of drawers in which the old man kept his clothes in a room on the sunk flat two shirts, newly dressed, spotted with blood. In answer to questions by Mr, M'Call, old Fleming stated that he had been wakened [at four o'clock on the Saturday morning] by screams, which at the time he attributed to " loose characters " who were in the habit of frequenting the vacant ground at the back of the house, and that he did not then get out of bed, but raised himself on his elbow and looked at his watch. 1 What further account of how he had spent that momentous week-end old Fleming at this time gave to the police we do not know — ^we shall see in the sequel what was his story in the witness-bos ; but that his explanation failed to 1 These facts were elicited by INIr. Clark in his cross-examination of Superintendent M'Call at the trial. Lord Deas, however, held that it was incompetent to put questions " which might lead to the contra- diction of what had been said [by old Fleming] out of the box " ; and Mr. Clark did not pursue the matter. xvii Mrs. M'Lachlan. satisfy the authorities would appear from the fact that on Wednesday, 9th July, two days after the discovery, he was apprehended as being concerned in the murder. Sir Archibald Alison,! Sheriff of Lanarkshire, who ultimately became closely connected with the case, of which he later published an account, observes, '' His [Fleming's] conduct after the murder had been extremely suspicious. "2 The evident grounds of suspicion against him at this stage were (1) that having heard screams in the night, and in the morning found the servant missing and her door locked, he raised no alarm and took no steps at all to ascertain what had become of her ; (2) that he admitted noticing on the iSaturdaj- the blood stains on his shirts ; (3) that for three days he lived alone in the house without making any inquiry whatever ; (4) the condition of the kitchen in which he passed his time ; and (5) the recent washing of the basement floors. The Glasgo^v Herald of lOtk July, 1862, narrates the circumstances of his arrest as follows : — This horrid tragedy continues to be shrouded in mystery, and as the inquiry into the case progresses, the more unaccountable does the affair become. Yesterday afternoon Mr. M'Call, assistant superintendent of police, appi'ehended the old man Fleming, for examination concerning the murder of the unfortimate woman, Jes.'^ie M'Pherson. Fleming was brought before Sheriff Strathern, and, after an examination which lasted upwards of four hours, he was committed to prison for further inquiiy. It would be of the utmost importance to learn the result of this four hours' examination and to compare the declaration then emitted by old Fleming w4th his later evidence at the trial. In Scotland, however, the secrets of a criminal investi- gation conducted by the Procurator-fiscal (the official who collects evidence and reports to the Lord Advocate as Crown prosecutor) are, unfortunately, inviolable. Meanwhile a fresh element had been introduced into the case. Late on the Monday night Mr. Fleming missed from the side- board in the dining-room certain silver and plated articles, spoons, &c., which the servant had out for daily use. A silver teapot and stand and a silver cream jug remained safely in ISir Archibald Alison, Baronet, D.C.L. (1792-1867), author of the History of Europe, and other works, was called to the bar in 1814; appointed Advocate-depute. 1823 ; and Sheriff of Lanarkshire, 1834, which office he held for thirtv-three years. He was created a baronet m 1852. ^Sovie Account of My Life cnicl Writivg-i: A7i AtttobiograpJiu , 1883, ii. 503. Introduction. the open sideboard. Upon it stood the bottles of the cruet, the plated frame of which was found under the table in the servant's room, near the body. On Tuesday, the 8th, Dr. Fleming, accompanied by Dr. Macleod^ (who had visited the house the night before), again inspected the locvs, and made a post-mortem examination of the remains. The result of their investigations was embodied in a joint report (a copy whereof will be found in the report of the trial), in which the reporters drew the following conclusions : — 1. That this woman was murdered, and that with extreme ferocity. 2. That her death had taken place within three days. 3. That a severe struggle had taken place before death. 4. That such an instrument as a cleaver for cutting meat, or a similar weapon, was that most likely to have caused the fatal injuries found. 5. That the injuries had been inflicted before or immediately after death. 6. That all the wounds on the neck and head, with the exception of those on the nose and forehead, had apparently been inflicted by a person standing over the deceased as she lay on her face on the ground. 7. That the comparatively slight degree of strength shown in the blows would point to a female or a weak man having inflicted them ; and Lastly, that the body had been drawn by the head, with the face downwards, along the lobby from the kitchen to the front room. By Dr. Macleod's advice that part of the flooring which contained the bloody footprints was cut out. The impressions, which were all of a left foot, were compared by him with the foot of the deceased, and also with that of old Fleming — the former was in every respect larger ; the latter was perfectly different. In Dr. Macleod's opinion the footprints were those of a female. This, taken in connection with the discovery of marks of blood upon the perpendicular portions of the lower steps of the stair leading from the basement to the flat above, suggestive of having been made by the bloody skirts of some person ascending, led to the inference that a woman was concerned in the crime. Full accounts of the murder and particulars of the missing plate and clothes were circulated in the form of official bills, and also published in all the Glasgow newspapers. These met 1 George Husband Baird Macleod (1828-1892), brother of the Rev. Norman ^lacleod, D.D. He succeeded Professor (afterwards Lord) Lister in 1869 as Regius Professor of Surgery in Glasgow University, and was knighted in 1887. Mrs. M'Lachlan. the eye of Mr. Lundie, a pawnbroker in East Clyde Street, who had been out of town for the week-end ; and on Wednesday, the 9th, the day of old Fleming's arrest, he communicated with the police. He produced the plate in question, and stated that it had been pledged in his shop for <£6 15s. between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday, the 5th, by a young woman who gave her name and address as " Mary M' Donald, 5 St. Vincent Street," both of w'hich on inquiry proved to be false. He had paid little attention to the woman at the time, and could give but an imperfect description of her appearance. Public interest in the crime had been from the first intense, and those developments further stimulated the popular excitement. The Herald (Monday, 14th July) reports — During yesterday afternoon many thousands of people visited Sandy- ford Place to see the exterior of the house in which the crime was committed. The street was nearly blocked up by the crowd, and large numbers assembled on the vacant space of ground behind, with a similar intention. Along Elderslie Street and towards the west end of Sauchiehall Street there were more people in the street than during the going in or dismissal of the churches, and this state of matters con- tinued for several hours. The authorities had now to discover the woman who pav^-ned the plate, and also to trace the clothes taken from the deceased's box. On Sunday, the 13th, Superintendent M'Call, acting upon " information received," from what source was not dis- closed, went with four detectives to a house at No. 182 Broomielaw, and there apprehended a seafaring man, named James M'Lachlan, and Mrs. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, his wife. Before their arrest the man had remarked to his wife, on reading in the newspapers the description of the wanted woman, " That's unco like you," to which she had significantly replied, " It's ower like me ! " It is a curious fact that during the preceding week Mrs. M'Lachlan had been twice examined before the Procurator-fiscal with reference to the murder, but had denied all knowledge of the crime and of the missing plate. How the attention of the authorities was directed to her does not appear. i 1 " The whole investigation was conducted by the Glasgow officials with so little integrity and openness, and so much of the dexterity and cunning of pettifoggery, that it is not at all improbable that Mrs. IM'Lachlan was suspected almost as early as old Fleming, that she was twice examined by the Procurator-fiscal merely to entrap her, and that she was watched during the week she was at liberty." — Law Magazine and Review, 1863, vol. xiv., p. 73. Introduction. On the following day, Monday, the 14th, a week after the discovery of the murder, husband and wife were successively examined before Sheriff- Substitute Strathern and emitted declarations.^ The manner in which these were taken, and the action of the Procurator-fiscal in apprehending James M'Lachlan, we shall have to consider in connection with the subsequent trial. The husband, who had been in Ireland with his ship at the time of the mvu-der, and had, therefore, no connection with it, was liberated so soon as the Fiscal had secured his statement. The wife was under examination for four hours and a half, and a declaration was taken from her extending to twenty-four folio pages. In it Mrs. M'Lachlan, inter alia, declared — I am a native of Inverness, twenty-eight years of age, wife of James M'Lachlan, second mate on board the steamship Pladda, and I reside at No. 182 Broomielaw, Glasgow. I knew Jessie M'Pherson, who was servant to JNIr. Fleming, Sandyford Place, Sauchiehall Street. I was a feillow-sei'vant of hers in Mr. Fleming's employment in his house at Sandyford Place, and at his coast house, near Dunoon, for two years prior to September, 1857. I left Mr. Fleming's service then and got married, and since then I have kept up an intimacy with her, except for a period of about eighteen months prior to January, 1861, during which time she was at service in Manchester. I last saw Jessie M'Pherson in my own house at the Broomielaw, on Saturday evening, the 28th June last. She denied that she was in or near Mr. Fleming's house on the night of the murder, and stated that, having been in the company of a friend, Mrs. Fraser, she went home at a quarter- past eleven, letting herself in with a check-lock key, and that she remained in bed with her child, a boy of three years, till seven or eight o'clock on Saturday morning, when she went out for coals, and returning a quarter of an hour later, having forgotten the check key, was let in by her lodger, Mrs. Campbell. She admitted pawning the plate about twelve o'clock that day, and stated that it had been given to her in her own house by old Fleming at a quarter-past eight the previous evening, wdth instructions to pawn it in the name of *' M'Donald," as " he was short of money, and had to go to ^ Prior to 1887 a prisoner was not allowed the benefit of legal advice at this stage ; but it is provided by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act of that year (50 & 51 Vict. c. 35, § 17) that any person arrested on any criminal charge shall be entitled immediately to have professional assistance, and that the law agent shall be entitled to have a private interview with such prisoner before the latter is examined, and also to be present at such examination. Mrs. M'Lachlan. the Highlands, and did not like to lift money out of the bank " ; that Fleming returned on the Saturday afternoon and offered her £5, out of the £6 15s. she had got on the plate, for her trouble, but that she only took £4 ; and that Fleming (not unnaturally) warned her to tell no one of this singular trans- action. She then made explanations as to certain articles of dress which she had taken to be dyed ; also regarding a visit she had paid to Hamilton on Tuesday, the 8th ; and a black leather trunk, despatched thither by her on the previous: Saturday, addressed " Mrs. Bain, Hamilton. To lie till called for," to all of which we shall later refer. The statements made by Mrs. M'Lachlan in this and her two subsequent declarations were, in the main, false. It is suffi- cient here to remark that the authorities had seen Mrs. Campbell, and knew Mrs. M'Lachlan had been out of her house the Avhole night, and was let in by Mrs. Campbell herself at nine o'clock on the Saturday morning ; that there was nO' check key for the house door ; that she went out on the Friday night in her own gown, and returned next day wearing one which did not belong to her ; that her own had since dis- appeared, and that the other (afterwards proved to have been Jessie MTherson's) had been sent by her to be dyed ; that she had been tracked to Hamilton ; and that the police guessed what were the contents of the black trunk, then empty and in their hands. The conscience of her husband, in spite of the absolution which he had received at the hands of the Fiscal, remained uneasy, and on Wednesday, the 16th, he made a voluntary communication to the police, whereupon Superintendent M'Call went to Bridge Street railway station and obtained possession of a japanned tin box. On being opened it was found to contain the clothes taken from the dead woman's room. The history of the peregrinations of this tin box, as afterwards ascertained, is as follows: — On Wednesday, the 9th, five days after the murder had been committed, Mrs. M'Lachlan sent the box to Ayr, addressed " Mrs. Darnley, Ayr. To lie till called for." It was afterwards recovered by her husband, deposited by him with his sister at Greenock, and finally given up to the police. No sooner were these articles in the hands of the authorities than Mrs. M'Lachlan was again examined by the Procurator-fiscal, and a second declaration, extending to twelve- folio pages, was taken from her. After answering some- xxii Introduction. further questions with reference to her visit to Hamilton, her own clothes, and a rum bottle foimd in the Sandyford Place house, said to have been taken by her from Mrs. Campbell's room on the night of the crime, she was questioned in detail regarding the missing clothes of the deceased, all of which as described to her she admitted knowing to have been Jessie M'Pherson's property ; and, unaware of the workings of her husband's conscience, and believing that the tin box was safely out of the way, she naturally lied, " I have not seen any of these articles of dress lately, either in her possession or any- where else." Then the ingenious Fiscal played his trump card by producing the box and clothes. The prisoner acknow- ledged that the box -was hers, and stated that the clothes had been sent to her by the deceased on Friday, 4th July, to be altered and dj^ed ; that finding them advertised for after the murder she got frightened, and sent them to Ayr ; and that she afterwards explained the situation to her husband, and induced him to take them to his sister in Greenock. That day, Wednesday, 16th July, Dr. Macleod conducted an experiment for the purpose of comparing the print made by the prisoner's foot with the footmarks left in the bedroom of the murdered woman, the result, but not the modf., of which he gave at the trial. The following account of the course of this experiment is taken from an article on the case published later by Dr. Macleodi : — When Mrs. M'Lachlan was taken into custody it was thought most important that a very carefully made comparison should be instituted by a professional man between the impressions and her foot. This duty was assigned by the Sheriff to the author, who tried several experiments on his own foot, to test the accuracy of several agents to produce impressions on wood which could be comparable with that under con- sideration. Nothing was found which was not open to objection except blood ; and so having obtained a small phial of bullock's blood, a thin coating of it was placed on waxcloth and the prisoner asked to put her left foot on it and then step on a plank of wood. The accused repeated this several times without the slightest objection — in fact, apparently courting the test. The early impressions were not suitable, as the plank of wood obtained had been oiled for some other purpose ; but when the writer had as closely as possible imitated the conditions in which the original impressions had been ma-de, i.e.. had placed the blood on one side of the room, a piece of carpet between, and then an old dry plank of wood (all these conditions having been observed at No. 17 1 " An Account of the ^ledical Evidence connected with the Trial of Je.ssie M'La«hlan at Glasgow Autumn Circuit, 1862. By George H. B. Macleod, M.D., F.R.C.S.E.," kc— Glasgow Medical Journal, 1864, vol. xi., 50-61. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Sandyford Place, in the room where the impressions were found) on which to stand, two impressions were got which corresponded with a degree of accuracy which was quite marvellous with the marks taken from the house. In the minutest detail of measurement and outline did they tally with the original, and, in fact, each of them was, if possible, closer to the Sandyford footmark than they were to one another. Thus the presence of the accused woman in the house when the deed was done was held to be conclusively established ; and so by one means and another, partly fair, partly unfair, evi- dence was brought together which was considered sufficient to demonstrate that Mrs. M'Lachlan alone was guilty of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson; and after eight days' con- finement the old man James Fleming was set at liberty. ^ On Friday, 18th July, the Herald had accordingly the pleasure to announce — LlBERATIOX OF Mr. FlKMING AND COMMITTAL OF THE PRISONER M'Lachlan. On Wednesday afternoon, as mentioned in yesterday's paper, Mr. Sheriff Strathern and Mr. Gemmel, joint Procurator- fiscal, proceeded to Edinburgh and held a consultation with the Solicitor-General and Mr. Gifford, Advocate-Depute, regarding this case. It was there resolved that old ^Ir. Fleming should be liberated, as there was no ground whatever why he should be longer detained in connection with this unhappy case — the evidence bearing, we assume, that he was entirely guiltless of any knowledge of or connection with the murder of Jessie M'Pherson. Mr. Fleming was accordingly set at liberty yester- day morning. It was also resolved at the consultation above referred to that Jessie M'Intosh or ^I'Lachlan should be fully committed on the charges of murder and theft. Now, assuming that the account of his conduct given by old Fleming to the authorities was as unsatisfactory as that to which he subsequently swore at the trial, there can be little doubt, in the circumstances before described, that he laid himself open to the gravest suspicion of having been at least art and part, if not actor, in the crime ; and that instead of being liberated for the purpose of testifying against his fellow- 1 The Spectator, in an article upon the trial, with reference to the prima facie case against old Fleming and that against Mrs. M'Lachlan, observes — " Strange to say, the Glasgow authorities seem to have adopted at once, and with an almost personal bias, the latter, and to oirr minds, we will not say the least probable, but the most improbable of these two hypotheses. The fact of Mr. Fleming's innocence was assumed as an axiom, and the object of prosecution appeared to be not so much to prove that Jessie M'Lachlan was guilty of the murder as that Mr. Fleming had no concern with it whatever." Introduction. prisoner, and thus, by Scots law, rendered immune from future prosecution, he ought, in justice, to have been placed beside her in the dock. The Herald was almost alone in expressing approval of the action of the authorities in liberating Fleming. ^ That same night (Thursday, l7th July) Superintendent M'Call received a telegram from the Hamilton police to the effect that portions of the skirt of a brown merino gown and of two petticoats, blood stained and torn in pieces, had been discovered in a field a mile and a half from that town. The Glasgow police then made a further search of the prisoner's house and took possession of the sleeve of a brown gown, which was afterwards found to be of similar material to that of the Hamilton skirt. The torn skirt and petticoats were later identified as the property of the prisoner. 2 We shall now see what Mrs. M'Lachlan had been doing at Hamilton. On the afternoon of Saturday, 5th July, she sent by her servant, Sarah Adams, a black leather trunk to be forwarded by rail to Hamilton, addressed " Mrs. Bain," as already mentioned. On Tuesday, the 8th, she journeyed thither incognito, claimed the trunk (which she left empty behind her), and was seen carrying a conspicuous bundle near the spot where the torn clothes were afterwards found. In the course of an hour or two spent in the neighbourhood upon her secret errand she contrived to converse with nine persons, all of whom later identified her as the woman to whom they had spoken. The articles thus recovered having been sent to Glasgow, the prisoner, on 21st July, was again invited by the Procurator-fiscal to walk into his official parlour, where, being shown "13 pieces of flannel, as also 6 pieces of wincey cloth, as also 20 pieces or thereby of merino," she, in pursuance of" her fatal policy of negation, denied that they belonged to her, and a declaration, extending on this occasion to a modest three folio pages only, was taken from her to that effect. 1 " It is no small satisfaction to us, we must declare, that in spite of the .strongest prejudice and gross perversion of facts, we struck in and took the side of the old innocent on Saturday last; and we believe we are the only paper in the city that did so without the least equivo- cation."— G-Vasiyow; Herald, 19th July, 1862. 2 It is to be observed that this sleeve, which formed part of the dress worn by Mrs. M'Lachlan on the night of the murder, was entirely free from biood. The skirt and petticoats, on the other hand, were soaked with blood in a manner difficult to account for except as explained by her own "Statement" aftermentioned. Mrs. M'Lachlan. On 1st August there were submitted to Professor Penny for examination the portions of skirt and petticoats above- mentioned — the chemise, worsted polka, and flannel semmet taken from the body of the deceased — the cleaver found in the kitchen, and the wires of a crinoline, which had been given by the prisoner to the witness Mary Black or Adams on Satur- day, 5th July. The result of Professor Penny's examination of these articles was embodied in a report (a copy whereof will be found in the leport of the trial), in which the reporter drew the following conclusions : — 1. That the stains and clots on the sevei'al articles of wearing apparel subjected to examination were caused by blood. 2. That the stains on the crinoline wires consisted of dried blood. 3. That the stains and clots on the handle of the cleaver were caused by blood. 4. That in no ca^^e was it possible to identify the blood as human blood. The case against the prisoner being now complete, the indict- ment, charging her with the crimes of murder and theft, was accordingly served upon her on 30th August. ^ The trial was appointed to take place at the Glasgow Autumn Circuit, the sittings of which would commence in September. In view of the intense excitement which the mysterious features of the case had aroused in Glasgow it would manifestly have been in the interests of justice had the trial been removed bej'ond the influence of local prejudice to the calmer atmosphere of the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh. 2 The case, it is safe to say, had been daily discussed, and each scrap of news regarding it eagerly canvassed by every potential juiyman in the city. To meet the demand for information the Glasgow Press anticipated the worst features of modern journalism. Reporters dogged the footsteps of the criminal oflScers and forestalled in print the results of their investigations ; even the sacred operations of the Fiscal's camera segrefa were not respected — witnesses who had been examined were waylaid. 1 With reference to the fact that the deceased is named in the indict- ment " Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie M'Pherson Richardson," it may be explained that her real surname was Richardson, she having taken the name of M'Pherson from the persons by whom she was brought up as a child. 2 Had this course been adopted, it may be noted that the trial would then have been presided over by three judges — probably the Lord Justice-Clerk (Inglis) and two of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Introduction. -and full reports of their evidence published with such com- ments as editorial bias suggested; some papers treated "the wretched woman " already as a convicted murderess, while shedding tears of ink over the unmerited sufferings of virtuous " Mr. Fleming " ; others clamoured for his blood and canonised the prisoner. The daily news sheets rivalled one another in starting fresh theories of the crime, and advising the authori- ties how and how not to conduct the inquiry. One journal, being very certain that the rum bottle found in the house con- tained laudanum, insisted on an immediate analysis. A worse instance occurred with reference to certain superficial marks on the prisoner's hands, caused, as she explained and as the Crown doctors believed, by the bite of her own small dog. This paper, however, knew better — " they had been inflicted by Jessie MTherson in her death struggle." In such circum- stances as these it is difficult to see how the prisoner was to -obtain that impartial trial to which she was by law entitled. Sir Archibald Alison, in commenting on this state of matters, remarks — Such was the public anxiety for intelligence, that the newspapers for a month together were daily filled with these details, accompanied by the most violent declamations against the woman, as each successive article of evidence was revealed. To such a pitch did the public excitement on the subject rise, that the editors of some of the daily papers told my clerk, Mr. Young, that their circulation since the precognitions began to be published had risen from 10,000 to 50,000 a day ; and that if they could only secure a Mrs. M'Lachlan a month they would soon be in a situation to retire from business with handsome fortunes ! I myself was obliged, when the trial of the prisoner was fixed, to write a circular to the editors requesting them to abstain from any further notice of the case, as, if the incessant discussion went on, the prisoner could never have a fair trial. ^ On Wednesday, 17th September, 1862, before the Honour- able Lord Deas,^ in the Old Court in Jail Square, Glasgow, the diet against Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan was called at ten o'clock. As it is not the practice of the Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General personally to conduct criminal prosecutions on circuit, the Crown was represented by Mr. Adam Gifford, advocate-depute, assisted by Mr. Andrew Mure, advocate. Mr. Andrew Murray, W.S., acting as Crown agent. Messrs. Andrew '!i Autobiography , ii. 506-507. 2 Sir George Deas, Lord Deas (1804-1887), was called to the bar in 1828 ; Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty, 1850 ; Solicitor- General, 1851 ; raised 'Ax> the bench, 1853; knighted, 1858; and resigned, 1885. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Rutherfurd Clark, Robert Maclean, and Adam Bannatyne, advocates, appeared for the pannel, her agents being Messrs. Joseph A. Dixon, John Strachan, and W. M. Wilson, writers, Glasgow. 1 " Long before the hour for the assembling of the Court," says the North British Daily Mail, " Jail Square was blockaded by an eager and wistful throng, amongst whom the most extravagant rumours and diversified speculations in relation to the case passed freely current. Every door was besieged by impatient applicants for admission, and it was only by dint of a good deal of struggle, conflict, and turmoil that oflScials, jurymen, and witnesses were able to force a passage." The pannel was placed at the bar, attended by the prison matron and a female warder. According to the Herald, ' ' She entered the dock with a quick step, but she was very pale, and evidently slightly agitated. She wore a sti'aw bonnet trimmed with white ribbon interwoven with black lace, a lilac merino gown, and a thin black shawl." The Morning Journal describes her as " presenting not the slightest appearance of agitation," and with " a slight flush on her cheek," The reporters also differ in their millinery terminology — none but the jury ever arrived at a unanimous opinion on any question connected with this bewildering case. No objection was taken to the relevancy of the indictment ; the pannel pleaded not guilty ; and the jury were balloted and empannelled. A special defence was lodged for Mrs. M'Lachlan, " that the murder alleged in the indictment was committed by James Fleming, residing with John Fleming, accountant, in or near Sandyford Place, Glasgow." The trial then proceeded. With much of the evidence accumulated against the prisoner we have already dealt, and it is only necessary now to indicate the remaining portions of the Crown case, grouping, so far as possible, the various witnesses with reference to the points to which their evidence relates. The first three witnesses, Sheriff-Substitute Strathern and Messrs. Gemmel and Hart, joint Procurators-fiscal, were called 1 It is interesting to note that the senior counsel on both sides of the bar ultimately became distinguished occupants of the judicial bench. Adam Gifford, Lord Gifford (1820-1887), called to the bar in 1849; Advocate-depute, 1861 ; Sheriff of Orknev, 1855 ; raised to the bench, 1870; resigned, 1881. Andrew Rutherfurd Clark (Lord Rutherfurd Clark) (1828-1899), called to the bar in 1849; Advocate-depute, 1851; Sheriff of Inverness, 1859; Solicitor-General, 1869; raised to the bench. 1875 ; resigned, 1896. James Fleming. {From an itriyinul il rawing ntade hi Court, in the jjossession of flie Editor.) Introduction. to prove the panel's three declarations. They were cross- examined by Mr. Clark with reference to the circumstances in which these were emitted, and especially as to the fact that when the prisoner's husband was apprehended and his declara- tion taken for use against his wife, the authorities well knew that he had been absent from Glasgow at the time of the murder. 1 Mr. Fleming and his son John having given their evidence regarding the discovery of the body as before narrated, the old man James Fleming was called. The Morning Journal report states that " he entered the dock \sic\ nimbly " — the wish, no doubt, was father to the thought. Under the tactful guidance of Mr. Gifford the old man then told the following curious but coherent tale. He stated that he was eighty- seven years of age ; that he was employed by his son in managing certain properties and collecting the rents thereof ; that at half-past nine o'clock on the night in question, having spent the evening with the servant in the kitchen, he retired to bed in his otvti room, situated on the flat above, leaving the girl still busy at her work — " she had been thrang for three days wi' a washin'." That in the morning he was awakened " wi' a lood squeal, and after that followed ither two," where- upon he jumped out of bed, and, looking at his watch, found it was exactly four o'clock — " a bonny, clear morning." That at the time he attributed the " squeals " to a sister of the servant, who, he thought, would be spending the night with her; that he returned to bed, fell asleep, and did not waken again till six o'clock, from which hour he lay awake until he rose ; that it was the servant's invariable custom to bring his porridge up to his room about eight o'clock ; that her failure to 80 do on this occasion surprised and disappointed him — '' I wearied very much for her." That he rose at nine o'clock, put on his clothes, and went downstairs ''exactly after that." That he " gied three chaps " at the servant's bedroom door, and, receiving no reply, tried the " sneck " [latch], found the door locked, and no key in it ; that he then went into the adjoining pantry and found the window [wicket?] in the area standing open — " I drew it to, and returned to the kitchen 1 " It is impossible to approve of the method of examination which appears to have become the practice in Glasgow, and under which the idea of a declaration as a spontaneous or voluntary statement of the prisoner is entirely lost sight of." — Journal of Jurisprudence, 1862, vol. vi., p. 514. xzuc Mrs. M'Lachlan. again." That the fire was then burning there, and he put on some coals ; that the door bell rang, and, on answering it, he found the servant from next door [Elizabeth Brownlie], who " wanted the len' o' a spade." That he went down to the washing-house [at the end of the garden] to get the spade, but when he reached the washing-house door " there was no key in it." That in the course of this errand he found the back door of the house locked, with the key on the inside ; that this occurred at eleven o'clock ; that before this he had found the front door unlocked and the key in it, " just snecked, ye ken, not locked " [upon which fact he volunteered to the Court the comment], " sae whaever had been in they had got out by the door; there is nae doubt o' that." That his next caller was the baker, who came shortly after the girl Brownlie, and from whom he took " a half -quarter loaf." That at twelve o'clock he went to Mr. Fleming's office, thence to the Bridgegate, to overlook some repairs upon his son's property there, and returned to the office, where he remained till two o'clock, when he took a 'bus home to Sandyford Place ; that he prepared his own dinner, and did not again leave the house that night ; that at seven o'clock a young man, giving the name of Darnley, rang the bell and asked to see Jessie MTherson, upon whom he said he had promised to call ; that he [witness] said she was not in, whereupon the visitor left ; that he observed that the screens containing the washing in the kitchen had been "laid or driven down" against the press door; that he removed therefrom a dozen clean shirts belonging to him, two of which he saw were "marked with blood," and laid them by in his chest of drawers ; that at eight o'clock he made tea, and sat up till after nine, thinking that the servant " would make her appearance, but she did not." That next morning (Sunday) the bell was rung by the milkman, but he did not answer it ; that he made his own breakfast and went to the church ; that on the way thither he had some conversation with a neighbour, Mr. M'Allister ; that in the afternoon he dined on bread and cheese, and went again to church ; that the same night the lad Darnley repeated his visit, and asked if Jessie MTherson was in, when the following conversation took place: — "I said, 'No.' He asked, 'Is she at church?' I said, 'I don't know.' Says he, 'If she comes out the town will she come this way? ' I said, ' I suppose she will.' He went away." That on the Monday morning he rose at eight Introduction. o'clock, as was his practice on that day, to go through the Bridgegate property and collect the rents ; that he went to the office for his books, collected his rents, deposited same at the office, and returned home about one or two o'clock ; and that at four o'clock "young John" came home, followed by his father. The witness then described the finding of the body, as before narrated ; identified the pawned plate as his son's property ; and denied the prisoner's statement that he had given her those articles or instructed her to pawn them. He recognised the prisoner as an old servant of the family, and stated that a year ago he had visited her at her own house, having been invited by her to do so when she was calling on Jessie M'Pherson ; that he had once done the like on a previous occasion ; and that, with these exceptions, he had never seen her since she left his son's service until confronted with her on his examination at the County Buildings. ^ He said that he had found the glass window of the pantry open on the Saturday morning, when he put out his hand and drew-to the wicket. Tliis closed the examination-in-chief of old Fleming, and Mr. Rutherfurd Clark, then Sheriff of Inverness, and one of the ablest members of the Scots bar, commenced his cross-examina- tion, which, to be appreciated, must be read in extenso, and to the report whereof, printed in the report of the trial, the reader is referred. His opening, " Was your watch right that Saturday morning? " is significant, for it was upon the ques- tion of time that the statements of the witness were to be most severely tested. Old Fleming maintained that on the Saturday morning he did not leave his bed till nine o'clock ; that the first person to whom he spoke after he rose was " the girl for the len' o' a spade" at eleven o'clock, and that the front door was not then upon the chain. Five times, in answer to reiterated questions, he swore that the girl was the first person to whom he opened the door that morning. The milk, he stated, in reply to counsel, was usually brought to the house between eight and nine. Then Mr. Clark put his crucial point, "Did the milk come upon the Saturday morn- 1 When, by the way, as was reported in the newspapers at the time, " he denied that he ever knew her, and, being reminded that she had once been his servant, affirmed that he would not have taken her at all for the same person." XXXI Mrs. M'Lachlan. ing? " With this apparently simple question, frequently repeated in various forms, the witness fenced with an ingenuity which at least did much credit to his mental powers. Seven several times he distinctly swore that the milkboy did not call — that he had no recollection of his doing so. In the end, however, he was brought to admit that the milkboy did call that morning " betwixt eight and nine," and that he [witness] told the boy that he required no milk at that time. He first stated that he ' ' supposed ' ' he would then be dressed ; but on being reminded that he had repeatedly sworn he did not rise till nine he declined to " charge his memory " as to whether he was dressed or not. The most remarkable passage in the cross-examination is that which relates to the reason given by the witness for open- ing the door himself to the milkboy on the Saturday morning, instead of allowing the servant to do so as usual. His answers to this question, more than once repeated, were as follows: — " Jessie, ye ken — it was a' ower wi' Jessie afore that " ; " There was nae Jessie to open the door that morning " ; " She was deid before that " ; " On Saturday morning, ye ken, Jessie was deid — she couldna open the door when she was deid." Being asked if, when he answered the bell, he knew that Jessie was dead? he replied (" sharply and with emphasis ") that he did not. In answer to various questions as to the position of the chain upon the front door when first seen by him that morning, he said that the door was not upon the chain ; then, that it was; and, finally, that it was not — " I could give my oath on it." He also stated that he had been through the house before the milkboy came, and was quite certain this was after nine o'clock, adding, " The milkman whiles does not keep the appointed time." He refused to be further drawn as to whether he was or was not dressed when he went downstairs, pleading that " the memory of a man of seventy-eight years of age is not so fresh as a young man's," whereupon a juror pointed out that he had already given his age as eighty-seven. The witness adhered to the longer figure, i 1 " Old Mr. Flemine; is a native of Cumbernauld, and was well known in his younger days to persons thereabouts. He was born and brought up at Bar Path, Kilsyth, and previous to his removal to Glasgow, where he commenced bu.siness as a manufacturer, his occupation was that of a hand-loom weaver. . . . It is also stated by those who knew the family that Mr. Fleming cannot be so old as represented by ten years." — Falkirk Herald. Introduction. In reply to further questions, he stated that " he could not be pointed " as to whether the milkboy came before or after he had " chapped " at the servant's door ; and that his refusal to take in any milk had nothing to do with his not having got his porridge that morning — " I could take my porridge wanting my milk, and can do so yet." The cries, be said, heard by him in the night were ''as if somebody was in distress." Asked if, having heard these cries, and in the morning found the servant missing, her door locked, and blood upon his shirts, he did not suspect that something had happened, he answered, "No; I never thocht anything was wrong." He stated further that nothing in the appearance of the kitchen attracted his attention on the Saturday, Sunday, or Monday ; that during those three days it never occurred to him either to send for the police or to have the servant's door opened, or to make any inquiries about her in the neighbourhood, or to mention to the servant from next door, the lad Darnley, Mr. M'Allister, Mr. Sloan (his son's confidential clerk at the office), or the other persons with whom he had spoken, that the girl was amissing— " I told nobody ; I was expecting her every hour and every minute " ; he never thought that she had run away. Yet he admitted that she had never before been absent from the house except on her day out or when he knew her where- abouts.^ Asked what had become of the single teaspoon, the only article of plate which he said he had used during the three days, he replied, "I tell you I ken naething about it; I took no charge " [of the silver].^ He admitted that he had never used spectacles till the day before the trial : those he then wore were given him as a present — '" I can see weel eneuch to read without them." He said that no milk was taken in by him on the Saturday or Monday. This concluded the cross-examination of James Fleming. It is noteworthy that Loid Deas put no qviestion to him 1 And, as we have s€«n, he announced to his grandson the fact of her disappearance in the words, " She's away, she's cut." It is also to be noted that although he alleged, as a further reason for his doing nothing, " I kent Mr. Fleming would be home on Monday, and would put all things right," he was at the office twice that morning, but, instead of awaiting his son's return from Dunoon, he left shortly before Mr. Fleming arrived. — Evidence of Andrew Sloan at trial. - Fleming does not appear to have been asked if he did not miss the customary silver, which, according to his son's evidence, was what the servant " had out for daily use from the sideboard in the dining- Mrs. M'Lachlan. directly (though his lordship interrogated wellnigrh every other witness in the case), being satisfied, no doubt, that he had told, in terms of his oath, " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." With reference (1) to the apathy displayed by old Fleming regarding the servant's disappearance, and (2) to what Lord Deas termed his " confusion " as to the incident of the milkboy, although, in accordance with the advice of Mrs. Gamp, we " seek not to proticipate," it may now be mentioned that the following facts were clearly proved by the evidence of other witnesses: — (1) That old Fleming was notoriously of an abnormally suspicious and inquisitive disposition ; that nothing could take place in the house without arousing his curiosity ; that the door bell could not be rung without his knowing the cause, and that he would even rise from his bed to look out of the window on such occasions ; that if a servant left the house upon an errand he must know where she had been and what she did ; that he devoted much attention to acquiring a full knowledge of such persons as visited the servants, and, if possible, personally interviewed them ; that he extended the sphere of his observations to the servants next door, so far as he had opportunity of spying upon their movements ; and that in everything relating to the deceased girl, who enjoyed a special share of his attentions, he was known to be peculiarly interested. (2) That the milk was usually delivered at the house not later than twenty minutes to eight in the morning ; that prior to the Saturday in question he had never answered the door to the milkman; that at 7.40 a.m. on that day the milkboy rang once as usual; that there was no delay in answer- ing his ring ; that the boy heard the chain being taken off the door; that old Fleming, dressed in "black clothes," himself opened the door, and " said he was for nae milk " ; and that never before that morning had milk been refused at that house. The history of the prisoner's movements upon the night of the crime, so far as known, were given by the following wit- nesses : — Mary Black or Adams, who washed and went errands for her, deponed that on the forenoon of Friday, 4th July, when washing in the prisoner's house, she was sent by Mrs. M'Lachlan to redeem from pawn a grey cloak which the prisoner "said she wanted, to go from home"; that for this purpose the prisoner gave her a looking-glass to pledge for Introduction. 6s. to enable her to pay 4s. 7^d. to release the cloak ; that the prisoner requested witness to return between nine and ten that night to keep her child, as she was going to see Jessie M'Pherson ; that witness asked her why she went so late, to which the prisoner replied that it was the time when Jessie was got alone — that the old man went to bed then, adding, that " he was fashious about any person coming to the house " ; that Mrs. M'Lachlan at the same time told witness to go to a smith's shop and ask the smith to come and " sort " the check key of the front door ; that witness forgot to do so, and was prevented from returning that night to look after the prisoner's child. Mrs. Fraser deponed that, calling at the prisoner's house on the Friday night, she found her dressing to go out ; that the prisoner gave her a glass of rum out of a bottle ; that they went out together, and parted at the Gushet House, in Stobcross Street, at about ten minutes past ten, Mrs. Campbell, who lodged with the prisoner, heard her and Mrs. Fraser go out together about ten o'clock ; she knew of no check key for the front door, but the prisoner had often spoken of getting one ; she missed a bottle from her house on the following Monday, but could not identify the bottle pro- duced as hers. At half -past five on Saturday morning (there was a public clock visible from her window) she was awakened by the crying of the prisoner's child, and going into her room found the child alone in the bed and the prisoner absent. The door bell was rung at nine o'clock, and witness, answering it, admitted the prisoner. She was carrying a large bundle under her cloak, and went straight into her own room. Mrs. Campbell noticed that the prisoner was then wearing a brown merino gown, which witness had never seen before, and different from the dress she had on the previous night. In whatever manner Mrs. M'Lachlan had spent that eventful Friday night she allowed herself little time for rest or reflection upon the following day. Her movements during Saturday, 5th July, may be traced with much minuteness in the evidence of the various witnesses, of which space here permits only a rapid survey. After her return Mrs. Campbell saw her go downstairs to her cellar with a clothes-basket, and at ten o'clock she again went out. Some time in the forenoon the prisoner purchased in the shop of James Fullerton, ironmonger, Argyle Street, a japanned tin box, in which she placed a bundle Mrs. M'Lachlan. ehe had brought with her ; she then padlocked the box and took away the key. She stated that she was going to Edin- burgh in the afternoon and would return later for the box. She did not do so, however, until Wednesday, the 9th. This was the box entrusted on that day to the care of the mythical " Mrs. Darnley, Ayr," containing, as we know, the missing clothes of the deceased, other than the brown merino gown. At eleven o'clock she was at the house of Mrs. Rainny (Mrs. Adams' landlady) inquiring for Mrs. Adams, who was not then in. Between eleven and twelve she called at the factor's office and paid the witness Railton £4 to account of the £4 19s. she was due in respect of arrears of rent. Railton paid the money into the bank, which closed that day at twelve o'clock. Between twelve and one she pledged, in name of "Mary M'Donald," the articles of silver plate before referred to, with Lundie, the pawnbroker, asking £6 10s. and receiving £6 15s. At a quarter-past one she was back at Mrs. Rainny's house, when, finding Mrs. Adams was still out, she asked Mrs. Rainny to redeem for her a black poplin dress. Mrs. Rainny did so, and the prisoner, in her house, then changed the brown merino gown she was wearing and put on the poplin, remarking that she was going with the former to the dyers. Elizabeth M'Crone, shopwoman to Robert Murray, dyer, Argyle Street, deponed that on Saturday, 5th July, a woman giving the name of " M 'Donald " left a brown merino dress to be dyed black and a grey cloak to be cleaned. Witness coidd not identify the prisoner as the woman. At half-past three, in her own house, the prisoner asked Sarah Adams (who had until five weeks before been her servant) to take a black leather trunk, with an address on it, to the railway station to be forwarded to Hamilton. Sarah "couldn't read writing," but this we know was the trunk consigned to the apocryphal " Mrs. Bain," in which were the blood-stained skirt and petticoats worn by the prisoner on the night of the murder. At four o'clock Mrs. Adams, having heard from Mrs. Rainny that Mrs. M'Lachlan wished to see her, called at the prisoner's house, and was entrusted with the sum of £2 for the purpose of redeeming certain articles belonging to her from pawn. Being aware that the prisoner had previously been short of money, Mrs. Adams made the jocidar, but in the circumstances infelicitous, remark, " Whom did you robi " The prisoner then gave her the wires of a crinoline, which she said had been accidentally Introduction. burned by her child pushing it from a chair into the fire, and told Mrs. Adams to " make them down " for her daughter Sarah. The dresses of Jessie M'Pherson and the prisoner's clothes were identified by divers witnesses, with whose evidence it is unnecessary to deal in detail — the former by the deceased's friends and fellow-servants, Mary Downie and Margaret Maclachlan ; the latter by Mrs. Campbell, Mrs. Adams, Sarah Adams, and Mrs. McGregor, the dressmaker. The adventures of the tin box and of the leather trunk, and how Mrs. M'Lachlan spent her day in the countiy, have been already mentioned. We have now briefly to note the purport of the remaining evidence adduced for the Crown. Elizabeth Brownlie, the servant from nest door who came for the spade, contradicted old Fleming in several particulars. She stated that she rang the bell of No. 17 on the Saturday afternoon between two and three o'clock ; that the old man answered it, and said '' the girl was out " ; that she accom- panied him downstairs to the back door ; that he went half-way -down to the washing-house outside, turned back, and told her the door was locked ; that she suggested that the key might be in the kitchen, but he said, " No, he had already looked there." She was not in the kitchen, and did not notice the floor of the lobby. In cross-examination witness stated that before this, at ten o'clock the same morning, she had seen old Fleming go out for coals to the coal cellar adjoining the washing-house, and that his manner of doing so attracted her attention at the time — ' ' he looked round to see if any person was looking." She had been informed by the deceased that old Fleming watched all that the neighbours' servants did, and witness had heard her speak of him as ' ' that auld deevil. ' ' Andrew Darnley described his visits to No. 17 on the Satur- day and Sunday nights. He stated that on the first occasion he asked old Fleming " if there was one Jessie MTherson here?" which the old man denied and afterwards admitted; that in reply to his questions the old man said " she had been out a good while " ; and that on the following night, when again informed by old Fleming that Jessie was not in, witness remarked, " Surely she was often out just now? " to which the old man made no reply. Andrew Sloan, clerk and cashier to Mr. John Fleming, deponed that old Fleming was employed by his son, Mr. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Fleming, to collect the rents of a number of small houses at a salary of <£40 a year ; that on Saturday, 5th July, old Fleming was in the office for half an hour ; that he was again there on Monday, the 7th, at nine o'clock ; that he paid witness the rents he had collected ; that he left the office at ten o'clock, before Mr. Fleming and his son came up from Dunoon ; and that he made no reference to the disappearance of the servant. ^ John M'Allister stated that he met old Fleming outside his own door in Berkeley Terrace on the Sunday, shortly before eleven o'clock, on his way to church. " Had old Fleming always a respectable character? " asked Mr. GifEord. " So far as I know," said the witness. In reply to Mr. Clark, witness never heard anything against his character until the present case came out, and did not know, until he saw it stated in the newspapers, that Fleming had been before the kirk session. " Now, Mr. Clark," said his lordship at this point, " this need not be opened up just now with the witness," and Mr. Clark sat down.^ Charles O'Neil, architect, proved six plans of No. 17 Sandy- ford Place prepared by him (three of which are reproduced in the present volume). In reply to Mr. Clark, witness stated that the floor of the kitchen was composed of a hard bluish stone, which would dry rapidly. The jury at this point desired to see the plans, but Lord Deas told them " that the less they confused themselves with plans the better." The reader, undismayed by this dictum, will observe from the plans of the sunk floor that, in addition to the blood stains in the basement before described, there were marks of blood on the wall at the foot of the stairs ; on the floor of the room in which old Fleming kept his clothes, and also in the lobby near the back door. None of these marks was explained by the evidence. The motive for the prisoner's commission of the crimes libelled, as suggested by the Crown, being her poverty, Thomas Millar, pawnbroker, was called to prove the pawning of goods by Mrs. Adams and her daughter Sarah in May, June, and July in name of " Mary Fraser, Main Street " ; and Thomas 1 It will be observed that Mr. Sloan's evidence flatly contradicts that of old Fleming as to the time spent by the latter in his son's office on the Saturday and Monday. 2 We shall see in the sequel what was the nature of the fama to which the witness referred. Introduction. Eobb, assistant superintendent of police, deponed to his dis- covery in the prisoner's house of forty-one pawn tickets in that name. Sarah Adams said that, before she left the prisoner's service, Mrs. M'Lachlan had sent her to borrow £2 from Jessie MTherson. She got the money. David Caldwell, who had charge of the property, 182 Broomielaw, stated that the prisoner was in arrear with her rent in Jul}-. In reply to Mr. Clark, witness said he had told her that he did not desire to push matters to an extremity. He had no intention of taking immediate steps against her. Two bank officials deponed that, at the date of the crime, old Fleming had £150 and £30 at the credit of his accounts with the Savings Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland respectively — ^the inference being that, in such circumstances, he was unlikely to steal his son's plate for the purpose of raising £2 15s. for a trip to the Highlands. The medical evidence for the prosecution was given by Dr. Watson, who first saw the body, and by Drs. Fleming and Macleod, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, and were examined with reference to their report. Some portions of their evidence we have already noticed. The injuries inflicted upon the deceased were of three classes, viz., (first)- two transverse wounds across the bridge of the nose, and another of similar character across the forehead ; (second) a multiplicity of wounds upon the back of the head and neck, mostly on the right side ; and (third) certain incisions upon each of the hands and wrists. The body, when first seen, lay on its face on the floor between the table and the bed, the bed-clothes and pillows of which were heaped together and stained with blood. A blood-stained sheet was found rolled up under the basin-stand. It was damp, and presented the appearance of having been washed. The upper portion of the body was clad in a chemise and a woollen jacket, both of which were quite damp. The neck and chest of the deceased, and also a portion of the bed- room floor between the table and the hearthstone, appeared to have been washed with water. The furniture of the room was in confusion, and there were various marks of blood on the hearthstone and on the floor beyond the washed area, notably the three footprints before described. The doctors were of opinion that all the injuries inflicted could have been caused by the cleaver produced ; although Dr. Watson thought that the cuts on the wrists must have been made with a sharper instrument. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mr. Clark cross-examined Drs. Fleming and Macleod with reference to the "remarkable bruise" on the back of the body spoken to by Dr. Watson, but not mentioned by them in their report, and of Avhich they had no recollection. On the reading of the report, Lord Deas rightly objected to the passage regarding " evidence of a severe conflict " therein stated to have been obtained in the kitchen, as not proper to a medical i-eport. Dr. Fleming could give no reason in support of this view other than the streaks upon the kitchen floor, caused by the dragging of the body ; but Dr. Macleod maintained that around the circumference of the washed portion of the kitchen lloor he noticed confused footmarks — " they were the marks of a sort of twist or turn of the heels on the floor, and the ball of a foot had also left its marks on the stones. There were, upon the jawbox, upon the inside of the door, upon the doorpost, upon the rug or mat, upon an angle of the wall immediately outside of the kitchen door, upon the upper part of the door of the pantry press close to the kitchen, in the passage between the kitchen and the room, and also upon the corner of the wall at the foot of the stair, maiks of blood. There was also blood on the lowest step of the stair." Upon these marks, coupled with the wounds on the deceased's wrists, he based his opinion. Professor Penny proved his report upon the several articles examined by him as already mentioned. The declarations of the prisoner were then about to be read, when Mr. Clark objected to their admission. They were, he said, vmfairly taken, and did not form the voluntary state- ments of the pannel. The right of the Crown to take declara- tions had been greatly abused in this case, and to admit them would be oppressive to the prisoner and unjust. His objections were as follows: — (1) That the husband of the pannel had been apprehended on the same charge, and had been examined by the Sheriff-Substitute and the Procurator-fiscal before she emitted her hrst declaration, and at a time when the Sheriff and Fiscal had no reason to suspect that the husband was in any way connected with the crime, and that his declaration had been taken as a precognition by which to cross-examine the pannel ; (2) that the three declarations taken from the pannel were not proper declarations or voluntary statements at all, but a series of answers to questions put by the Fiscal as to a witness ; (3) that the examination of the pannel had been Introduction. oppressive in respect of the length of the declaration and the time occupied in the examination ; and (4) that the pannel was subjected to unfair treatment under examination, in respect, as appeared from the second declaration, she was cross- examined about certain articles then in the possession of the Fiscal, which were not shown to her till after the examination with reference to them had been concluded, and which had been done for the purpose of entrapping her into falsehood. Lord Deas repelled these objections, and the declai^ations were then read, which closed the case for the CroAvn.i The evidence for the defence opened with George Paton, the milkman. He stated that he called with his cart as usual at Mr. Fleming's house at twenty minutes to eight on the morning of Saturday, 5th July. His assistant, the boy M'Quarrie, rang the bell; it was answered immediately. Witness saw the door opened " a small bit," but did not see who opened it. No milk was taken that day nor on the Sunday and Monday following. On no other occasions had the milk been refused at that house. Donald M'Quarrie, the historic milkboy, deponed to the same effect. He was there with the milk along with George Paton ; he went up and rang the bell ; old Fleming answered it ; he did not ring more than once, and had not to wait any time before it was answered. He heard the chain being taken off the door before it was opened by old Fleming. The old man was dressed — ^he had on black clothes ; he said he ' ' was IThe Journal of JurisjJrtidence (1862, vol. vi., p. 513), in an article commenting on the manner in which these declarations were taken, observes — " The objects of the examination appear to have been two. Lord Deas explains one of them, which is common to all such examina- tions. ' One great object,' said his lordship, ' is to allow the prisoner an opportunity, if the prisoner thinks proper, to make some explana- tion of the circumstances which may seem to weigh against her.' This we had hitherto understood to be the only object of such examinations ; but in this case at least there would appear to have been another great object. What this was Lord Deas failed to explain, but it may be easily gathered from the circumstances. We regret to say that it appears to have been nothing else but to lead the prisoner into false- hoods with the effect, if not for the purpose, of destroying her credit on every point. . . . Fortunately, examinations in this manner are rare ; but why Lord Deas should have passed these declarations without animadversion is not very apparent. That he would not have been justified in withholding them altogether from the jury may perhaps be admitted ; but a vicious practice in a matter of criminal investigation was certainly a fair subject for criticism by the superior wisdom of the principal Court of judicature." xli Mrs. M'Lachlan. for nae milk." This would be about twenty minutes to eight; that was the ordinary time of getting to Sandyford Place. Witness never knew of old Fleming answering the door before. Mrs. Mary Fullerton or Smith said she had known Jessie M'Pherson for five or six years, and had often heard her speak of the prisoner in friendly terms. She last saw the deceased on Sunday, 28th June, in Sauchiehall Street, when walking with her husband. Mrs. Smith remarked to Jessie that she was looking ill, whereupon the latter said, " I do not feel very happy or comfortable with old Mr. Fleming, for he is actually an old wretch and an old devil " ; she said that very seriously. She also said she would come to see witness on that day fort- night — her Sunday out — when she would tell her something that she did not like to tell before Mrs. Smith's husband — " I cannot tell you what is the cause, because Sandy is with you." Witness knew that the prisoner and Jessie M'Pherson were great friends. Mary MTherson or M'Kinnon, a foster-sister of the deceased, spoke to the affectionate relations subsisting between Jessie and the prisoner. Witness last saw her sister alive a month before the murder, and asked her why she never came to see her. In reply, Jessie said she had so much to do, and her heart was " broken by the old man, who was so inquisitive that the door bell never rang but he must see who was there and know all about them." Martha M'Intyre, a fellow-servant of the deceased, deponed that old Fleming was very inquisitive regarding who was in the house and as to the movements of the servants. When they went out, he had to know where they had gone and what they had been doing. He always inquired particularly about Jessie M'Pherson — ^more than about the other servants. Wit- ness had seen him get out of bed to see who had rung the door bell. Alexander Cameron, police constable, who was summoned by Mr. John Fleming on the discovery of the body, gave evidence as to that gentleman's statement that he had pushed a key out of the lock of the bedroom door, as already mentioned. Witness searched for such a key without success. Ann M'Intosh, sister of the prisoner, stated that the prisoner's husband always gave his wife his wages, amounting to 30s. a week. The prisoner was also in the habit of receiving money from her brother, John M'Intosh, a seaman, after every voyage. zlii Introduction. Witness knew lie had given her twenty-five sovereigns on 9th November last. The prisoner had been in bad health since the birth of her child. Robert Jeffrey, criminal officer, deponed that, when engaged in searching the house after the murder, he found, on 8th or 9th July, in old Fleming's bedroom a grey canvas clothes bag marked with blood. He delivered it to the Procurator- fiscal, and had never seen it since. [Mr. Clark here made inquiry whether the bag referred to had been labelled by the Fiscal, when he was informed that it was not among the articles produced in evidence. ^ A bag was produced and shown to witness, but he said it was not the bag referred to.] The bloody mark he had seen was of the size of a shilling, in the centre of one side of the bag. " Might it not have been something else ? ' ' suggested Lord Deas ; the witness believed it was blood. He had drawn Superintendent M' Call's attention to it at the time. On the same occasion witness also found a strip of cotton cloth spotted with blood under the cover of an easy chair in old Fleming's bedroom. In reply to Lord Deas, these were the only articles found belonging to old Fleming which were marked with blood. Superintendent M'Call, recalled and questioned by Mr. Clark regarding this bag, added that he saw marks of blood upon it. The bag appeared to have been washed after the blood was on it. It was quite dry. The mark extended almost all over the bottom of the bag. Old Fleming had told witness that, on the morning after the murder, he had found the wicket open and the pantry window closed and snibbed on the inside. It was in that state when witness examined it on the following Monday.^ Witness examined the area, but saw no sign of footsteps. Colin Campbell, police constable, deponed that he was on night duty at the time of the murder. Sandyford Place was in his beat, and he knew Mr. Fleming's house. No. 17. At half -past eight or a quarter to nine on the night of Saturday, 5th July (the night after the murder), he was at the door of 1 The authorities, having released old Fleming, apparently had no further use for this bag, which could not help their case against the other prisoner. * Old Fleming, it will be remembered, had stated in his exaniination- in-chief that he found the pantry window open and unfastened on the Saturday morning. xliii Mrs. M'Lachlan. No. 18, outside the railings, when he saw two women oome out of the front door of No. 17. They stood for about five minutes, tlien one went back into the house and shut the door, and the other went away and passed him. The prisoner was not either of the women he had seen that night. Witness fixed the date by the fact that he had posted that night a letter to his father in Oban, which he had written earlier in the evening before going on duty. This closed the evidence for the defence, and at five minutes to five o'clock the Advocate-Depute rose to address the jury on behalf of the Crown. Mr. Giflford's speech was, in the main, a fair and temperate argument upon the evidence, but a note- worthy feature was his silence regarding the many Aveak points in his case and his failure to grapple with certain unexplained facts which did not square with the theory of the prosecution. How, upon that theory, viz., that the prisoner, with every circumstance of savage ferocity, slaughtered her most intimate friend for the sole purpose of plunder, to relieve her own press- ing need, were the following remarkable facts accounted fort — That the upper part of the body had been washed with water subsequent to the infliction of some at least of the injuries ; that the clothing upon it was wet when found; that although the floor of the bedroom had been partially washed, the murderess had been so considerate as not to obliterate the three footprints upon which alone the Crown proved her presence in the house; that these appearances were all presented within a room the door of which was locked and the key removed, and therefore were not explicable on the hypothesis which accounted for the washing of the kitchen, i.e., to conceal all traces of the deed from the vigilant (and then unspectacled) eye of old Fleming ; that the floors of the lobby and kitchen were still moist when observed by Dr. Fleming at five o'clock on the Monday afternoon, yet were dry by ten when examined by Superintendent M'Call; and that after lingering all night upon the scene of her crime till nearly nine o'clock next morning to effect this elabo- rate " redding up " of the premises, thereby enormously increas- ing the risk of detection by the old gentleman in his room on the flat above (who, on his own showing, had been disturbed at four o'clock, and lay awake after six, and, as was otherwise proved, had been up and about the house before twenty minutes to eight), the robber departed with a few dresses and certain zliv Introduction. inconsiderable teaspoons, half of which were plated, leaving in the sideboard the best of the silver (with the existence of which, as a former servant, she must have been well acquainted) and whatever other portable articles of value the house contained.^ Mr. Gifford at the outset very properly reminded the jury that they were trying the prisoner, and not James Fleming — And therefore, while you will consider, while you will anxiously weigh every suggestion which has been made as to the possibility of the murder being perpetrated by somebody else than the prisoner — whether that other person be James Fleming or some other party unknown — you will inquire into these matters solely with the view, and only to the effect, of ascertaining whether or not the prisoner is guilty of the charge which has been imputed to her. That is the object of the investigation. The prosecution has shut out nothing. Every facility has been given, I think every , facility has been given to inquire in the fullest possible way to the bottom of this dark mystery, and if proof exists, if proof has be«n laid before you, if circumstances amounting to proof have been brought out in evidence before you to lead you to suppose that the deed was done not by the prisoner but by some one else, or may have been done by some one else, on reasonable probabilities, you will unquestionably give her the benefit of such a doubt, and acquit her of the charge which has been made against her. But the guilt of James Fleming is not the subject of inquiry at all. It is possible in crimes of this kind that more than one person has connection with it. If guilt is brought home to one, it will not be enough to say " Somebody else had a share in it." If there were more murderers than one, if the prisoner were one of them, you must find a verdict of guilty against her. For the question always is, and the only question is — is the prisoner guilty or is she not guilty? — not had she confederates, not was she alone. These are not the questions, and your verdict will not find anybody else concerned in the crime. That is no part of your verdict; all that your verdict can find is whether or not the prisoner was concerned. This admirable passage is characteristic of the fairness, more usually associated with judicial utterances, which marked Mr. Gififord's tone throughout. He frankly admitted " the extra- ordinary circumstances connected with this case — which distinguish it almost over all others " : the presence of old Fleming in the house when the deed was done, and his behaviour during the three following days. " And you will see, gentle- men," said he, "that the gravest possible suspicion is attached to such a person so acting." Then, having given old Fleming's own version of his conduct, Mr. Gifford observed, " No doubt, 1 " It is very strange, if plunder was the object the murderer had in view, that a sum of money which lay on a shelf in M'Pherson's bed- room was left untouched, and also that several articles of silver plate, including a cruet-stand, were left beside the body." — Glasgow Heraldy 10th July, 1862. Mrs. M'Lachlan. grentlemen, a most extraordinary statement; and you will not wonder when you hear that he was apprehended and that a very serious charge was made against him." Mr, Gifford also admitted that " the statement, extraordinary as it is, is made more extraordinary " by the evidence of the milkboy, and continued, " But, passing from this — ^leaving its inconsistent and its extraordinary character to receive the weight which you think right — I ask you to look at the far more important evidence of guilt affecting the prisoner." Such being the views regarding the position of old Fleming expressed by the Crown prosecutor, whose duty it was to destroy the plea of the defence and, if practicable, to vindicate the man's conduct, it will be of interest to find later how the same facts were represented to the jury by Lord Deas. Mr. Gifford' s address occupied two hours and a half, and on its conclusion Mr. Rutherfurd Clark commenced his speech for the defence. His address, in the opinion of the day, suffered in contrast to that for the prosecution; but it was unfortunate that he was required to address the jury so late as half-past seven o'clock, at the close of the third of three long and strenuous days. It has, moreover, to be borne in mind that Mr. Clark had, as we shall shortly see, greatly hampered the defence by his suppression of a '' Statement," made by the prisoner to her agents six weeks before the trial, which he then had, so to speak, in his pocket, where it evidently caused him much incon- venience. It is sufficient here to mention that in this " State- ment " the prisoner acknowledged having been in the house when the murder was committed; and that Mr. Clark had, after divers anxious consultations with her agents before the trial, decided, against his client's wish, to reserve the same, and to rely upon what he conceived would be the inability of the Crown to prove her presence in the house. i No doubt he was influenced in his decision by the fact that to a similar failure on the part of the prosecutor in proving the requisite opportunity, Madeleine Smith, five years before, owed her life. But the difficulties' involved in the adoption of this course 1 This was not such a dilemma as that in which Charles Phillips was I^laced, when defending Courvoisier on his trial for the murder of Lord William Russell in 1840, by the prisoner's admission to him of his guilt. Mr. Clark's client asserted her innocence ; and it was for the Crown to prove she was in the house that night. zlvi Introduction. by the defence are obvious; the result was that, knowing their case not to be based on fact, they were afraid of eliciting the truth by cross-examination for fear of coming upon evidence which would be fatal to their theory. Had Mr. Clark's bold- ness been justified by success, his conduct would, of course, have been commended; his failure was, after the event, as naturally condemned. The only trace of the influence of the " Statement " visible in his address is afforded by the passage at its close where, refer- ring to the case for the prosecution, he says — " All the Crown can show is this, that the prisoner was with Mr, Fleming in these circumstances in the house, and the prosecutor calls on you to select one of the two as being the guilty party," and then proceeds to argue, even accepting her presence as proved, that, in the circumstances disclosed on the evidence, such might not be inconsistent with her innocence. Mr. Clark having concluded his speech at nine o'clock, amidst loud applause from the audience. Lord Deas intimated that he wasi prepared to proceed with his charge, but, if the jury pre- ferred, he would delay doing so till nest day. The latter course was agreed upon, and the Court then rose. When Lord Deas entered the Court-room on Saturday morn- ing, the last day of the trial, it is stated in the newspapers that he openly carried in his hand, and laid upon the bench before him, the black cap. His lordship was plainly prepared for the worst; and this ominous act would doubtless not be lost upon the jury. Lord Deas commenced his charge about half-past ten, and spoke continuously for four hours. His lordship's charge is characterised by Sir Archibald Alison as " able, but one-sided and unfeeling."^ The manner in which this charge was delivered, and the matter which it con- tained, were afterwards, in certain sections of the local press, made the occasion of violent and unseemly abuse, subversive alike of the dignity of the bench and of the due administration of justice. The gross impropriety of such conduct was, in all respectable quarters, reprobated at the time. But it cannot be gainsaid that the newspaper press, as a whole, disapproved of the undue emphasis laid by Lord Deas upon such of the evidence as made for the prisoner's guilt, and the very different treat- Autohiographi/, ii. 504. xlvii Mrs. M'Lachlan. ment accorded by his lordship to everything adverse to the innocence of Fleming. ^ As an example of this general feeling we may quote the following passage, not from some hysterical local organ, but from the responsible pages of the Law Magazine and Review (1863, vol. xiv., pp. 90-91), the leading English journal of jurisprudence: — The conduct of Lord Deas has been almost universally censured, and we are sorry to be compelled to join in that censure against a British judge of high talent and of undoubted zeal in the discharge of what he believes to be his duty. Instead of maintaining a proper judicial equilibrium, and holding the balance of justice even, he put his foot fiercely into one scale and kicked at the other. We shrink from the tedious and unpleasant task of analysing his charge ; we leave it to the judgment of every intelligent professional and non-professional reader. Others may find in it what we have failed to find. It lasted four hours, and from beginning to end of it there is not one observation favourable to the prisoner ; not one fair consideration of a doubt in her favour ; not one suggestion that any fact renders her guilt a matter of the least doubt. On the contrary, facts that in our humble opinion tell strongly in her favour are either quietly ignored or disposed of by reckless assertion of the most transparent sophistry. . . . No advocate who could be replied to would dare to be so reckless in argument, or, rather, in assertion, for argument must always commend itself somewhat to the reason of others. We believe that it is common — too common — for some Scotch judges to act the part of " senior counsel for the Crown," and to forget their dignity so far as to beseech juries to return verdicts of guilty on very insufficient evidence. This excessive loyalty seems to be peculiar to the Scotch character. The late Lord Campbell intro- duced a modified and comparatively inoffensive form of it into England. He used to boast of his success in obtaining convictions, and talked with patronising complacency of such eminent toxicologists as " Dr. Christison, whose able assistance I had in the trial of Palmer for poisoning." But such undue bias is unbecoming to the bench, unfair to the Crown, and dangerous to the subject, and we hope that the public censure which has fallen upon Lord Deas, who had, and will still have, some reputation to lose, will act as a warning to smaller occupants of the bench who would be more mischievous if they had half his ability. The same journal (p. 88) describes Mr. Gifford's address as " vastly more judicial than the charge of Lord Deas." An example of this occurs with reference to the important fact sworn 1 The Glasgow Herald, having from the first made no secret of its belief in " the wretched woman's " guilt and the complete innocence of old Fleming, was naturally glad to have its opinion backed by an authority so competent as his lordship. In the course of a strong " leader " on the result of the trial, the Herald (22nd September, 1862) said — " Lord Deas's summing up was remarkable for all that could distinguish a judge's charge— dignity, calmness, lucidity, and a searching analysis of every part of the evidence, without a single expression of feeling by which the minds of the jury might have been unduly influenced." xlviii Introduction. to by Mrs. Adams, a Crown witness, that the prisoner had, upon Friday, 4th July, told her she was going to visit Jessie M'Pherson that night, and asked her (Mrs. Adams) to come and attend to her child during her absence. Mr. Gifford thus referred to the incident — " It is an evidence of innocence, frankly I admit, that she asks Mrs. Adams to keep her child, and tells where she is going. That goes against premeditation for murder cer- tainly, but it does not go much further, for it leads you, naturally, to suppose that the person does what she intended to do — go to visit Jessie." The only allusion made by Lord Deas to this (for the prisoner) vital fact is in the course of his statement of what the Crown had proved — '^ That she went out upon Friday evening, and that she had arranged upon the Friday evening with a witness — Mrsi. Fraser, I think it was — to come and keep her child of three years old whom she could not well leave alone ; that Mrs. Fraser did not come. Mr. Gifford — Mrs. Adams. Lord Deas — That Mrs. Adams did not come; that, nevertheless, she dressed herself in a dress which was described to you — part of it being a brown merino gown," &c. Not only is no observation made upon a fact so favourable to the prisoner, admitted by the prosecutor himself to be proof of unpremeditation, but his lordship has even forgotten the name of the witness who swore to it. Lord Deas, having defined his duty as " sitting hei-e for the direct purpose of trying the guilty," made the following remark- able observations upon the conduct of old Fleming : — Now, then, as to the question whether he opened the door to the milkboy, and what time he opened it, you will consider how far it bears on the question of the murder. That is coupled on the part of the prisoner with what is more remarkable, namely, the length of time which elapsed before he took any notice of the disappearance of the servant from the house. But when you couple these two circum- stances — the length of time he allowed to elapse without saying any- thing about the disappearance of the servant from the house, or doing anything to call assistance, and the confusion he undoubtedly got into in giving his testimony about the opening of the door that morning — you will consider whether there was anything in the whole of these state- ments which could even be said to be unsatisfactory ; and you will further consider whether on all the rest of the evidence that was adduced, apart from what is said to be unsatisfactory in these circum- stances, there is anything to inculpate him, or whether that part of the evidence was not quite consistent with and tending to establish his innocence. Now, if that be so — if there is not in the pi'oof a single circumstance even of suspicion against him, and if there is nothing in his own statement unsatisfactory, except that two or three days passed before he gave any alarm about the disappearance, and except xiix Mrs. M'Lachlan. his confusion regarding the milkboy in the morning — you will ask whether that throws any light on the question of the murder or whether, if he had been at the bar, you would have hesitated one moment in giving a verdict in his favour. We can only notice here one or two instances of his lord- ship's treatment of such facts as appeared upon the proof incom- patible with the innocence of Fleming. The policeman who swore he saw two strange women emerge from the house on the Saturday night was, no doubt, " under a misapprehension in regard to one or two things — in the first place, about the night . . . but you likewise can account for it verj' easily by supposing that he mistook the door." It was unlikely that Fleming had disposed of any of his clothing — the police took possession of the house upon the Monday, so that after that he had no opportunity — '' the probability is that if he had done that they would have been traced and found as the prisoner's have been."i Fleming's failure to notice the blood-stained state of the basement flat ' ' would be very little for the purpose of this case, that it founded an observation that he had very little capacity, or was very stupid." With regard to the three screams heard by Fleming in the night, "his own account of that was that he thought the screams proceeded from some loose people outside at the back of the house." ^ Lord Deas disposed with ease of the obtrusive and inconvenient milkboy. " The time for the milkboy to come was between eight and nine o'clock. He says he sometimes came later." This judicial gloss upon the evidence did not pass unchallenged. " Mr. Clark — It was twenty minutes before eight when the 1 Yet for three days old Fleming was alone in the kitchen with a good fire. The Herald (23rd September) upon this point states — " For fear that any waif, however insignificant, which could throw light on the murder might be concealed, they fthe police] took down the water- closet in Sandyford Place ; they cleaned out and minutely searched the cesspool and ashpit, and they dug up the garden behind the premises ; but not a single suspicious article was found. And all this was done before Jessie M'Lachlan was thought of in connection with the case." This, however, cuts both ways, and shows the strong suspicion attach- ing to old Fleming at the time. It is noteworthy that no question as to his clothes was put either to his son, gi-andson, or daughter when in the witness-box. ^ This was, no doubt, Fleming's original version as given to the police ; we know that from Mr. Clark's cross-examination of Superin- tendent M'Call. At the trial, however, he swore " It was a squeal like as if somebody was in distress. I thought that Jessie had got some person in to stop with her." 1 Introduction. milkboy came. That was the statement of both the boy him- self and his master. Lord Deas — We shall see that when we come to the evidence. It does not touch my present observa- tion at all. My observation was that the boy sometimes came sooner and sometimes later, "i The vexed question of whether or not the chain was upon the front door when it was opened by Fleming for the first time after the murder is settled as follows : — The old man was probably up before the milkboy came and found that the door was not upon the chain — ' ' in that case he might very naturally have put the chain upon the door before the milkboy came, and have taken it off again before the milkboy arrived " ; and his loi'dship clinched this argument by adducing his personal experience of persons who had locked their doors, and half an hour afterwards were uncertain whether or not they had done so. Or, if the jury preferred it, they would judge whether the milkboy heard any chain at all, " and not some other movement connected with the opening of the door." In view of the fact that the deceased was proved to have called Fleming '' an auld deevil," his lordship explained that this was due to the dislike of the servants to him — ' ' he was very inquisitive " and " might look a little sharply after them." ^ But perhaps the most striking instance of the partiality displayed by Lord Deas is his treatment of the significant and suggestive incident sworn to by the witness Mrs. Smith, to which his lordship did not refer until re- minded of it by Mr. Clark. It will be remembered that Mrs. Smith met the deceased in the street a fortnight before her death, and remarked that she was looking ill, whereupon Jessie M'Pherson told her that she was very unhappy with Fleming, who was " actually an old wretch and an old devil," and that she could not then tell Mrs. Smith the cause because her husband was present, but said she would call upon the witness for that purpose on her next Sunday out. What was 1 In none of the four contemporary newspaper reports consulted is there any trace in the evidence of the milkboy, Donald M'Quarrie, of the statement here attributed to him by Lord Deas. The only references to the time contained in his evidence as reported are (1) that he called at the house on the Saturday morning at twenty minutes to eight o'clock ; and (2) that that was the ordinary time of getting to Sandyford Plac«. The sole foundation for the observation of Lord Deas is the evidence of James Fleming himself. li Mrs. M'Lachlan. the secret so delicate that the girl could not disclose it to her married friend before that friend's husband? Mrs. Smith never knew, for that day fortnight Jessie M'Pherson was lying dead in the locked room in Sandyford Place. But, seem- ingly, Lord Deas knew. It raised at the time a very natural sus- picion in the mind of Mrs. Smith; " but," said his lordship, '' it raises no suspicion in mine. This woman she met was an old acquaintance of hers, and it is quite a natural thing to suppose that, when she said she had something to tell her, what she might have to say was that she was going to emigrate " ! So Lord Deas was able to assure the jury " that there is cer- tainly no trace in the whole case of anything between the old man and this woman of an improper character at any time." " Circumstances," observed his lordship in another connection, "cannot lie"; and, again, "there may be circumstances of suspicion which might be explained away. You will consider whether the circumstances of suspicion said to be directed against old Fleming in this case would or would not be unsafe to go upon." In conclusion, we may quote the following ingenuous remark to the jury: — "I have said that there is a great deal of the evidence which I do not think it is necessary to trouble you with, although favourable to the Crovm." If it be thought that too much stress has here been laid upon one aspect only of this singular charge, we would remind the reader that, in reviewing the evidence of the prisoner's guilt, every point was put by Lord Deas with a cogency which left no loophole for escape, and the conclusion to which it led was inexorably indicated ; that, in her case, there was a total absence of such reasonable or unreasonable doubts as those by which his lordship was beset in his consideration of the case against James Fleming. Lord Deas concluded his charge at twenty-five minutes past two, when the jury retired to consider their verdict. At twenty minutes to three they returned to Court with a unani- mous verdict of guilty upon both charges as libelled. i While the verdict and sentence were being recorded, Mr. Clark, after 1 The shortness of time occupied by the jury's deliberations — fifteen minutes — was, in view of the fact that the judge took four hours to sum up the evidence, justly characterised in the Press as " indecent." It was afterwards stated that, on their retiring, the foreman went into a corner of the room and requested each juryman to write his verdict on a slip of paper and hand it to him — an ingenious but somewhat per- functory mode of discharging their duty. lii Introduction. an earnest conversation with his client, informed the Court that the prisoner desired to make a statement, either by her own lips or to be read for her. Lord Deas intimated that she could do so in any way she pleased, and the prisoner, throwing back her veil and standing up in the dock, said, " I desire to have it read, my lord. I am as innocent as my child, who is only three years of age at this date." Mr. Clark then read the statement before referred to, which had been communicated by Mrs. M'Lachlan to her agents on 13th August, a copy whereof, made from the original document in the Justiciary Office, Edinburgh, will be found printed in the report of the trial. Its substance is briefly as follow^s : — Mrs. M'Lachlan went to see Jessie M'Pherson on the Friday night, taking with her some rum in Mrs. Campbell's bottle, and reached Sandy ford Place about half -past ten. She found old Fleming still up, and sitting with Jessie in the kitchen. They had a dram from her bottle, and then the old man pro- duced another bottle containing spirits, as to which he and Jessie had some words, the latter remarking, " I've a tongue that would frighten somebody if it w^ere breaking loose upon them." About eleven o'clock old Fleming sent Mrs. M'Lachlan out with his bottle for more drink, and Jessie gave her the key of the lane door. She went to a public-house in North Street, but the shop was shut, so she returned to Sandyford Place, and at the corner of the back lane saw two women, one of whom she recognised and named. She let herself in by the lane door, and locked it. The back door of the house, which she had left open, was closed. She knocked, and after a little it was opened by Fleming, who said he had shut it "on them brutes o' cats." They entered the kitchen, the old man re-locking the back door behind her. She asked, " Where's Jessie? It's time I was going away home." The old man made no reply, and went out to the lobby. She followed, and, hearing moans, entered the bedroom where she saw Jessie lying insensible on the floor, " with her elbow below her and her head down. She had a large wound across her brow, and her nose was cut, and she was bleeding a great deal. There was a large quantity of blood on the floor." Mrs. M'Lachlan threw off her bonnet and cloak, and, while she knelt supporting Jessie's head and shoulders, asked the old man, who had followed her into the room, " What he had done this to the girl for? " He replied that he had not intended liu Mrs. M'Lachlan. to hurt her. He did not appear to be in a passion, and 'Mrs. M'Laclilan was not afraid of him. At her request he brought some warm water from the kitchen, and she began to bathe the injured woman's head, sitting beside her on the floor. When Jessie had partially recovered consciousness Mrs. M'Lachlan proposed to fetch a doctor, but Jessie said, " No, stay here beside me." While she was bathing Jessie's wounds the old man came in with a large tin basin and began to wash up the blood around them on the floor, wiping it with a cloth, which he wrung into the basin. He then, accidentally or otherwise, upset the basin, spilling the bloody water over her feet and skirts, so that her boots were "wet through." After Jessie had somewhat revived she asked Mrs. M'Lachlan to lift her into bed, which, with the old man's assistance, was done. Mrs. M'Lachlan again suggested going for a doctor, but Jessie said " No," and the old man said he would get one in the morning. Jessie, nursed by her friend, lay in bed till the day was break- ing, the old man going to and fro between the room and the kitchen. While they were alone Jessie told Mrs. M'Lachlan that, some weeks before, old Fleming had come into her bed during the night and attempted to take liberties with her ; that she had threatened to tell his son ; that he had begged her not to do so, and offered her money ; that there had been words between them about it ever since; that while Mrs. M'Lachlan was out for the whisky she had begun to take off her clothes, when he again interfered with her ; that she shut her bedroom door upon him ; and that he came back and struck her on the face with something, and felled her. In presence of the old man Jessie said that now " she would just have to tell who did it, and why." "No, no, Jess," said he, " ye'll no' need to do that," adding that he would make up for it to her if nothing was said about the matter. He then made Mrs. M'Lachlan swear upon the family Bible " by the Almighty God, that she would never tell to man, woman, or child any- thing she had seen or heard that night between him and Jess." About three o'clock in the morning Jessie complained of feeling cold. Mrs. M'Lachlan and Fleming assisted her into the kitchen, where she lay on an improvised bed before the fire and shortly fell asleep. Between four and five she got rapidly worse, and asked Mrs. M'Lachlan to fetch a doctor. The latter put on her boots (which, with her stockings, she had previously taken off to dry), and, going into the bedroom, put on Jessie's liv Introduction. French merino gown, hanging there, over her own, "as it was all wet and draggled," together with her own bonnet and cloak. As she went upstairs she met the old man coming down to the kitchen, and told him of her intention. She found the front door locked and the key removed ; and, returning to the kitchen, insisted that Fleming should let her out as the girl was dying. He said he would not. She again went upstairs, intending to open the windows and call for aid. She had opened the parlour shutters and window, but saw no one stirring at the back, and was going into the dining-room to look out in front when she heard a noise in the kitchen, and, running down, saw the old man standing over the prostrate girl and striking at her head with a cleaver. She stood on the stairs scream- ing, ''Help, help! " and the old man, pausing in his ghastly work, looked up and saw her. As he came towards her she cried, " Oh, let me away; let me go; for the love of God, let me go away! " He assured her that he would not harm her, and said that " he kent frae the first she [Jessie] cou'dna live, and if any doctor had come in he [Fleming] would have to answer for her death, for she would have told." Mrs. M'Lachlan was terrified, and did not know what to do. He told her that her life was in his power, as, if she informed upon him, he would deny it, and charge her with the murder ; but if both of them kept the secret, no one could discover by whom it was done. '' He said that the best way would be for him to say that he found the house robbed in the morning, and to leave the larder window open." With this view he gave her the dresses, telling her to put them out of the way. He then dragged the body " by the oxters " into the bedroom, and, having '' dichted up " the kitchen, burned certain things (including his shirt) in the fire, and changed his clothes. He went out to the cellar for coals, which he put on the fire. The door bell rang, and Fleming bade Mrs. M'Lachlan answer it. She refused, and he went up to the front door himself. It was the milkboy. " The old man took no jug up with him. He was in his shirt sleeves when he went up, but in a coat when he came down again. He brought no milk with him." He then gave her the plate, saying she could either pawn it or dispose of it along with the dresses. At half -past eight old Fleming let her leave the house, unlocking for her both the back and the lane doors, and Mrs.. Iv Mrs. M'Lachlan. M'Lachlan, carrying the plate and dresses in a bundle, went home, and was admitted by her lodger, Mrs. Campbell. The reading of this startling document occupied forty minutes, and its effect upon most of those present in Court may well be imagined. No one knew what would happen next — would Lord Deas defer sentence so that the truth or falsehood of the prisoner's statement might be investigated by the Crown, or would his lordship himself question her upon it there and then? Lord Deas, however, was equal to the occasion, unpre- cedented though it was. After a brief pause, his lordship addressed the prisoner in terms to which the epithets " harsh and unmerciful " were later in some quarters applied. He described the murder in the manner in which he conceived it to have been committed, and informed the pannel that he en- tirely concurred in the verdict delivered by ''as attentive and intelligent a jury as ever I saw in the box."i With regard to her statement, his lordship said that, in his experience as counsel both for and against prisoners, and also as a judge, he never knew an instance in which the statements made by them after conviction ' ' were anything else but in their substance falsehoods." "It is," said he, " my imperative duty, after what has been now stated deliberately in writing for you, to say that there is not upon my mind a shadow of a suspicion that that old gentleman had anything whatever to do with that murder." The statement, continued Lord Deas, " conveys to my mind the impression of a tissue of as wicked falsehoods as any to which I ever listened, and in place of tending to rest any suspicion against the man whom you wished to implicate, I think if anything were awanting to satisfy the public mind of that man's innocence it would be that most incredible state- ment which you have now made." On the latter point, at least, Lord Deas, as we shall soon see, was totally mistaken. His lordship having repeated his concurrence in the verdict — ■ 1 According to the report of the trial, the following were the only occELsions when the jury verbally manifested the attention and intelli- gence thus commended by his lordship : — (1) When they pointed out that old Fleming had stated his age at seventy-eight ; (2) when they asked for the plans to be laid before them ; and (3) when, upon a question arising between Mr. Clark and the judge regarding the accuracy of the latter's notes of Sarah Adams' evidence, " one jury- man intimated that he thovight the answer was qualified as stated by Mr. Clark. ' Ay ? ' said Lord Deas interrogatively ; whereupon the juror sat back with a red face" {Daily Mail report). In none of these instances was the jury's intelligence appreciated by the bench. Ivi Introduction, " indeed no other verdict would have been consistent with the ends of justice " — formally pronounced sentence of death, adjudging the pannel to be executed on the 11th day of October next, and concluding with the prescribed official recommendation to the Divine mercy. Whereupon the doomed- woman in the dock exclaimed, " Mercy! aye. He'll ha'e mercy, for I'm innocent! " The prisoner was then removed, and the Court rose. In commenting on the result of the trial. Sir Archibald Alison remarks — She had not a fair trial ; the minds of the jury were made up before they entered the box. This was proved by their bringing in a verdict in nineteen [fifteen] minutes, in a case where the evidence had occupied three days. There was a miscarriage of justice ; but it arose from the publicity of the proceedings, not their secrecy. A calm consideration of the case would have led to a verdict of the theft proven, but the murder not proven — which was substantially that at which the Home Secretary arrived after the country had been convulsed on the subject, and a great deal more evidence had been taken with closed doors. ^ The result of the trial was variously received by the Press. The Herald was almost alone in its enthusiastic expression of whole-hearted approval.^ Other newspapers, as we have already indicated, took the opposite view, and animadverted with greater freedom than discretion upon the manner in which judge and jury had discharged their respective duties. But the more general opinion undoubtedly was that, regard being had to the perplexing circumstances of the case and the fresh element introduced into it by the prisoner's statement, it would be unsafe without further inquiry to carry out the irrevocable sentence of the law. The newspapers of the day contained many just and temperate comments upon the trial, but consideration of space only permits the quotation of the following excerpt from a leading article in the London Daily Telegra'ph: — No tittle of evidence, strange to say, was brought forward to show the previous relations between Mr. Fleming, senior, his family, the 1 Autobiography, ii. 507. 2 A candid correspondent thus admonished the editor of that journal — " You, sir, are a partisan, and view everything in a false light — very much in the manner of the poor Anderstcn donkey on whom some person had very wickedly put green spectacles, when the animal quite innocently commenced to eat shavings, thinking them grass. This, sir, is what you are doing— you see everything through the medium of these celebrated spectacles introduced into Court on the nose of ' the old gentleman,' Fleming." — Glasgow Herald, 30th September, 1862. Ivii Mrs. M'Lachlan. servants, the deceased woman, or the prisoner. The one circum- stance clearly established in his favour was that at the time of the murder he stood in no obvious want of money. The single fact indisputably proved against the prisoner was that she was in possession of some of Jes-'sie M'Pherson's property immediately after the com- mission of the crime ; but there was nothing further to connect her with it. On this fact, or rather presumption, the Glasgow jury have found her guilty. Upon her conviction she made a fresh statement through her counsel, to the effect that it was true she had been in the house on the night of the murder, that during her absence to purchase drink the deed had been committed by old Mr. Fleming, and that after- wards she had been bribed to silence. This statement the judge char- acterised as a tissue of falsehoods. Now, we have no -wish to impugn the justice of either the Scotch jury or of Lord Deas. It is certain that Jessie M'Lachlan was in some form or other an accomplice, whether after or before the fact we do not say. It is impossible, how- ever, to believe, on the evidence before us, that the prisoner left her home with the deliberate intention of killing Jessie M'Pherson, and almost as difficult to credit that the crime was committed by her, alone and unassisted. An awful mystery still hangs over this strange tragedy — a mystery which the present trial has failed to clear up. It has been proved, indeed, that the prisoner is guilty of some participa- tion ; but till it is proved to what degree her guilt extends, and whether she is the sole or principal criminal, we cannot think the sentence of the law can be justly carried into effect. There must be more inquiry before Jessie M'Lachlan should be sent to her last account as the murderess of Jessie IM'Pherson. The public excitement which marked the opening of the trial and attended the progress of the case reached its highest pitch on Saturday- afternoon on the publication of the charge, the verdict, and the prisoner's statement. i The newspaper offices were besieged, the demand for copies, continuing into the small hours, is said to have exceeded all previous records, even that occasioned bv the famous trial of Madeleine Smith. Some idea of the popular ferment may be gathered from the following notice in the Daily Mail : — ' ' The gentleman who, in the scramble in the crowd in front of our office, shortly after eight o'clock on Saturday evening, lost one of the skirts of his coat can have the lost skirt returned to him on applying at our office." The first question naturally suggested by the prisoner's state- ment was as to the time when and the circumstances in which 1 " In a recent number we stated that several persons had become insane by brooding over the wrongs of Mrs. M'Lachlan, and had been removed to Gartnavel Lunatic Asylum. In addition to these we learn that cases of extreme nervous irritability, arising from the same cause, have occurred in the private practice of medical gentlemen : and, finally, that a female pauper in the Town's Hospital has taken the matter so much to heart that she has gone mad too." — Glasgow Herald, 10th October, 1862. Iviii Introduction. it had been made by her. Messrs. Dixon, Strachan & Wilson, the agents for the defence, hastened to satisfy the public upon this point. On Saturday, 20th September, immediately after their client's conviction, these gentlemen addressed to the local Press a letter^ giving this information, which appeared in all the Glasgow newpapers on Monday, the 22nd. In it the agents stated that when they first visited Mrs. M'Lachlan in prison she did not know that old Fleming had been liberated, and insisted to them " that Mr. Fleming would surely clear her." At a subsequent interview, upon her repeating that expecta- tion, the agents informed her that the old man had been dis- charged from custody, which she refused to believe. The prison officials would give her no information, so she sent for her husband, from whom she learned that such was the fact, and told him to inform her agents that she had a communica- tion to make to them. At this time the indictment had not been served — it was not served till 30th August — and the agents were not aware of the evidence that might be brought against her or of the names of the Crown witnesses. No information whatever relative to any part of the case had been communicated to Mrs. M'Lachlan by them. Mr. Wilson visited her accordingly on Tuesday, 12th August, and to him she verbally gave the substance of the statement. Mr. Wilson informed Mr. Dixon, who went next day (13th) to see her on the subject, when she repeated her statement to him, of which he took notes at the time. " From these notes taken bv Mr. Dixon on this occasion, and from further conversations with her, had by Mr. Dixon and ^Ir. Strachan together, in regard to details, the statement which was read to-day was written out." It was written out in her own words, and was intended for counsel's information in consulting as to the course to be taken upon it. After careful consideration of the case against her, counsel advised the agents not to admit that she was present in the house by putting in the statement as a special defence. On the last day of the trial, however, Mrs. M'Lachlan sent for her counsel and agents before the Court met, and insisted that the statement should be read in open Court. The publication of this letter provoked violent discussion, as indeed did every matter relating to this extraordinary case. Those newspapers to whom the innocence of Fleming was an 1 See Appendix I. Ux Mrs. M'Lachlan. article of faith did not hesitate to denounce the whole affair as a cunning device of the agents to save their client's neck. As these gentlemen were well known and respectable members of their profession, and, as such, had a reputation to lose, it was obvious that some other explanation of their conduct must be found. So their good faith was tacitly admitted; and the ground was shifted to the question of the state of Mrs. M'Lachlan's knowledge as to the case against her at the time when she made her statement. To this important point we shall return when we have to consider her statement in the light of the fresh evidence afterwards adduced in its support. Sir Archibald Alison, whose intimate knowledge of the case lends great weight to his opinion, writes as follows: — This statement bore the mark of truth ; and as it coincided in a remarkable way with the evidence, and explained much in the caae which was otherwise inexplicable, it made a prodigious impression, and led to meetmgs in Glasgow and all parts of Scotland, praying the Crown to stay execution, and order further inquiry. This request was acceded to by Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary ; and the investigation, which was also prayed for by the Lord Provost of Glasgow and myself, was speedily commenced, and conducted partly before me and partly before INIr. Young, afterwards Solicitor-General, who was appointed Commissioner by the Home Secretary to conduct the investigation.! Meanwhile that large section of the public who either believed her innocent or held that the evidence against her did not warrant a conviction, had ample opportunity of expressing their opinion. Two memorials to the Home Secretary were prepared, one by Mrs. M'Lachlan's counsel and agents, setting forth the legal grounds upon which they craved a respite of the sentence and an inquiry into the case by the Crown authorities in Edinburgh (of which, unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain a copy), and another, intended for signature by the general public. The latter was in the following terms : — Unto the Right Honourable Sir George Grey, K.C.B., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Memorial of the undersigned inhabitants of Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Humbly showeth — That in the case of Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, who is at present confined in the Prison of Glasgow, under sentence of death, your memorialists respectfully submit — 1st. That, on a careful perusal of the evidence laid before the jury, they feel satisfied that the same does not warrant the verdict returned. ^ Autobiography, ii. 504-505. Ix Introduction. 2nd. That in the peculiar circumstances of the case they deem it imperative that an inquiry be made by the Crown into the whole matter, and particularly the statement of Mrs. M'Lachlan, which your memorialists are assured was made by her on the 13th of August last, before the precognition of the witnesses was completed, and which statement was not known to, or in any way brought under the notice of, the jury before their verdict was returned. 3rd. That this inquiiy is the more necessary because, as your memorialists are informed, additional evidence has been discovered since the trial, which, if previously known, would, in all probability, have materially affected the issue. 4th. That in the meantime a respite of the sentence be granted ; and, upon the above inquiry being made, that the Crown be graciously pleased to interpose further in the case as shall appear just. And your Memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Thirteen hundred subscription sheets, each affording space for ninety names, were circulated throughout the city, and the prisoner's agents received applications for additional copies from all the principal towns in Scotland, and even from England. On Friday, 26th September, '' a preliminary meeting of parties favourable to holding a public meeting to memorialise the Home Secretary to delay the execution of Mrs. M'Lachlan, now under sentence of death, until a further judicial investigation be made into the whole circumstances of the case," was held in the Religious Institution Rooms. Cotmcillor Clark presided over a crowded meeting, notice of which had been given by advertise- ment. Even the Herald devoted three columns to a report of the proceedings. It was resolved to call a public meeting of the inhabitants to consider the whole matter; and a large com- mittee of "representative citizens " (including several members of Town Council) was appointed to carry out the necessary arrangements and to decide as to sending a deputation to wait upon the Lord Advocate and Sir George Grey. The same day the following important letter was written by Professor (after- wards Lord) Lister^ to the editor of the Herald : — Sir, — I have been surprised to see my name figuring in your columns in connection with the Sandy ford murder case. It is true that I have privately expressed the opinion that the medical features of the tragedy are in remarkable accordance with the prisoner's statement ; but I have given no warrant for the public appearance of that opinion. — I am, &c., Joseph Lister. 17 Woodside Place, Sept. 26, 1862. ITlien Regius Professor cf Surgery in Glasgow University. It will be observed that this distinguished authority differs in opinion from his colleague and successor. Dr. Macleod. E Izi Mrs. M'Lachlan. We also read that in Sandy ford Church " a most eloquent and admirable discourse was preached last Sabbath forenoon by Dr. M'Duff with reference to this case of murder engaging so much attention. He showed how the smallest ingredients sometimes brought home, under the eye of Providence, the surest results of guilt." The reverend doctor was evidently no " M'Lachlanite." Whether or not old Fleming personally profited by this discourse is not recorded; but from what was stated in several newspapers it would appear that the old gentle- man had not much inducement to linger in Glasgow. On leaving the Court after giving his evidence, he was assailed by groans, hoots, and hisses from the crowd, by whom he would have been roughly handled had he not made his escape in a cab. On his seeking refuge at Dunoon, " popular indignation followed him thither, and this usually quiet and decorous place " became the scene of more hostile demonstrations. On one occasion, being recognised after a visit to the local barber, he was actually stoned; and the unfortunate barber only appeased the fury of the crowd by throwing into the sea the shaving-tackle employed upon his unpopular customer. This scandalous persecution seems to have been long continued, the old man being mobbed at Greenock so late as the end of November. Nor was he the only sufferer; innocent strangers of similar venerable aspect were, by a regrettable error, pursued and hustled in the streets. One paper, however, gives a different and less exciting account of his condition after the trial — James Fleming at Innellan. — We learn that old Mr. Fleming is at present residing at this favourite Tvatering-place. It is said that he is quite at home, reading with deep interest the various comments of the newspapers on the result of the recent trial. We also hear that letters from various parties pour in upon him daily. This is the last we shall see of old Fleming ; let us hope that his position was rendered less painful by requests for autographs and the perusal of his daily Herald.^ 1 So prominently had the editor identified the Herald with the cause of old Fleming that a correspondent inquired if it was the fact, as he had been credibly informed, that I\Ir. John Fleming was con- nected with, or had sufficient influence to direct the course adopted by, that journal. The editor replied that Mr. John Fleming had not then, and never had, any connection with the paper, and was " totally unknown, excepting by name, to the editor and to every member of his literary sisLS:'— Glasgow Herald, 8th October, 1862. Ixii Introduction. Meanwhile, in almost every town throughout the country, meetings were held in support of the petition, and on 29th Sep- tember the public meeting before referred to took place in Glasgow. '' The City Hall was crowded to overflowing, and large numbers were unable to gain an entrance." The chair- man intimated that up to the time of speaking nearly 50,000 signatures had been adhibited to the petition in that city alone. A letter from the Lord Provost was read intimating that he and Sir Archibald Alison, Sheriff of Lanarkshire, had addressed a joint communication on the subject to Sir George Grey, praying for an inquiry; several lengthy speeches, some of them relevant to the matter in hand, were made; and resolutions as to the necessity for further investigation, the memorialising of the Home Secretary, and the appointment of a deputation to wait upon him and the Lord Advocate thereanent, were unanimously carried. The same day a crowded public meeting was held at Edinbiu-gh, in the Queen Street Hall, numbers being unable to gain admittance, when similar resolutions were agreed to. " In the course of the proceedings the chairman intimated that the Hev. Dr. Guthrie, who was unavoidably absent, had expressed his sympathy with Mrs. M'Lachlan, and had recommended every man and woman in Edinburgh to sign the petition in favour of her respite." On 30th September an investigation into the case was com- menced by Sir Archibald Alison and the Procurator-fiscal, on instructions from the Lord Advocate, when certain witnesses were examined. The inquiry, which was held in private, was con- tinued from day to day. On 3rd October the deputation appointed by the public meeting waited on the Lord Advocate in Edinburgh, who assured them that the fullest possible investiga- tion would be made into the whole case. The chairman of the meeting had received a letter from Sir George Grey to the effect that it was quite unnecessary for the proposed deputation to go to London, as the Home Secretary was in communication with the Lord Advocate with a view to a full inquiry into the facts, for which ample opportunity would be given. On Saturday, 4th October — a week before the date fixed for the execution — the Lord Provost received the following letters from the Home Office : — WhitehaU, 3rd Oct./62. My Lord, — I am to signify to you the Queen's commands that the Ixiii Mrs. M'Lachlan. execution of the sentence of death passed on Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now in Glasgow Jail, be respited until Saturday, the 1st day of November next. I am, my lord, your lordship's obedient servant, George Gkey. The Lord Provost of Glasgow. Whitehall, 3rd October, 1862. My Lord, — I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to inform you that he has thought it right under all the circumstances to advise Her Majesty to respite the execution of Jessie M'Lachlan until Saturday, the 1st of November next ; and he requests that you will have the goodness to cause it to be clearly explained to the convict that the respite has been granted only for the purpose of allowing time for some further investigation, and that if that should not confirm the truth of the statement made by her as to her share in the transaction, no hope can be held out to her of the commutation of the capital sentence. — I have the honour to be, my lord, your obedient servant, H. Waddington. With reference to the inquiry then in progress by the Sheriff and Procurator-fiscal, the opinion was very generally expressed — and even shared by the Herald — ^that no investigation conducted by local oflBcials, whatever their integrity, who had been con- nected with the recent prosecution would be satisfactory to the public or consistent with the ends' in view. Accordingly, the announcement, on 13th October, of the appointment by the Home Secretary of Mr. George Young, Sheriff of Haddington, ^ as Commissioner, under whom the inquiry would be conducted, was welcomed by both parties. Mr. Young's position as leader, after the Lord Advocate (Moncreiff) and the Solicitor-General (Maitland), of the Scots bar eminently fitted him for the dis- charge of this delicate and anomalous office. On 17th October the Crown Commissioner entered upon his duties, the scope of which is defined in hisi letter to Sir George Grey of 15th May, 1863.^ It seems unfortunate that the Commissioner " had no power to compel the attendance of a witness or to administer an oath," his function being purely extrajudicial. Within the limits appointed by his commission, however, Mr. Young 1 George Young, Lord Young (1819-1907), was called to the bar in 1840 ; Sheriff of Inverness, 1853 ; Sheriff of Haddington, 1860 ; Solicitor- Genei-al, 1862 ; Lord Advocate, 1869 ; raised to the bench, 1874 ; and resigned, 1905. 2 See Appendix IIL (4). Ixiv Mr. George Young, the Crown Commissioner. {From a couteinporari/ ■photoqraiih.) Introduction. examined many "witnesses, notes of whose evidence were trans- mitted by him to the Home Secretary, the purport of which we shall afterwards consider. The proceedings were conducted with closed doors, the only persons present besides the Com- missioner being the Procurator-fiscal (Mr. Gemmel), as represent- ing the prosecution; Mr. Dixon, as agent for Mrs. M'Lachlan; a shorthand writer, and a clerk. Sir Archibald Alison states that he was requested by Mr. Young to sit with him and conclude the inquiry, but that in view of his (Sir Archibald's) official position as the public officer who had superintended the precognition against the accused, he deemed it better not to do so.' The inquiry was concluded on the 20th, the result communi- cated to the Home Secretary on the 24th, and on the 28th the following letter was received by the Lord Provost from Sir George Grey : — WhitehaU, 28th Oct., 1862. My Lord, — I am to signify to you the Queen's commands that the execution of the sentence of death passed upon Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now in Glasgow Jail, be respited until further significance of Her Majesty's pleasure. I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's obedient servant, G. Gbey. The Lord Provost of Glasgow. Mrs. M'Lachlan was informed by the Lord Provost, in the condemned cell in the North Prison, shortly before midnight, that a reprieve had been granted. " Will there be naething done on Saturday, then? " she asked, and it was explained to her that the execution would not take place. However grateful this act, whether of mercy or of justice, may have been to the convict and her supporters, it was bitterly resented by the Herald. The editors of that paper and of the Morning Journal (obliquely referred to by the former as " the woman's organ ") were upon terms reminiscent of the mutual relations of Mr. Pott and Mr. Slurk and the editorial amenities of Eatanswill. The Morning Journal had abused both judge and jury with amazing virulence ; the Herald, though employmg less picturesque invective, had been equally severe upon such as dared to question the soundness of the verdict. The " Organ " hailed the respite as a personal triumph; the Herald bewailed Autobiography, ii. 505. Mrs. M'Lachlan. it as a public calamity.^ The discussion was by no means con- fined to the local Press ; the newspapers throughout the country- propounded in leading articles opinions no less vigorous than varied, while abandoning their correspondence columns to the amateur lawyer and detective. A notable contribution to the controversy was the lengthy and illogical letter of " Inquirer,'" published in the Scotsman on the morning of the reprieve and honoured by a reprint in the Times (4th November, 1862), the writer of which was the Hon. Mrs. Norton. The views of this celebrated lady were in closer accord with those of the Herald than with the facts of the case. On the morning of Saturday, 8th November, Mr. Stirling, the Governor of the North Prison, received the following com- munication from the Crown agent : — Crown Office, Edinburgh, 6th Nov., 1862. Sir, — I beg to inform you that I have received Her Majesty's con- ditional pardon in favour of Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, who was at a Justiciary Court holden at Glasgow in September, 1862, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death for the same, pardoning the said Jessie M'Intosh or IM'Lachlan of the said crime, and sentence passed upon her for the same, upon condition of her being kept in penal servitude for the term of her natural life. I have therefore to request that you intimate such conditional pardon to the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, and acknowledge receipt of the letter. — I am, sir, your most obedient servant, Andrew Murray, Crown Agent.^ 1 " Trial by jury, the palladium of British liberty, has been sub- verted. The unreasoning public have been taught that, if they only cry loud enough, they can snatch a convicted murderess out of the hands both of the High Court of Justiciary and of the British Executive. They, or their organs, have denounced the judge as a hard-hearted wretch and bloodthirsty officer of the law ; they have stigmatised the jury as idiots or savages ; they have yelled execrations into the places of business of these gentlemen ; and they have cursed them on the streets and spat upon them in public omnibuses." — Glasgow Herald,. 30th October, 1862. - The following is a translation of the original Latin text of the remission : — Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of Great Britain, Defender of the Faith. To all liege men to whom our present letters shall come, greeting. Whereas Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan was, at a Circuit Court of Justiciary, held at Glasgow in the month of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, convicted of murder, and sentence of death was pronounced against her for the same, we, in consideration of certain circumstances humbly represented to us, and of our Royal prerogative, proper motive, Royal clemency, and good pleasure, have remitted, indemnified, and pardoned, and by these presents remit, indemnify, and pardon the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan of the said crime and sentence pronounced against her for the same, under condition that she be kept in penal servitude for the terra of her natural life. In witness whereof/' Ixvi Introduction. Immediately upon receipt of this letter the Governor pro- ceeded to the condemned cell and intimated to the convict her conditional pardon. She received the news with composure, but seemed disappointed at the decision. "And I'm tae be kept in jail a' my days ! " was her only comment. On Tuesday, 11th November, she was removed to the General Prison of Perth, there to imdergo her commuted sentence. Mrs. M'Lachlan's dissatisfaction with the via media found by the Home Secretary was shared by all the parties concerned; and the question since put, not unreasonably, in similar circum- stances was asked, " If the woman is guilty, why is she not hanged; if she is innocent, why is she sent to penal servitude for life?" This anomalous state of matters was the occasion of many weighty articles in the British Press, advocating the desirability of allowing accused persons to give, subject to cross- examination, evidence on their own behalf, and the necessity for the constitution of a Court of Criminal Appeal — needful reforms only of late years effected in England, the latter of which has not yet been extended to Scotland. ^ The popular we have ordered our seal, appointed by the Treaty of Union to be kept and used in Scotland, in room and place of the Great Seal of the same, to be appended to these presents. At our Court at St. James's on the 5th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1862, and of our reign the twenty -sixth. By signature of our Sovereign Lady the Queen above written. Written to the seal, and registered the sixth day of November, 1862. James Hay Mackenzie, Depute-Keeper of the Seal. 1 The unsatisfactory nature of the situation did not escape the notice of that veteran reformer, Lord Brougham. In a letter addressed to Lord Radnor, an extract from which appeared in the Laao Magazine and Revietv (November, 1862), Lord Brougham said — " You have lately seen a scandal in Scotland ; the agitation over great part of the country on the subject of a conviction for murder. Petitions for pardon, numerously signed, are sent up, and a meeting was held at Glasgow, attended by thousands, to pass resolutions in favom- of such an applica- tion nominally, but really against the learned judge and respectable jury who tried the indictment. The Home Secretary, in whose department the consideration of such a petition is, happens to be a lawyer; but this is a mere and rare accident. His two predecessors were not ; and I do not recollect an instance of a lawyer in practice holding that office. Ought not this and all such cases to be brought before the Department of Justice? But this case, and the scandal of the agitation upon it, in all probability never would have arisen had the attempt I so often made succeeded, to extend my Evidence Act to defendants in criminal cases, on their desiring to be examined, and, of course, sub- jected to the sifting of cross-examination. It is plain that the woman convicted would have desired to be examined, and her sifted testimony would either have led to an acquittal or confirmed the verdict ; in either case the public mind would have been satisfied." Ixvii Mrs. M^Lachlan. discontent following upon the decision of the Home Office found vent in a memorial to the Prime Minister, craving Lord Palmer- ston, inter alia, " to make public the causes and the evidence which have led to the result of the prisoner's relief from the capital sentence." The memorial, which had a pronounced " Flemingite " flavour, was, according to the Herald, signed by 2709 citizens of Glasgow. Its receipt was formally acknow- ledged by Lord Palmerston, but we hear nothing further of the matter. Meanwhile the legal advisers of old Fleming, Messrs. Smith & Wright, writers, Glasgow, had not been disposed to " let sleeping dogs lie." On 31st October, after the granting of the reprieve, they addressed to Sir George Grey, on behalf of their venerable client, a request that he would " communicate his opinion that the alteration upon the sentence was not intended to lead to the inference that, in his judgment, Mr. Fleming was otherwise than innocent of the murder." The Home Secretary, in his reply of 4th November, intimated that he " must decline to express any opinion on the point." On the 7th the law agents wrote again, urging the necessity of a renewed investiga- tion to give their client an opportunity of testing " the truth of any statement which may have been made at the late inquiry tending to criminate him. That inquiry was private, and Mr. Fleming was not represented at it."i They also objected to the inference drawn by the public from the fact that, in the first respite, it was stated that there would be no commutation unless Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement was substantiated. The answer of the Home Secretary was as follows : — WhitehaU, 14th November, 1862. Gentlemen,— I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to acknow- ledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst. , in which you request that he will order a renewed investigation in reference to the recent 1 The interests of old Fleming may be said to have been safeguarded in so far that the Procurator-fiscal cross-examined all witnesses adduced by Mrs. M'Lachlan's agent, and himself led such proof as he thought proper in support of the verdict. The Commissioner had intimated that he could not compel any one to attend for examination, and would take the evidence of those who chose to come ; but Messrs. Smith & Wright did not apparently see their way to advise their client to avail himself of this general invitation. Further, as was pointed out by the Lord Advocate in the debate in the House of Commons after- mentioned, the question was one between the condemned v^oman and the Crown alone, and no third party having an interest in her execution could be allowed to step in between her and the Royal prerogative. Ixviii Introduction. murder of Jessie M'Pherson in Glasgow, in order that Mr. Fleming may be afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence to test the truth of any statements which may have been made at the late inquiry tending to criminate him. I am to inform you in reply that Sir George Grey instituted the inquiry to which you refer under the very peculiar cir- cumstances of this case, in order to assist him in deciding whether suflScient doubt existed as to the share which the prisoner, Jessie M'Lachlan, had in the commission of the crime to justify a commutation of the capital sentence. The result satisfied Sir George Grey that the whole facts relating to the case had not been submitted to the jury at the trial, and that sufficient doubt did exist on the point which I have mentioned to justify him in recommending a commutation of the sen- tence to penal servitude for life. But the result of the inquiry was far from removing all uncertainty, nor could it be justly held to fix a share of the guilt on any other person, especially when such person was not represented at the inquiry. With reference to your present request, it is not in Sir George Grey's power to direct a judicial inquiry to be held upon the guilt or innocence of any person not charged with any offence, especially when, as in the present case, according to what he is informed is the law of Scotland, the person on whose behalf you make the request having been examined as a witness in a criminal trial, cannot afterwards be subjected to a criminal prosecution in respect of the matter of such trial. — I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, G. Olive. Messrs. Smith & Wright, 99 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow. On the 17th the agents returned to the charge, complaining that the inquiry had " brought suspicion on the hitherto unblemished character of Mr. Fleming in a manner most injurious to himself and his family, "i and renewing their demand for the publication of the evidence taken by Mr. Young and the appointment of a Royal Commission. Sir George Grey replied on the 21st by referring the agents to his letter to them of the 14th as the only answer he could give, and the corre- spondence then closed. This incident was, as usual, very differently treated by the party organs. The " M'Lachlanite " journals held that old Fleming's agents had by no means improved his position in eliciting from the Home Secretary the reasons which led him to commute the sentence, and expressed the opinion that they would have been better advised to let well alone. The " Flemingite " press, however, waxed exceeding wroth at the aspersion cast by Sir George Grey upon their blameless 'protege, and unanimously urged the old gentleman to appeal unto Caesar — as represented by the High Court of Parliament. Nothing noteworthy is heard of this caiise ceUhre until the 1 With reference to the " hitherto unblemished character " of old Fleming, see Excerpts from Session Minute-book of Anderston United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow. — Appendix III. (3). Ixiz Mrs. M'Lachlan. following year, when, on Friday, 2J:th April, 1863, in the House of Commons, Mr. Stirling of Keir, member for Perthshire, moved for copies of the proceedings at the trial of Mrs. M'Lachlan and of the evidence taken at the subsequent private inquiry held at Glasgow by Mr. Young, then Solicitor-General for Scotland. He went over in detail the circumstances of the case, and said that he wished to learn from the Home Secretary what was the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Crown, ajid to what it extended; whether it enabled the Crown to remit the penalty to a convict, or entitled the Minister of the Crown at pleasure to constitute a secret tribunal or Court of Criminal Appeal, by which the sentences of the Supreme Courts of England and Scotland might be revised and reversed. Mr. Stirling censured the course taken by the Home Secretary and the manner in which the private inquiry had been conducted, and stated that the Fleming family anxiously desired the publica- tion of the evidence on which the Home Secretary had acted, as a belief in the old man's guilt seemed to be implied in the action of the authorities. Sir George Grey said that, after a minute and careful con- sideration of the case, he had requested the Lord Advocate to direct an inquiry to be made into the truth of the written state- ment put in by Mrs. M'Lachlan. In some respects the state- ment was corroborated by the subsequent inquiry. The impression left on his mind, and it was a very decided one, was that there was sufficient doubt as to the share taken by Mrs. M'Lachlan in the crime to make it inexpedient that the capital sentence should be executed; and, as there was a very strong feeling in Scotland upon the matter, he felt he would have been wanting in his duty if he had not intei-posed and obtained for the woman the merciful prerogative of the Crown. At the same time, there was no doubt, according to her own statement, that she was an accessory after the fact, and the punishment to which she was now consigned was that which she would have incurred as an accessory after the fact if she had been tried in England. With regard to the evidence taken by Mr. Young, he had no objection to produce it, but he was afraid it would go to establish a precedent for converting the House of Commons into a Court of Criminal Appeal. He had felt in this case that, consistently with his duty, he could not have taken any course other than that which he had pursued. So far as the verdict was concerned, he thought the jury, upon Ixx Introduction. the evidence tendered to them, could have arrived at no other conclusion; but it must be borne in mind that the statement subsequently read on behalf of the woman was not got up for the occasion, but had been prepared at least six weeks before. He might have said, like Lord Deas, that the statement was a tissue of falsehoods, and refused to have it investigated. He found, however, that there were men of high principle, position, and influence in Scotland who gave credit to that statement, and that the general feeling of the community required its investiga- tion. He had had the advantage of the assistance of the Lord Advocate in conducting the inquiry, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the sole responsibility of advising the Crown in the exercise of the Royal prerogative rested with him. Mr. Denman asked the Lord Advocate if it was true that, according to the law of Scotland, a man who had given evidence in a criminal case could not be tried himself ;i if that was really so, he thought it was an anomaly which ought to be removed. The Lord Advocate^ said his opinion undoubtedly was that Fleming, after having been called as a witness, could not have been tried. It was usual to tell a man who was likely to be tried that any statement he might make would be brought against him at a subsequent period. In this case he believed that warning was not given, and his opinion was that, if Fleming had been put upon his trial and the objection taken, he would not have been tried. The woman's original story was so palpably false that, on the best consideration which the late Solicitor-Gereral could give to the case, it was resolved to try her and to take Fleming as a witness. He was asked to aid the Home Secretary in the investigation, and he did so. It was not his habit to interfere with regard to the prerogative of the Crown, and the Home Secretary in such cases com- municated with the judge who tried the case. The uniform practice was to use the machinery at the disposal of the Lord Advocate for the purpose of making such investigations, and 1 Two interesting and instructive articles upon " Privilege of Crown Witnesses " appeared with reference to this point in the Journal of Jurisprudence, 1863, vol. vii., 281-288, 434-445, wherein the subject is exhaustively treated and the various authorities reviewed. ^ James Moncreiff, afterwards Baron Moncreiff of Tullibole, and the distinguished Lord Justice-Clerk of Scotland, to which office he was appointed in 1869. Ixxi Mrs. M'Lachlan. he thought that course a proper one, as it was better to have a responsible staff to do that duty than any other person. He related the statements contained in the document read on behalf of Mrs. M'Lachlan to the judge after the verdict, and said it was impossible, when a petition for further investigation was presented, that the Home Secretary could disregard it. The statement of the prisoner was a very material element in the case. As there appeared to be some doubt in the case, he thought the decision finally arrived at a very proper one. At the same time, he doubted the propriety of discussing questions of this nature in the House of Commons. The discussion was continued by Mr. Muir, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Dunlop, and Lord Claud Hamilton, who urged the produc- tion of the evidence. The Home Secretary said that he would take time to consider the subject, i On 18th May, in reply to Mr. Blackburn, Sir George Grey stated that the papers in the M'Lachlan case would be laid on the table next day. On 4th June, Mr. Stirling moved for the following returns : — Copies of the letter addressed by Messrs. Dixon, Strachan & Wilson, agents for the convict, to the Glasgow Herald, printed in that and other newspapers on 22nd September, and referred to in the Procurator-fiscars letter to Mr. Wilson of 30th September ; the letter or other document addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the Sheriff of Lanarkshire (Sir Archibald Alison) praying for a general investigation, and referred to by the Sheriff ; the letter of Dr. George Macleod to the Procurator- fiscal, and forwarded to the Lord Advocate, read before Mr. Young previous to Dr. Macleod 's examination on 20th October ; the report or reports made on the evidence taken at the inquiry before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, Procurator-fiscal, and Mr. George Young to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment ; and the summing up of the evidence taken at the trial by Lord Deas and his remarks on the statement of the convict in passing sentence. Sir George Grey stated that neither the letter of the agents for the prisoner to the Glasgow Herald nor that of Dr. Macleod was in his possession at the time the return was moved for. 1 A full report of this debate will be found in the Times, 25th April, 1863 ; .see also 3 Hansard, clxx. , 681-703. Introduction. The former he had never seen — the latter he had only inquired for in consequence of the notice of the honourable member. The letter of Dr. Macleod was a private letter to the Procurator- fiscal, which he was willing to show to Mr. Stirling, but it was not material or important enough to be made the subject of a separate return. He objected to produce the reports of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire and Mr. Young. They were mere opinions written in accordance with the general rule for the information of the Secretary of State. He was not in possession of the summing up of Lord Deas, and could only produce the report in the newspapers, for the accuracy of which he could not vouch. On the whole, if Mr. Stirling was willing to take the letter by the Sheriff of Lanarkshire and the Lord Provost of Glasgow he had no objection to produce it. Mr. Stirling said he would limit his motion to that letter, i The motion was then agreed to. With reference to the reports above referred to, Sir Archibald Alison states — I wrote with great care a long memorial on the case, both as it had come out in evidence at the trial, and as it was modified by what had subsequently appeared before the Royal Commission. As I had become convinced of the woman's innocence of the murder, my memorial assumed the form of an elaborate pleading in her favour. I gave it to Mr. Young, and he sent it, with his report, to the Home Secretary. It was not without its effect ; for when the agents for the prisoner went to Mr. Waddington, the chief under-secretary in the Criminal Department in the Home Office, and a most able man, to enforce the woman's case, he said — "Gentlemen, you need say nothing. I have read Sir Archibald's memorial ; it is unanswerable. The prisoner was an accidental and constrained witness of the murder, but not an actor in it. She can never be hanged ; but as she concealed and adopted it, she must be severely punished." She was accordingly pardoned by the Crown for the murder, on condition of suffering penal servitude for life for her accession to the murder after the fact. Thus the poor woman's life was saved. And there is no event in my life to which I look back with more pleasure than the hand I had in her dehverance ; and that the best and most elaborate law paper I ever wrote was com.posed in my seventieth year, to shield a prisoner threatened with death from what would in the circumstances have been a judicial murder. 2 What was the purport of the Crown Commissioner's report we have no means of judging further than the fact that it was followed by a commutation of the prisoner's sentence. The papers moved for having been duly printed, Mr. Stirling, 1 A copy of the letter referred to will be found in Appendix II. 2 Autobiography, ii. 505-506. Ixziii Mrs. M'Lachlan. on 26th June, in a speech of considerable length, called atten- tion to the MLachlan case, and complained that the course pursued by Government had been most unjust to Mr. Fleming and his family. Mr. Dunlop entered into a history of the case with a view of proving that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that Fleming, instead of Mrs. M'Lachlan, ought to have been tried. The Lord Advocate defended the course which Government had taken, and contended that it was contrary to the law of Scotland to place a person on his trial who had given evidence in a Court of justice upon a case in which he was supposed to be an accomplice. The case was originally considered very maturely by a very competent authority, the late Solicitor- General.^ Yvlidtever remarkable features there might be in the evidence of Fleming, it was perfectly clear that the woman M'Lachlan was cognisant of the events of that night, and she had then made no statement criminating any one else. There- fore the Solicitor-General had declined to put Fleming at the bar. The Secretary of State had not said that the prisoner was innocent or that Fleming was guilty ; he simply said that in the doubt and mj'^stery which attended this case it was better not to break into the house of life, but to commute the sentence to the next highest punishment, and leave it to time to unravel a mystery which all his care and patience had not enabled him to unveil. Sir George Grey also justified the course taken by the Government, and said he had intended no disrespect to Lord Deas or to the Lord Justice-Clerk in instituting the late inquiry. He believed that the evidence given at the trial fully warranted the verdict of the jury. Mr. Sergeant Piggot suggested that if capital punishment were to he continvied there ought to be established a mode by which an appeal might be made to a properly constituted tribunal. After some remarks by Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Muir expressed a strong opinion that there was nothing in Scots law to have prevented Fleming from being tried, notwithstanding that he had given evidence in the case. The subject then dropped.^ Meanwhile the M'Lachlan papers — the " Sealed Book " of ^ Edward Francis Maitland, raised to the bench in 1862 ag Lord Barcaple, when he was succeeded as Solicitor-General by Mr. Younsc. ^ A full report of this debate will be found in the Times, 27th June, 1863; see also 3 Hansard, clxxi., 1531-1560. Ixxiv Introduction. the Herald — had at length been given to an ungrateful world, which, judging from its opinion as represented by the Press, was still dissatisfied. 1 True, the Morning Journal, and such newspapers as shared the views of " the woman's organ," claimed that the additional evidence corroborated Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement so far as was, in the circumstances, possible, and that its authenticity was thereby " most thoroughly established " ; but the Herald and its followers described the inquiry as " unprofitable," and the evidence which it produced " worthless rubbish," contradictory rather than confirmative of that famous document. To this party the statement remained " an artful fabrication, promulgated by a mui'deress when in sight of the gibbet." Whether or not such be in fact the case, the evidence cer- tainly throws upon this dai-k matter some fresh light, to which we may now very briefly refer. As, according to the Com- missioner, '' there was no attempt at order or arrangement in taking the evidence," we shall here consider it in relation to the various parts of the case upon which it bears. Messrs. Dixon, Strachan, and Wilson were examined at great length regarding the time when and the manner and cir- cumstances in which the prisoner's statement had first been made. They stated that they had not then seen any of the Crown witnesses except those at Hamilton, and knew nothing of the milkboy incident until they heard it from the woman herself. It was in consequence of her statement that the boy was searched for and precognosced. The whole of the addi- tional details were written upon the notes before these were taken to Edinburgh for consultation with Mr. Clark before the trial. The testimony of the agents was supported by that of Mr. Wilson's clerk, Mr. Brand (afterwards Sir David Brand, Sheriff of Ayr), and Mr. Gordon Smith, both of whom saw the original written notes, and Mr. Galbraith, who heard their contents. The two latter gentlemen were writers in Glasgow. But the Herald was still sceptical, and in a leading article (1st June, 1863) more than insinuated that these six professional men were not telling the truth, because of " discrepancies " in their evidence regarding " the outward shape and form which it [the statement] assumed at the very moment of its birth." Mr. 1 The papers relating to the case, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, will be found in Appendix III. Ixxv Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dixon, however, next day wrote to the editor a letter containing a complete explanation of the different expressions used by the witnesses in describing the form of the original notes. i Two women who had occupied the same cell as the prisoner before the trial deponed, inter alia, to the effect of the news of old Fleming's release upon Mrs. M'Lachlan, and to sundry conversations had by them with her while in prison. Mr. John Fleming, re-examined, stated that in the open wing of the sideboard, from which the missing plate had been taken, there were a solid silver teapot and stand and cream jug. The sugar basin of the set was in an open press in the parlour. In the same press he kept whisky, to which both the old man and the servant had access. He might have remarked to his sister, '' How quickly that bottle goes down! " For some years his father had not been in the habit of rising till after nine, except on Monday mornings. Witness never knew of any friend staying all night with the deceased. John Fleming, junior, was also re-examined. He thought that the servant was dead so soon as his grandfather said that she had "cut," and that her door was locked. He could not believe she would go away, having been so long with the family. There were two silver tea services in the house ; the other was in the press in the lobby. Robert Stewart, the occupier of No. 16 Sandyford Place, next door to Mr. Fleming's house, said he went to bed on the night of the murder about eleven o'clock and fell asleep at once. He was awakened by the scream of a human voice, which he connected in his own mind with Mr. Fleming's house. It might have been a quarter of an hour, but was not later than two hours after he had fallen asleep, as there was no light — it was as dark as when he went to bed. The sun rose at 3.41 that morning. Mary M'Intyre said that on the night of the murder she was returning to No. 8 Sandyford 1 " I took with me," he writes, "only a sheet of ordinary blue scroll paper, that is, two leaves folio, which I folded and refolded, bookwise, into eight leaves of about six inches in length and three in breadth ; and in that form I took the notes." Mr. Dixon further stated that in drafting and making notes he habitually used " an unusually small and close, yet perfectly clear hand, which leaves room, notwithstanding, for interlineations and alterations," and offered to produce drafts prepared by him in the ordinary course of business " containing over 4000 words per sheet of such paper as I used." This to meet the Herald's un- concealed disbelief that the matter of the statement could have been contained in one sheet of paper. Ixxvi Introduction. Place by Elderslie Street, shortly after eleven o'clock, when, at the corner of the back lane, she saw Mrs. Walker and Agnes Dykes (later examined) talking together near a lamp. She at the same time saw a woman in a grey cloak or shawl pass into the lane. When she reached the opening into Sandyford Place she saw three or four people standing there, who appeared to be talking of something that had attracted their attention. As she came up she heard one of them say, " I think it came from that house where the light is." They then passed on in different directions. When opposite No. 17 she heard "a low wailing noise, just like the moaning of a person in very great distress." She saw that the two windows in the front area were lighted. There was no light in the houses on either side. Mrs. Walker said that the same night she was standing talking to Agnes Dykes in Elderslie Street at about a quarter- past eleven when she saw a woman in a grey cloak go into the lane behind Sandyford Place. She saw a second woman, whose cloak resembled that of Mary M'Intyre, pass at the same time. Witness was in Mr. Fleming's house on Monday afternoon, 7th July, about five o'clock, shortly after the dis- covery of the murder. Mr. John Fleming told her that the servant's bedroom door had been locked inside, and from that witness understood that she had committed suicide. Witness also narrated a conversation then had by her with old Fleming regarding the affair. Agnes Dykes corroborated Mrs. Walker as to seeing the woman go into the lane. She had been shown the prisoner in the North Prison — " I then thought and still think that she is the woman referred to." Witness knew the deceased well. On one occasion, a month before the murder, Jessie told her that she had lent £4 to an old servant of Mr. Fleming; that she had asked it back and "got the height of abuse " ; but that she was going to ask it again, ''come what would." Margaret, Jessie, and Peterina M'Lean — "the three jolly maidens " of the Herald's ridicule — left their brother's marriage party at Partick at half-past three on the morning of Saturday, 5th July. Passing through Sandyford Place on their way home about four o'clock their attention was attracted by the singing of birds among the trees in front of the houses there. Stopping to listen, they observed a light in the window to the west of the door of No. 17, and through three open laths of the Venetian blind they saw a gasalier lighted in the p Ixxvii Mrs. M'Lachlan. ■centre of the room. They wondered -why the gas was burning at that time in the morning, i Donald M'Quarrie, the milkboy, retold the story of his cele- brated call. On Saturday morning the chain was on the door when he went to it, and old Fleming took off the chain before he opened the door. Fleming was then " very well dressed, better than I ever saw him dressed before." His employer, George Paton, looked at his watch after the bell had been answered, and said that it was just twenty minutes to eight o'clock. Witness had never called so late as eight. He called again on the Saturday afternoon, and on the Sunday and Monday mornings at the usual hour ; on all these occasions old Fleming opened the door and said he required no milk. George Paton, the milkman, corroborated. He was with his cart in the street, and did not see who opened the door, but he asked the boy at the time by whom the milk had been refused, and was told it was old Fleming. Witness called at the house again on the Saturday afternoon and on the Sunday and Monday mornings. On each occasion the boy told him that old Fleming answered the door and refused the milk. Witness thought this strange. Mary Brown, a girl of sixteen, deponed that she was occa- sionally employed by Jessie M'Pherson to wash the steps and to go errands. She called at Fleming's house by appointment of the deceased on the Saturday morning about nine o'clock. Old Fleming opened the door upon the chain. He admitted her, re-chained the door, and asked her to wash a portion of the upper hall floor, giving her a pail of water and a piece of flannel for that purpose. Fleming was dressed in black clothes, and had on a " Sunday " coat. She noticed one footmark in the hall between the bedroom door and the head of the kitchen stair. The mark appeared to have been covered with soot. The washing occupied ten minutes, the old man remaining beside her all the time; when she had finished, and was about to go downstairs to empty the pail, he told her to leave it where it was. Mary, if (as the Herald maintained) a juvenile 1 When and by whom was the dining-room gas lit? The prisoner, on the Crown theory, slept with her victim till 4 a.m., when she arose, murdered her, and rifled the house. It was then broad day — " a bonnie, clear morning " — and the silver in the sideboard would be sufficiently visible. On the other hand, Fleming, if her statement be accepted, was more than once upstairs in the course of the night. Ixxviii Introduction. Sapphira, was at least an artist in fiction, for she concludes witli this realistic touch — " He catched a grip of me by the hand and put his hand on my waist, and said I was a nice girl." He then dismissed her, with a sixpence for her trouble. She told her mother about this on Wednesday, 9th July.i Mrs. Brown, mother of the last witness, said that her daughter mentioned the matter about the end of the week in which the murder was reported in the newspapers, and that witness had told her to say nothing about it, lest she should get into trouble. Charles O'Neil, the architect who examined and prepared plans of tlie locus, deponed, with reference to the blood stains in the bedroom marked Q on the plan, that from the elongated spurts or splashes of blood on the hearthstone, directed towards the window and towards the wall, outside the washed area of the floor, he inferred that something heavy had fallen at that place. They were splashes thrown from a certain point in one direction. There were two marks of blood 3 or 4 inches square inside a press door in the lobby at the top of the door, the height of which was 6 feet 9 inches. They were not finger marks, but appeared to have been made by a bloody cloth. The door opened outwards to the passage. The three Crown doctors were re-examined with reference to their opinion as to whether Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement was contradicted by all or any of the appearances presented by the body or the premises as seen and examined by them. Dr. Fleming said that he thought the wounds upon the face had been inflicted when the deceased was lying on her back. It was possible, but, in his view, improbable, that they were caused while she was standing on her feet. The improbability would be diminished if she were sitting when struck. In other respects the statement was, so far as he could judge, entirely consistent with what he had observed. The appearances from which, in the joint report, it was inferred that there had been a struggle in the kitchen were equally accounted for by the statement. The report was drawn up by his colleague. Dr. Macleod, who had inserted that phrase. 1 On one point at least Jlary seemingly lied; she stated that " she was at present employed in Galbraith's Calender, in St. Vincent Street," and that she had been there for about six weeks. The Herald pub- lished a communication from that firm to the effect that " there was no such person employed by them under that name at that time or previous to it." Ixxix Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dr. Watson said he considered it was quite possible that the wounds referred to had been inflicted while the assailant and the victim were both in a standing position. It was by no means necessary that the deceased was lying on her back with her face up at the time. The wounds would probably fell and stun her. He saw nothing to indicate that a struggle had taken place in the kitchen. The statement was consistent with all the appearances excepting the wounds on the wrists, which were not explained. These, for surgical reasons, he was of opinion could not have been inflicted with the cleaver. They were probably made with a pocket or table knife. He also thought that the body had been dragged from the kitchen to the bedroom by the feet.^ Dr. Macleod was the next witness, but before his examination began a letter written by him to Mr. Gemmel, the Procurator- fiscal, was read. The first question put by the Commissioner has reference to a conjecture by Dr. Macleod regarding the blood stains on the inside of the press door, which it is evident he had suggested to the Fiscal were marks of bloody fingers. Witness now said it was very difficult to make out whether they were finger marks or the mark of a cloth. He admitted that the experts who examined the marks were not agreed as to how these were produced. That conjecture was one of which he was not disposed to take any account. ^ It was ^ The body, when found, lay face downwards, with the head towards the door and the feet towards the window, the clothing being gathered up over the head ; and its position in the narrow space between the table and the bed suggested that it had been dragged into the room feet first. Dr. Macleod, however, in the article on the case contributed by him to the Glasgow Medical Journal, as before mentioned, observes — " This was, in the writer's opinion, to be explained thus — the body was dra^vn in the position in which it lay after the completion of the murder, i.e., with the face downwards, by the head and shoulders, into the bedroom ; and these portions, being the heaviest, first thrown down, and then the legs or lighter part caiTied round to clear them of the door. In this way the feet would be towards the window, and the twisting movement would gather up the clothes about the trunk." - This is the letter moved for by Mr. Stirling on 4th June, as before narrated, which Sir George Grey declined to produce as not of sufficient importance. ^ That being so, it is remarkable that Dr. Macleod should make the following statement in the article above quoted : — " On the inside of a cupboard door which opened from the kitchen lobby opposite the foot of the stair, and on the upper part of the door, there was a large stain of blood which the writer believes could only have been pro- duced by a person concealing himself within, and holding the door close with a bloody hand." Ixxx Introduction. possible, but he thought highly improbable, that all the wounds on the face had been inflicted upon the deceased while she was in an erect position. If the first blow had felled her, she would then be in a horizontal position, and there would be no difficulty in accounting for the other two. Any inclination of the head would, he admitted, affect the direction of the wounds, and the extent to which that happened would remove the difficulty. He was satisfied from the appearance of the body that it had been drawn by the head with the face downwards, the legs, between the knees and the toes, being dragged upon the ground. He still believed from the footmarks seen by him on the kitchen floor that there had been a struggle; there was nothing else contradictory of Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement. He thought that a woman who had received such wounds on the forehead and nose would be capable of engaging in a severe struggle. He had no theory in regard to the washing of the body. It was inexplicable; he never could account for it. Dr. Mathie Hamilton stated that, when in practice in South America between 1826 and 1848, he had seen many cases of murder and assassination. He had examined the head of the deceased in a state of maceration on the Monday after the trial (22nd September). There was nothing in the appearance of the incision across the bridge of the nose to indicate that the blow had not been given while the deceased was standing. To talk of such a blow being impossible was, he considered, an absurdity. Mrs. Mitchell, one of the tenants of the Bridgegate property managed by old Fleming, deponed that on the forenoon of the Monday after the murder (7th July) Fleming called for the rent. She remarked at the time to her daughter, " Mr. Fleming- is very raised like to-day, and has on his best clothes." He was not in his usual state, and she thought something must have occurred to agitate him. Elizabeth Mitchell, her daughter, corroborated. Fleming's manner was very agitated; he looked very flushed, more flushed than he was " for ordinary," and his eyes were staring. i "He had on his good black clothes, not the clothes he wore for ordinary " ; he usually wore a black coat, very brown with the wear, a long-tailed coat; it was 1 The Herald attributed these manifestations of mental disquiet to his failure to obtain a payment from Mrs. Mitchell. If so, Fleming must have been unduly susceptible for a collector of rents. Ixxxi Mrs. M'Lachlan. glazed and greasy-looking about the sleeves. Daniel Paton> clothes dealer, Bridgegate, said he had paid his rent to Fleming on Monday, 7th July. Witness observed nothing particular about either his clothes or manner that day. The statement made by Fleming at the trial as to selling a brown coat to witness was not true. The coat ordinarily worn by Fleming about the time of the murder was a big, heavy, blue beaver coat, longer than a shooting jacket, with big pockets at the sides. 1 With reference to the general characters of Mrs. M'Lachlan and old Fleming, many witnesses were examined. Mrs. Adams spoke of the prisoner as a weakly woman, often in trouble. She had sailor boarders, who sometimes left without paying her. She was very temperate, and her " pawning proclivities " (to adopt the Herald's phrase) were due to her necessity, not to intemperance or extravagance. Sarah Adams deponed to the prisoner's intimacy with Jessie M'Pherson, and her friendly relations with old Fleming. Witness had seen Fleming in her house, and heard the prisoner address him familiarly as " Grandpa." The prisoner was often ill when witness was with her ; her bad health kept her very poor. Witness left her service some six weeks before her apprehension. James M'Lachlan, husband of the prisoner, stated that he " boarded himself " on the ship, and gave the balance of his wages, eighteen shillings a week, to his wife. She was very delicate. Mrs. Marshall and Mrs. Clotworthy, who lived in the same " land " as the prisoner, spoke favourably of Mrs. M'Lachlan as a very mild, gentle-tempered, and kindly woman; neither thriftless, extravagant, nor given to drink. Her health was bad. Mrs. Smith (of the " emigration " incident) was re-examined. She knew Jessie M'Pherson intimately. Jessie and Mrs. M'Lachlan were very affectionate, almost like sisters. Witness had spoken to Jessie about the money which the prisoner owed her; but Jessie "said never to heed, as she [Mrs. M'Lachlan] had been at great expense on account of illness, and would pay when she got better." Witness had seen Fleming twenty 1 Neither the evidence given at the trial nor that taken by the Com- missioner supplies any information as to the extent of Fleming's wardrobe before and after the murder. This is the more remarkable as we possess a complete inventory of every stitch of clothing belong- ing to ^Irs. M'Lachlan ; but no doubt the authorities were satisfied upon this, as on other points, before Fleming's liberation. Ixxxii Introduction. times in the shop which Jessie formerly kept in Gray Street. Jessie told her that she was tormented by him, and could not get quit of him. Jessie frequently said that Fleming wanted to marry her. " She seemed to feel disgusted towards him."' Witness retold how she met Jessie a fortnight before her death. " She was looking very ill ; I never saw her looking so melancholy. I said, ' Jess, what's wrong? ' She said, ' I'm no' weel. You don't know how I am situated; I live a miserable life. He [Fleming] is just an old wretch and an old deevil.' I said, ' Tell me the right way of the story ; what has he done to you? ' She said, ' I have something to tell you, but I cannot tell you just now before your husband.' She made the remark that she was well enough when the family was at home, and that her misery began when she was alone with him_. I thought there was something decidedly wrong from the way she spoke that day, in such a serious kind of tone." Jessie promised to call and tell witness on 6th July. The dead secret, we know was, according to Lord Deas, that she intended to emigrate. Mrs. M'Kinnon, foster-sister of Jessie MTherson, re- examined, deponed to the good terms upon which the deceased was with Mrs. M'Lachlan. Witness saw Jessie four weeks before her death. She then said her heart was broken with old Fleming. " She styled him just an old deevil, and said if she had that six months put in she would not put in another." She disliked him, but gave no other reason than his inquisi- tiveness. Witness had seen Fleming in Jessie's shop, and the deceased had remarked that " she did not know what that old wretch was trailing down there about." Jessie said, when witness last saw her, that she had not spent her wages. Witness was the only person Jessie called her sister. She was a natural child, and had been nursed by her (Mrs. M'Kinnon's) mother. Witness never stayed all night with Jessie in Sandyford Place. She had read Fleming's evidence at the trial. He had no reason whatever to suppose that she was with Jessie that night. He had never seen her in the house but once.i Ann M'Intosh, sister of the prisoner, said that Mrs. M'Lachlan had never been well since the birth of her child. She suffered from palpitation. Witness had lived with her for eight months prior to November last, when she went to service in Edinburgh. 1 Fleming, it will be recalled, had stated, in explanation of the cries heard by him in the night, " I thought she [Jessie] had got somebody in to stay with her. There was a woman she ca'd a sister o' hers. She bude [behoved] to be in her room." Ixxxiii Mrs. M'Lachlan. She had seen old Fleming six times in her sister's house. On one occasion he asked witness to go as housemaid to Sandyford Place. Jessie MTherson visited the prisoner every second Saturday. Witness last saw Jessie on 9th November. She then said of Fleming, " The old devil ! My heart is near broken with him." Elizabeth Halliday deponed that she had been a fellow-servant of the deceased with the Fleming family two years before. She described the old man as very inquisitive and familiar in his relations with the servants. When witness, Jessie, and Fleming were at the house in Dunoon, shortly before Jessie left, she spoke of the old man as " a nasty body, or a dirty body, ' ' by which witness understood he had been behaving indecently to her. She was plainly disgusted with his attentions. Witness was surprised when she went back to service there. Eight other women servants, within recent years in the em- ployment of Mr. John Fleming, were examined — some less (as Lord Deas remarked of those at the trial), some of them more attractive. One, presumably belonging to the former category, . who gave her age as fifty-five, was emphatic in her denial of any impropriety in Fleming's conduct. All of them described his behaviour towards the female domestics as irreproachable. The fact of the old man's abnormal inquisitiveness, of which we have heard, was further established, and the new circum- stance came out that he was occasionally " tipsy." His general demeanour seems to have been familiar and homely, and one lady, whose age is not stated, described it as paternal. Another deponed that Fleming was continually speaking about Jessie : " Jess, Jess, w^as never out of his mouth." If anything unusual occurred in the house he was " awfu' inquisitive and anxious about it." A third, Martha M'lntyre, re-examined, said that Fleming often spoke to her and Jessie about getting married. When the other members of the family were at Dunoon he took his toddy nightly in the kitchen and gave her and Jessie a share. James Thomson, gardener at the house at Dunoon, stated that Jessie had told him " that he (Fleming) was very anxious to marry her, and would give her all he had if she would do it." Witness believed at the time, and still believed, that she was serious when she said so. The prisoner was then in the same service. She and Jessie were " more like two sisters than anything else." Ixxxiv Introduction. Alexander Blair, brewer, Alloa, deponed that on the night of Thursday or Friday, 19th or 20th June, he slept at 17 Sandy- ford Place. Next day he and old Fleming left the house about one o'clock and drove to the Cathedral, and thence to the George Hotel, where they had two brandies and sodas each. He put old Fleming in a cab at four o'clock, paid his fare, and told the cabman to drive him home. " Old Fleming was not tipsy; he was hearty and in good spirits." James M'Ginn, the cabman, drove Fleming to Sandyford Place on the occasion in question about five or six o'clock. The old gentleman, he said, was under the influence of liquor; he had to assist him up the steps to the front door.i Excerpts from the session minute book of Anderston United Presbyterian Church were proved by the minister and elders, the written and oral testimony being to the effect that on 8th April, 1852, James Fleming underwent the discipline of the Church for " the sin of fornication with Janet Dunsmore," by whom he had a child. ^ The Rev. Mr. Aikman deponed that, in his ghostly capacity, he had examined Fleming before the trial with refer- ence to the murder, and was satisfied of his innocence. Witness had also seen him later regarding the prisoner's statement. ' ' With reference to it, he [Fleming] spoke of the depravity of the human heart," but apparently made no more specific comment. Robert Jeffrey, detective officer, who had inspected the locus on the night of 7th July, re-examined, described the sheet, saturated with blood, found by him under the basin-stand in the bedroom. There was blood on the blankets, but they had been washed. Some articles in the servant's box were smeared with blood. Witness asked Mr. John Fleming if any plate was missing, and he said he could not tell. Witness examined the sideboard, and saw "a good deal of valuable stuff." Mr. Fleming remarked, " They might have gotten away that if they had been wanting plunder." Why this plate was left 1 The evidence of these two witnesses has reference to the occasion spoken of by Jessie M'Pherson to the prisoner, as mentioned in Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement, when Fleming came home drunk. '^ The " Flemingit« " Press charitably ignores this patriarchal lapse. The woman is stated to have been a domestic servant ; but whether or not she was in Fleming's own employment does not appear. In view of his long connection with the church — beyond the memory of the oldest elder— it is somewhat curious that his conviction should have been recorded in the minutes under a pseudonym — William, instead of James Fleming. Ixxxv Mrs. M'Lachlan. was to witness a mystery ; " I have not seen to the bottom of it set." Bernard M'Laughlin, sheriff's officer, searched the premises on 12th July. The Fiscals were present at the time. There was a great quantity of ashes under the kitchen grate, among- which he found a shirt button. It had been in the fire, and was bui-nt. He at the same time took possession of a hammer, the head of which was marked with blood, found in the kitchen, and of a pair of men's socks, found in the servant's bedroom. These articles were shown by Avitness to the Fiscals. Colin Campbell, police constable, re-examined, repeated how he saw two women, neither of whom was the prisoner, come out of the house on the night of Saturday, 5th July. Campbell was corroborated as regards the date by Mrs. M'Kay, his land- lady, and a friend, Allan M'Lean. The evidence, as printed, closes with the conflicting state- ments of two Glasgow cattle dealers, one of whom (boasting the eminent name of Sheridan Knowles) said the other had told him that old Fleming was seen by a third party at the door of 17 Sandyford Place at four o'clock on the morning of the murder. Witness had found his informant ' ' only middling truthful in matters generally." His experience was probably confirmed by the evidence of the latter, who denied the whole occurrence. This concludes our survey of the evidence taken by the Commissioner at the inquiry. While the issue of the Parliamentary papers and the debates, thereupon did not affect the faith of the Herald or the Morning Journal in the innocence of their respective clients, many " M'Lachlanite " journals had modified their views, and held that the question was not whether the prisoner was guilty, but whether the guilt was divided, and, if so, how it was distributed. ^ 1 On the threshold of the case the doctors said that the blows had been dealt by "a female or a weak man." It is a singular circum- stance that all the presumptions, whether in favour of or against the prisoner, are equally applicable to Fleming. Prima facie, each was an unlikely assa.ssin ; the one a woman in delicate health, the other a man of advanced age. Both knew the victim intimately, and, in their- several ways, had professed affection for her. In either case the motive alleged was almost incredibly inadequate. On the other hand, both had been apprehended for the crime, and, as the murder was certainly committed by one or other or both of them, each had a vital interest in the other's conviction. To clear themselves both/ unquestionably lied. Ixxxvi Introduction. Upon this point the Law Magazine and Review (1863, vol. xiv. 78-79) observes — Indeed, had old Fleming not been in the house that night, and had his conduct been less peculiar, and less at variance with his proved character and all human probability, the verdict of the jury might have been considered as free from reasonable doubt, and as justified by the whole body of the evidence. But fortunately for Mrs. M'Lachlan, it may be imfortunately for the ends of justice, old Fleming's conduct was such as to subject him to very heavy suspicion, and let us say at once that, after the best consideration we have been able to give the whole evidence, we are deliberately of opinion that the balance of probabilities hangs about evenly between him and Mrs. M'Lachlan ; or in other words, that the proof of his guilt is as strong as the proof of her guilt. " Heaven forbid that I should enter at any length into the Sandyford murder case ! " protests a correspondent of the Morning Journal, and forthwith proceeds to occupy a column of print. Once embarked upon that venture, we experience a similar difficulty in quitting the subject. Mrs. M'Lachlan being, justly, in Perth Penitentiary; old Fleming, justly or not, in voluntary retirement; and the case having been discussed in every conceivable form for upwards of twelve months, the affair might well be considered at an end. Such, unhappily for the reader, is not the fact. The genesis of the extraordinary epilogue with which we have now to deal is, like so much else in the case, obscure. For some time the Herald had been throwing out mysterious hints of an alleged confession by the convict, which the editor had, so to speak, up his journalistic sleeve. The first overt step in this direction was the publication in the North British Daily Mail (25th June, 1863), of a letter from Messrs. Smith & Wright, Fleming's agents, to Mr. Dixon, agent for Mrs. M'Lachlan, together with that gentleman's reply. The agents stated that they had been informed by Detectives Audley Thomson and William Smith that Mr. Dixon had told the latter Mrs. M'Lachlan had confessed to him " that she had done the deed herself, without the aid or knowledge of Mr. Fleming." Mr. Dixon stated in answer, " I have to say that the story told by the detectives. Smith and Thomson, is absolutely false. I never stated to them that the prisoner had made such a confession as they specify, or that she had made any confession of guilt whatever." There the matter rested, until on 6th July the Daily Mail published a statement by the two detectives, giving their Ixxxvii Mrs. M'Lachlan. version of an alleged conversation had by them with Mr. Dixon in West George Street a few days after the respite. They stated that Mr. Dixon had then expressed the opinion that Fleming was innocent, and had characterised his own client as "a damnable woman " ; that he said she was " ranging up and down the house that night looking for what answered her " ; that when old Fleming came downstairs she hid from him in the lobb}- press ; that she heard the milkboy at the door and answered it herself ; and that she went away by the back door, which she left open.i The necessity for any rejoinder to this communication was superseded by the publication in the Glasgow Herald on the same date of a letter from Mr. Dixon, and a signed statement giving, " in a correct and authentic form," an account of what his client had actually told him. This document is of so remark- able a character that it has been reprinted verbatim in the present volume.^ Mr. Dixon states that, Mrs. M'Lachlan having been respited and the inquiry ordered by the Home Secretary, he obtained permission to confer with her alone. His object in doing so was to question her regarding the persistent rumour that old Fleming had been seen outside the house early on the Saturday morning.^ He proceeded to put several questions to his client as to the old man's movements on the night of the murder. Instead of answering him she talked of irrelevant matters — incidents of the trial, the portraits in the pamphlet report, &c. " She appeared to be hysterical — sometimes crying and sometimes laughing or giggling. There was nothing, however, about the peculiarities of her behaviour to indicate that she was insane." Obviously Mrs. M'Lachlan was not in a fit state for cross-examination. Her execution had only been postponed, her fate was yet in the balance, and she had been expressly warned that, should the result of the impending inquiry fail to substantiate the truth of her statement, she must still pay the last penalty of the law. In these circumstances, upon Mr. Dixon continuing to press for an answer, the prisoner, apparently becoming bored by his importunity, " looked in his face, laugh- 1 Fleming at the trial swore that on the Saturday morning he found the back door locked and the key on the inside. ^ See Appendix IV. ' See the evidence of Alexander Sheridan Knowles at the Ck)m- missioner's Inquiry ; Appendix III. (3). Ixxxviii Introduction. ing, and said, ' I may just as weel tell ye that the auld man wasna there at a'.' " In reply to further questions, Mrs. M'Lachlan said that she entered the house by the back door; that she had not been upstairs at all that night; and that she was not out for whisky. " But," said Mr. Dixon, " Mrs. Walker and Miss Dykes saw you?" She replied that she was then going to the house for the first time, and that she had gone straight there after leaving Mrs. Fraser (whom Mr. Dixon misnames " Mrs. Macgregor ") at the Gushet House. Mr. Dixon pointed out that an hour had elapsed between her leaving Mrs. Fraser and the time when she was seen by the two witnesses ; but she adhered to her statement, and " could give no other account of what she had been doing in the interval. "^ The fateful milkboy, who at the trial had been made by Mr. Clark the touchstone of old Fleming's veracity, was now invoked by Mr. Dixon — " Who opened the door to the milkboy? " he asked. The prisoner replied that she herself had done so, adding that "the old man was in bed at the time." If, in the doubtful and elusive elements of this baffling case, there be one fact finally established beyond possibility of dispute, it is that old Fleming opened the door to that milkboy at twenty minutes to eight o'clock on the morning of Saturday, 5th July, 1862. It is proved by the oath of the milkboy, Donald M'Quarrie; by that of George Paton, the milkman; and (after divers prevarications) by that of James Fleming himself; further, it is admitted even by Lord Deas and by the editor of the Glasgow Herald. If any reliance whatever is to be placed in human testimony, this fact must be accepted as proved. On being reminded by Mr. Dixon of this circumstance, " she said that she was aware of that, but it was she that did it notwithstanding." Mr. Dixon then inquired if she herself had committed the murder? "she said that she could not tell — that she knew nothing about it." In reply to further questions she made a rambling statement to the effect that both she and Jessie were drunk ; that they repeatedly vomited ; that she therefore washed Jessie's face, the floor, and the blankets — " not 1 It may be recalled that at the trial IMrs. Fraser deponed that they parted at " ten o'clock or five minutes past ten " ; that Thomas Robb, superintendent of police, said it would take " ten minutes, or inside of that time," to walk at an ordinary pace from the Gushet House to Sandyford Place ; and that Mrs. Walker and Agnes Dykes saw the woman go into the lane " about a quarter-past eleven." Ixxxix Mrs. M'Lachlan. to remove blood stains " ; that Jessie gave her Laudanum to stop the retching, which drug had, upon a former occasion, made her delirious, as her husband and sister could tell — " a statement Avhich the husband and sister afterwards contradicted to Mr. Dixon"; that "after that she had no recollection of anything whatever till she found the body in the morning " ; and that the old man was not downstairs that night or morning at all. She also stated that she remained in the house till nearly nine o'clock, because she was too dazed with drink and laudanum to think of escaping sooner, and that she left by the back door. " No questions," continues Mr. Dixon, " were put to her regard- ing the clothing or the silver plate, and she said nothing about them ; nor did she make any other statement regarding the night's proceedings.' 1 This, the fifth statement of Mrs. M'Lachlan, has much more in common with the three declarations emitted by her before the Sheriff than with the celebrated statement made to her agents six weeks before the trial. The former were, in the words of the Lord Advocate, " palpably false " ; tested by the evidence, they are clearly so. The latter, whether true or false, fits the main facts as subsequently proved with surprising exactness, and undoubtedly makes plain many points otherwise inexplicable. Further, the foniier were extorted by methods, to say the least, undesirable; the latter was a spontaneous act. On receiving this communication Mr. Dixon told the prisoner that he did not know what to make of it; that it placed him in a very awkward position, and suggested, some doubts as to 1 The Daily Mail, a " Flemingite " organ, in commenting on this " confe-ssion," observes—" We have further learned, and this"fa<;t will probably be taken by those who still credit her first declaration as a reason for denying her sanity in making the confession to Mr. Dixon, that she was at the time labouring under a uterine disease, which frequently leads to temporary insanity. ]Mr. Dixon, on hearing her story, did not attempt, by any continued cross-questioning, to divest the apparent falsehood from the probable truth ; and, had he done so, would in all likelihood have been baffled by an exercise of that power of fabrication which, when thoroughly on her guard, IM'Lachlan was ever ready to bring into play. Desirous of quietly making some investigation into the startling tale he had heard, Mr. Dixon, we under- stand, repeatedly interrogated the milkboy as to whether he could be mistaken in saying that IMr. Fleming had opened the door on the morning of the murder. The lad, however, stood firm to what he had all along asserted, declaring that he could by no possibility be mistaken, having seen the old gentleman." Introduction. liis continuing to act as her agent. The prisoner then said that there Avas not a word of truth in it — " that she had only said so to see how he would look." Mr. Dixon told her he would consider how he should act, and the prisoner said she hoped he would not mention what she had told him, repeating that it was all lies, and that the statement made at the trial was the truth. Mr. Dixon explained to her that she might rest satisfied upon that point, as, being her agent, he was bound to secrecy. 1 He then consulted confidentially two pro- fessional friends, and decided to continue the case. In conclusion, Mr. Dixon explains liow he came to make the statement public. To the circumstances in which he did so we shall shortly return. Meanwhile, the publication of this statement was, from the journalistic standard, disappointing. Unlike its famous forerunner, it caused no popular excitement, and failed to lure the amateur detective into print. The Morn- ing Journal, borrowing the Herald's adjective on the evidence at the inquiry, described the statement as " utterly worthless." Even the Herald dealt this trump card with unwonted modesty — evidently the ' ' confession ' ' would not bear rough handling. " According to the laws of evidence and the rule of universal experience," remarks that erudite journal (10th July, 1863), " a liar is entitled to belief, and is only to be believed when he makes a revelation which criminates himself, and we are not going to deny this time-honoured privilege to the heroine of the cleaver."^ Had the Herald been in existence some centuries earlier the editor would doubtless have applied this dictum to the incredible self-accusations upon which dozens of harmless old women were annually burnt as witches. The most interesting feature of the leading article referred to is a eulogium upon the action of Mr. Dixon, which is in marked 1 Yet, if we are to credit the detectives' story, Mr. Dixon forthwith disclosed the whole conversation (including statements not made by her) to the first persons he met in the street, who were, moreover, as Crown witnesses personally interested in the prosecution ; and this while his client's life was still at stake. 2 With reference to the well-recognised fact that many persons have charged themselves with the commission of crimes of which they were undoubtedly guiltless, see cases cited by Mr. John Paget in his account of "The Campden Wonder." — Paradoxes and Puzzles, 1874, pp. 337- 358. Mrs. M'Lachlan. contrast to the opinions previously expressed by the Herald regarding that gentleman's professional conduct. i This, surely, should have been the epitaph of the M'Lachlan case; and the curtain, to vary the metaphor, would fittingly have fallen upon a tableau so effective as the editor of the Herald taking to his bosom the agent of " the wretched woman." But Messrs. Smith & Wright, indefatigable in the interests of their aged client, would not let the matter rest. There was published in the Herald of 13th August, 1863, a letter from them enclosing certain correspondence and official documents, which are reprinted in the present volume.^ These relate to an interview between Mr. Dixon and Mrs. M'Lachlan (now known as '' 389/21 ") in Perth Penitentiary on 19th June. It appears, from the statement of Mr. Dixon before men- tioned, that some time after the commutation of the sentence his statement was communicated to Mr. Fleming's agents, and by Mr. Dixon and them to several eminent and experienced gentlemen of the Faculty, including the Dean. The opinion of the Dean was that, without his client's sanction, Mr. Dixon could not make public the "confession." In order to obtain her permission Mr. Dixon accordingly went to Perth and there interviewed the convict in presence of the Governor, the surgeon, and the matron of the prison. "The result," the Governor reports, " was unsuccessful, as the prisoner denied that the conversation referred to had ever taken place." She reasserted her innocence, and said that old Fleming " did the act." On being reminded that " Mr. Fleming's friends all declared that he was innocent," she made the pertinent rejoinder, " How could his friends know whether he was innocent or not? They 1 " Mr. Dixon, who had before an excellent action of damages against the Herald, had he chosen to prosecute it (but naturally a lawyer is shy of law, except when a client is to be mulcted by it), is now an object of much deference and respect. Some months since he was hounded down by the Herald as one of the lowest scoundrels unhung, a base conspirator with a murderess against an innocent old man. Yesterday the praises of him are sounded in the same paper as eminent for his ' moral courage,' ' of singular zeal and ability,' and ' a good citizen ' who, in bursting profesJ^ional bonds as Samson did the withes of the Philistines, is entitled to the gratitude of the universal British public." — Morning Journal, llth July, 1863. 2 See Appendix V. It is interesting to note that one party to the correspondence is John Hill Burton, the great historian, in his official capacity as manager and secretary of the General Prison Board, which appointment he had held since 1854. Introduction. were not there." She was told that whatever she said she could not now be hanged; that her child would be cared for ; that the Flemings were ruined, " every one of them," and were about to leave the country ; and that ' ' the case had lately been before Parliament." As she was neither to be frightened nor cajoled into absolving Fleming, the interview terminated. The last document of the series — " Note by Miss Hislop, Scripture-reader in the General Prison " — calls for a passing mention. This individual stated that " in her official capacitj'^ " she often visited the convict, but never once alluded to the crime, treating her merely, in a general way, " as a lost sinner in the sight of God." One day the prisoner remarked that her case was a very sad one, whereupon this messenger of mercy gave her an official dose of that twice- blessed attribute : "I believe you to be the guilty person, and to me you seem to have acted as a guilty person throughout. You have been guilty of a deed for which you ought to have been hanged, as God has never repealed that law He gave that blood should answer for blood, but by a very mysterious pro- vidence your life has been spared." This moral stimulant is exhibited in a manner which recalls that of Lord Deas when passing sentence. The rest of the conversation is equally irrelevant — no one wanted to know what Miss Hislop thought, but what Mrs. M'Lachlan said ; and what she might have said Miss Hislop prevented her from saying, i Mr. Dixon's client having not only refused her consent to the publication of the "confession," but denied that such was 1 The London Daily Telegraph, in an article commenting on this episode, remarks — -" Even in a Scotch gaol we can scarce believe that Scripture-readers are allowed to act as private inquisitors, and to report their investigations to the authorities of the gaol. . . . Really this is too bad. Let gaolers, lawyers, and policemen try, if they like, to extort some statements to her own detriment from the lips of the rmhappy woman who has fallen to their tender mercies ; but, for Heaven's sake, let us have no more of a lady Scripture-reader acting as an amateur detective. Our law does not admit of moral torture. ' I feel sometimes,' said Jessie M'Lachlan to her persecutors, ' as if I would go through these prison walls. I often think my mind will give way.' Surely there are other ways by which the partisans of Mr. Fleming may establish his innocence, if that be possible, than by tor- turing this poor creature into some garbled admission in his favour. Let them show, as they have never done yet, what his character was — • what his relations were with his family, his servants, and the murdered woman — and they will do more to clear his repute than by recording every doubtful expression twisted, none knows how, from a woman half-crazed with misery." a xciii Mrs. M'Lachlan. ever made, it does not appear how, in view of his professional scruples and the ruling of the Dean, Mr. Dixon became a trusted correspondent of the Herald. The only light thrown by that journal upon this point is contained in the leading article before quoted — " We have done our best to probe this notorious case to its very foundation, and we are content that ive have had some hand in laying it before the public in its present shape." After this a welcome silence falls upon the subject. For fifteen years the journals ceased from troubling, and their readers were at rest; nor till the month of October, 1877, was there any recrudescence of the ancient sore. On Friday, the 5th of that month, Mrs. M'Lachlan, having served her com- muted sentence, was leleased from Perth General Prison upon a ticket-of -leave. Her conduct had been exemplary. She was in her forty-fourth year; half a generation had passed since she vanished nameless from the common life of men ; and it must have been to a changed and unfamiliar world that she now returned, a stranger and alone. Old Fleming, in the course of nature, had long since gone to his account, lemaining till the day of his death under the black shadow of her accusation ; the son she had left a child was a grown man ; her husband, it is said, had emigrated ; and she, with the £30 which she had earned during the long years of her imprisonment, must begin life afresh. Avoiding Glasgow, where she could not hope to escape recognition, she went the day after her release to Greenock. There, apparently, she expected to remain unnoticed ; but she reckoned without the ubiquity of an enlightened Press. The Greenoch Advertiser dis- covered her retreat, and by the questionable methods of " our own Commissioner " was enabled, on 9th October, to publish in bad English, and, if possible, worse taste, the result of an " interview " with that emissary's hapless prey. There is an echo of the old-time warfare in the fact that the Greenock Telegraph, on the 11th, denounced this " interview " as a fabrication and " a performance that would be disowned by any schoolboy," in which contention that journal was ably seconded by the Glasgow Evening Nexvs. " We can conceive of nothing more cruel than this retransfixion of the unfortunate woman upon the spear of notoriety," observes the latter; "a dis- graceful attempt has been made to achieve popularity and profit by harassing an unfortunate woman, and hawking the result xciv Introduction. about for a halfpenny." This is not unworthy of the Morning Journal at its best, in the stirring clays which followed upon the trial. We learn from an article on the case in the Dumbarton Leader that two years after her liberation her husband died ; that she afterwards went to America, where she was joined by her son ; and that she married again, and settled in the new world. On 14th February, 1899, her son wrote to a cousin in Greenock that his mother had died of heart disease at Port Huron, Michigan, on New Year's Day. So, in that outland grave beyond the seas, and in the homely earth of Anderston Churchyard where old Fleming lies, the secret of the Sandyford mystery is buried ; and though well- nigh half a century has passed since that work of darkness was so foully wrought, the riddle of its doing yet remains unread. :scv Leading Dates in the M'Lachlan Case. {The folloiolng table, includes only such incidents as were cither (1) not in dispute; (2) proved by independent testimony at the trial; or (3) matters of fact otherwise established.) 1862. 4 July— 10 p.m.— Mrs. M'Lachlan leaves her house, No. 182 Bi'oomielaw, to visit Jessie MTherson. 4 July — 10.10 p.m. — Mrs. ]\I'Lachlan parts from Mrs. Fraser at the Gushet House, Stobcross Street. 4-5 July — Jessie MTherson murdered at No. 17 Sandyford Place. 5 July — 7.40 a.m. — James Fleming opens the door to the milk- boy and refuses the milk. 6 July — 9 a.m. — Mrs. M'Lachlan returns home and is admitted by Mrs. Campbell. 5 July — 11 a.m. -12 noon— Mrs. M'Lachlan pays her rent. 5 July — 12-1 p.m. — Mrs. M'Lachlan pawns the silver plate. 5 July — ]Mrs. IM'Lachlan sends to Hamilton leather trunk con- taining her blood-stained skirt and petticoats. 5-7 July — James Fleming alone in the house with the corpse. 7 July — 4 p.m.— Discovery of the murder by Mr. John Fleming and his son. 8 July— Post-mortem examination conducted by Drs. Fleming and Macleod. 8 July — Mrs. M'Lachlan at Hamilton. 9 July — James Fleming arrested as being concerned in the crime ; examined for four hours before the Sheriff ; and committed to prison. 9 July — j\Irs. jNI'Lachlan sends to Ayr tin box containing deceased's clothes. Mrs. M'Lachlan. 1862. 9 July — Missing plate produced by Lundie, the pawnbroker, to police. 13 July — i\lrs. M'Lachlan and her husband arrested for the murder. 14 July — James M'Lachlan and his wife successively examined before the Sheriff and separate declarations emitted by them; James M'Lachlan liberated and his wife committed. 16 July — Dr. Macleod conducts experiments to compare Mrs. M'Lachlan's foot with the three bloody footprints found in the house. 16 July — Tin box recovered by police ; ]\Irs. M'Lachlan re- examined by Procurator-fiscal, and second declaration emitted by her. 17 July — James Fleming liberated after consultation of Crown authorities in Edinburgh. 21 July — The blood-stained clothes having been found at Hamil- ton, ]\Irs. jNI'Lachlan further examined by Procurator-fiscal, and third declaration emitted by her. I August — Blood-stained articles examined by Professor Penny. 12 August — Mrs. M'Lachlan verbally communicates her "state- ment " to her agent, ]\Ir. Wilson. 13 August — Mrs. M'Lachlan repeats her "statement" to her agent, Mr. Dixon, who commits same to writing. 30 August — Indictment served on ]\Irs. M'Lachlan. 17 September — First day of trial — evidence for prosecution. 18 September — Second day — evidence for prosecution continued. 19 September — Third day — evidence for prosecution concluded ; evidence for defence ; addresses of counsel. 20 September — Fourth day — judge's charge ; verdict ; Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement; sentence of death — to be executed 11th October. 22 September — Letter from Mrs. M'Lachlan's agents regarding the preparation of her statement, published in the newspaper press. 26 September— Preliminary meeting held in Glasgow in support of the petition to the Home Secretary praying for a respite and further investigation, xcviii Leading Dates. 1862. 29 September — Public meeting held in the City Hall, Glasgow, when resolutions as to the necessity for further investigation carried, and deputation to the Home Secretary and Lord Advocate appointed. Public meeting held in Edinburgh, when similar resolutions carried. 30 September— Sir Archibald Alison, Sheriff of Lanarkshire, on the instructions of the Lord Advocate, commences a private inquiry into the case. 3 October — Deputation received by Lord Advocate in Edinburgh. 3 October — Execution of sentence respited by Home Secretary until 1st November. 13 October — Appointment of Mr. George Young, Advocate, as Crown Commissioner to continue the inquiry. 17-20 October — Inquiry conducted by Crown Commissioner with closed doors. 24 October — Result of inquiry communicated by the Commissioner to the Home Secretary. 28 October — Execution of sentence respited until further signifi- cance of Her Majesty's pleasure. 6 November — Conditional pardon granted to Mrs. M'Lachlan— sentence commuted to penal servitude for life. 11 November — I\Irs. INI'Lachlan removed to General Prison of Perth. 14 November — Letter from Home Secretary to James Fleming's law agents giving his reasons for recommending commutation of the sentence. 1863. 24 April — Debate in House of Commons upon Mr. Stirling's motion for copies of the proceedings at the trial and of the evidence taken at the subsequent inquiry. 4 June — Motion by Mr. Stirling for further returns. 19 June — Interview between Mrs. M'Lachlan and her agent, Mr. Dixon, in Perth General Prison. 26 June— Debate in House of Commons upon the jM'Lachlau 6 July — Statement by Mr. Dixon, agent for Mrs. M'Lachlan, regarding alleged " confession " made by her to him, pub- lished in Glasgow Herald. Mrs. M'Lachlan. 1363. 13 August — Correspondence and documents relating to Mr. Dixon's interview with Mrs. M'Lachlan at Perth, published in Glasgow Herald. 1877. 5 October — ^Irs. IM'Lachlan released from Perth General Prison upon ticket-of-leave. 1899. 1 January — Death of Mrs. M'Lachlan at Port Huron, Michigan, U.S.A. THE TRIAL. GLASGOW AUTUMN CIECUIT. WEDNESDAY, 17th, to SATURDAY, 20th SEPTEMBER, 1862. Judge Presiding — LORD DEAS. Counsel for the Crown — Mr. Adam Gifford, Advocate-Depute, and Mr. Andrew Mure, Advocate. Agent — Mr. Andrew Murray, Junior, W.S., Edinburgh. Counsel for the Pannel — Mr. Andrew Rutherfurd Clark, Mr. Robert Maclean, and Mr. Adam Bannatyne, Advocates. Agents — Messrs. Joseph Anthony Dixon, John Strachan, and William M'Whirter Wilson, Writers, Glasgow. FIRST DAY. At Glasgow, the Seventeenth day of September, 1862. Present the Honourable Lord Deas, one of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Present — • The Sheriff of Lanarkshire. The Sheriff of Dumbartonshire. The Sheriff of Renfrewshire. Intran. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now or lately prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, Pannel. Indictbb and Accused as at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate, for Her Majesty's interest, of the crime of murder, as also theft, in manner mentioned in the libel raised thereanent. The Indictment. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now or lately prisoner in the prison of Glasgow, you are indicted and accused at the instance of James Moncreiff, Esq., Her Majesty's Advocate for Her Majesty's interest : That albeit, by the laws of this and of every other well-governed realm, murder, as also theft, are crimes of an heinous nature, and severely punishable ; yet true it is, and of verity, that you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, are guilty of the said crime of murder, and of the said crime of theft, or of one or other of the said crimes, actor, or art and part; in so far as (1), on the 4th or 5th day of July, 1862, or on one or other of the days of that month, or of June immediately preceding, or of August immediately following, in or near the house or premises in or near Sandy- ford Place, in or near Glasgow, then, and now, or lately occupied by John Fleming, accountant, now or lately residing there, you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan did, wickedly and feloniously attack and assault Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie M'Pherson Richardson, then a servant in the employ- ment of the said John Fleming, and residing in the said house or premises in or near Sandyford Place aforesaid, now deceased, and did with an iron cleaver or chopper, or other similar edged instrument, to the prosecutor unknown, strike the said Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie M'Pherson Richardson, one or more blows on the face and forehead, and several blows on the head and neck, and did inflict severe wounds on the face, head, and neck of the said Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie M'Pherson Richardson, whereby her skull was fractured, and she was otherwise seriously and mortally injured in her Mrs. M'Lachlan. person ; in consequence of which, or of part thereof, the said Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie M'Pherson Richardson, immediately or soon thereafter died, and was thus murdered by you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan : Farther (2), Time and place above libelled, you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan did, wickedly and feloniously, steal and theftuously take away from the said house or premises in Sandyford Place aforesaid, Six or thereby silver or other metal table spoons, Six or thereby plated or metal dessert spoons, Six or thereby silver or other metal toddy ladles, A silver or other metal fish slice, A silver or other metal soup divider. Two or thereby silver or other metal teaspoons, A plated metal sauce spoon, and Six or thereby plated or other metal forks, the property or in the lawful possession of the said John Fleming, as also, A velvet cloak, A cloth cloak, A black silk dress, A brown or other coloured silk dress, A merino or other dress, A silk jacket or polka, and A plaid, the property or in the lawful possession of the said Jessie M'Pherson, otherwise Jessie MTherson Richardson, now deceased, or of her heir, executors, and representatives, or of the said John Fleming : And you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan having been apprehended and taken before Alexander Strathern, Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, and in his presence at Glasgow, emit and subscribe three several declarations, dated respectively, 14th day of July, 1862, 16th day of July, 1862, and 21st day of July, 1862; which declarations, as also the articles, books, plans, and writings or documents, specified and enumerated in an inven- tory hereunto annexed and referred to ; as also the several labels attached to said articles ; being to be used against you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan at your trial, will, for that purpose, be in due time lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the Circuit 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 judicial confession of you the The Trial. said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, before the Lord Justice- General, Lord Justice-Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, in a Circuit Court of Justiciary to be holden by them, or by any one or more of their number, within the burgh of Glasgow, in the month of September, in this present year 1862, you the said Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan ouanr to be punished with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming. Ad. Gifford, A.D. INVENTORY OF ARTICLES, BOOKS, PLANS, AND WRITINGS, OR DOCUMENTS, REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE INDICTMENT. 1. A shift, a semmet, and a woollen polka. 2. A sheet. 3. Three petticoats, a towel, a petticoat crinoline, and a pair of etays. 4. An iron chopper or cleaver, with two labels attached. 5. A glass bottle. 6. A key. 7. Two pieces of flooring, having footmarks thereon. 8. Three pieces of wood, having footmarks thereon. 9. A woollen cozie or comfort. 10. A piece of checked muslin. 11. Six silver table spoons. 12. Six plated dessert spoons. 13. Six silver toddy ladles. 14. A silver fish slice. 15. A silver soup divider. 16. Two silver teaspoons. 17. A plated sauce spoon. 18. Six plated forks. 19. A box or trunk. 20. Thirteen, or thereby, pieces of woollen or flannel cloth. 21. Six, or thereby, pieces of wincey or other cloth. 22. Twenty, or thereby, pieces of coburg or other cloth. 23. A sleeve, or part of a sleeve, of a dress. 24. A flannel petticoat. 25. Parts of a petticoat crinoline. 26. A straw bonnet, trimmed with blue or other ribbons. 27. A black and blue water-shaded gown. 28. A japanned box. 29. A velvet cloak and a cloth cloak. 30. A black dress, or parts thereof ; a brown silk dress, or parts thereof ; and a silk jacket or polka. 31. A plaid. 32. A merino gown, or parts thereof. 33. A cloth cloak, or parts thereof. 34. Forty-one, or thereby, pawn tickets. 35. A printed handkerchief or muffler. 36. A flannel petticoat and a shift. 37. A cotton handkerchief. 38. A key. 39. Two keys. Mrs. M'Lachlan. 40. Two keys. 41. A key. 42. Four pawn tickets. 43. Two pawn tickets. 44. Way-bill, titled " Glasgow and South Western Railway Local Parcels Way-Bill, Glasgow to Ayr, 4.30 o'clock train, 9th July, 1862," or similarly titled. 45 Way-bill, titled " Glasgow and South Western Railway Local Parcels Way-Bill, Ayr to Glasgow, 9.50 o'clock train, 11th July, 1862," or similarly titled. 46. Way-bill, titled " Caledonian Railway Guard in charge (to be filled in by receiving station) Parcels Way-Bill, Greenock to Bridge Street, Departure 10.30 a.m. o'clock train, 16th day of July, 1862," or similarly titled. 47. Book, titled at the top " Received in good order from Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway Co.," or similarly titled. 48. Book, titled on the back " Day Book, 1862," or similarly titled. 49. Three shirts. 50. Two pieces of cloth. 51. Book, titled " Caledonian Railway Parcel Book forwarded Glas- gow So. Side Station James Lonie Pel Clerk," or similarly titled. 52. Book, titled on the back " Parcel Book outwards," or similarly titled. 53. Receipt book, titled on the top " Received in good order from the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway Co.," or similarly titled. 54. Six plans of premises at No. 17 Sandyford Place, Glasgow, ni:mbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 55. Two sheets of paper with pencil tracings thereon. 56. A medical report or certificate, bearing to be dated " Glasgow, July 8th, 1862," and to be subscribed " Geo. H. B. Macleod, M.D., F.R.C.S., Joseph Fleming, Surgeon," or to be similarly dated and subscribed. 57. A medical or chemical report or certificate, bearing to be dated " Andersonian University, Glasgow, 11th August, 1862," and to be subscribed " Frederick Penny, Professor of Chemistry," or to be similarly dated and subscribed. 58. Passbook of the National Security Savings Bank of Glasgow, titled inside, " No. 130,423 — James Fleming," or similarly titled. 59. Bank Passbook, titled outside, " Argyle Street Branch Royal Bank of Scotland, No. 2, in account with Mr. James Fleming, 17 Sandyford Place," or similarly titled. Ad. Giffoed, A.D. LIST OF WITNESSES. 1. Alexander Strathern, Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire. 2. John Gemmel, writer in Glasgow. 3. Peter Morton, clerk in the Sheriff-clerk's office in Glasgow. 4. Bernard M'Laughlin, sheriff-officer in Glasgow. 5. William Hart, writer in Glasgow. 6. Charles O'Neill, architect and civil engineer in Glasgow, and residing in Abbotsford Place, Laurieston. Glasgow. 7. John Fleming, accountant in Glasgow, and residing in Sandy- ford Place, Glasgow, or at Avondale Lodge, Dunoon. 8. John Fleming, junior, son of and residing with the said John Fleming. 9. Jo.^eph Fleming, surgeon, and residing in Corunna Street, Glasgow. 10. Ebenezer Watson, physician, and residing in Newton Terrace, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow. 6 The Trial. 11. Alexander M'Call, assistant superintendent of police, Glasgow, and residing in Charlotte Street, Glasgow. 12. Donald Campbell, criminal officer in the Western district of the Glasgow police. 13. Robert Jeffrey, criminal officer in the Western district of the Glasgow police. 14. Audley Thomson, criminal officer in the Central district of the Glasgow police. 15. William Smith, criminal officer in the Central district of the Glasgow police. 16. Margaret Maclnnes or MacLachlan, widow, residing at Penmore, in the island of Mull. 17. Martha M'Intyre, servant to and residing with Alexander Stewart, merchant, at Burnbank Gardens, Great Western Road, Glasgow. 18. Mary Downie, servant to and residing with Ronald Johnstone, mining engineer, Brandon Place, West George Street, Glasgow. 19. Margaret Fleming, residing with the said John Fleming. 20. Christina Fraser, wife of and residing with John Fraser, seaman, in Grace Street, Finnieston, Glasgow. 21. Margaret M'Kenzie or Campbell, wife of and residing with Donald Campbell, seaman, in Clydesdale Buildings, Broomielaw Street, Glasgow. 22. IMary Black or Adams, residing in Holm Street, Glasgow. 23. Thomas Miller, assistant pawnbroker, and residing in Douglas Street, Glasgow. 24. Thomas Robb, assistant superintendent of the Southern district of the Glasgow police. 25. Sarah Adams, servant to and residing with James Kinloch, coffee stand keeper, Eglinton Street, Glasgow. 26. Elizabeth Coulch or Rainny, wife of George Rainny, labourer, Holm Street, Glasgow. 27. Robert Lundie, assistant to John Lundie, pawnbroker, East Clyde Street, Glasgow. 28. James Lean, assistant to the said John Lundie. 29. David Barclay, clerk at the South Side station of the Cale- donian Railway in Glasgow, and residing in South Portland Street, Laurieston, Glasgow. 30. Aaron Wharton, clerk at the station in Hamilton of the Cale- donian Railway, and residing with David Herd, railway porter, in Almada Street, Hamilton. 31. Marion Rae or Chassels, wife of William Chassels, carter, Almada Street, Hamilton. 32. Mirrilees Chassels, son of the said William Chassels. 33. James Chassels, son of the said William Chassels. 34. John Hamilton, saddler, Blackswell, Hamilton. 35. Elizabeth Steel, shopwoman to Jane M'Innes or Reid, milliner, Argyle Street, Glasgow. 36. Elizabeth Pollock or Gibson, wife of William Gibson, grazier and publican, Low Waters, Hamilton. 37. The said W'illiam Gibson. 38. Daniel Stewart, police constable in Hamilton. 39. Margaret Gibson, daughter of the said William Gibson. 40. Marion Fairley, daughter of John Fairley, blacksmith. Low Waters. 41. William Paterson, builder, Hamilton. 42. Andrew Cooper, police constable in Hamilton. 43. David Dewar, superintendent of police in Hamilton. 44. Jane Lambert or M'Gregor, milliner and dressmaker, Stobcross Street, Anderston, Glasgow. 7 Mrs. M'Lachlan. 45. Catherine Fraser or Shaw, wife of Alexander Shaw, tailor's cutter, Union Street, Hamilton. 46. Elizabeth M'Crone, shopwoman to Robert Murray, dyer, Argyl« Street, Glasgow, and residing in West Nile Street, Glasgow. 47. Robert Spence, foreman to the said Robert Murray, and residing in M'Neill Street, Little Govan. 48. John Murray, sheriff-officer in Glasgow. 49. John Anderson, sheriff-officer in Glasgow. 50. William Smith Dunlop, assistant ironmonger to James FuUerton, ironmonger, Argyle Street, Glasgow, and residing in North Dundas Street, Glasgow. 51. James FuUerton, junior, assistant to the said James FuUerton, and residing with him in Provanside, Stirling Road, Glasgow. 52. John Rorke, clerk in the station at Glasgow of the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway, Bridge Street, Glasgow, and residing in Mel- ville Street, Tradeston, Glasgow. 53. Archibald M'Millan, porter, in the employment of the said Glas- gow and Paisley Joint Railway, in Bridge Street, Glasgow, and residing in Cook Street, Tradeston, Glasgow. 54. William Kerr Craig, clerk in the general manager's office in Bridge Street, Glasgow, of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway, and residing in Devon Street, Laurieston, Glasgow. 55. Robert Blair, clerk, Ayr. 56. Robert Young, clerk in the parcel office in Bridge Street, Glas- gow, connected with the Greenock section of the Caledonian Railway, and residing in Nelson Street, Glasgow. 57. Elizabeth M'Lachlan or Reid, wife of William Reid, gasmaker, Drumfrocher Road, Greenock. 58. The said WiUiam R^id. 59. Donald Laurie, Ucensed porter, Hamilton Street, Greenock. 60. Alexander Martin, parcel deliverer, in the service of the Cale- donian Railway Company at Greenock, and residing in HiU Street, Greenock. 61. James Hughes, parcel deliverer at the Greenock railway station, and residing in William Street, Greenock. 62. John M'Intyre, clerk in the parcel office at the station in Glas- gow of the Greenock Section of the Caledonian Railway, and residing in Woodlands Road, Glasgow. 63. Thomas Railton, clerk and cashier to Alexander Balderston, accountant. West Nile Street, Glasgow, and residing in Renfrew Street, Glasgow. 64. David Caldwell, clerk to the said Alexander Balderston, and residing in Cadogan Street, Glasgow. 65. Alexander Baxter, joiner, residing in Garscube Road, Glasgow. 66. George Husband Baird Macleod, physician and surgeon, residing in Woodside Crescent, Glasgow. 67. William Macgill, surgeon, residing in George Street, Glasgow. 68. James M'Lachlan, seaman, and residing in Broomielaw Street, Glasgow. 69. Hugh M'Cairley, quartermaster on board the " Pladda " steamer plying betwixt Glasgow and Waterford, and residing in Oak Street, Anderston, Glasgow. 70. James Fleming, residing with John Fleming, before designed. 71. Andrew Darnl^y, patternmaker at the Falkirk Iron Works, and residing in High Street, Falkirk. 72. William M'Kim, teller in the office of the National Security Savings Bank, Wilson Street, Glasgow, and residing in Argyle Street, Glasgow. 8 The Trial. 73. Thomas Somervail, agent for the Argyle Street branch, Glasgow, of the Royal Bank of Scotland, and residing in Lynedoch Street, Glasgow. 74. Andrew Sloan, clerk and cashier to John Fleming, accountant, before designed, and residing in Douglas Street, Glasgow. 75. John M'Allister, calenderer. West George Street, Glasgow, and residing in Berkeley Terrace, Glasgow. 76. Frederick Penny, Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University, Glasgow. 77. Mary IM'Pherson or M'Kinnon, wife of John M'Kinnon, fish- monger, residing in Ann Street, Greenock. 78. Elizabeth Brownlie, servant to and residing with Robert Stewart, jeweller, Sandyford Place, aforesaid. 79. John Reekie, clerk to Hart 4; Gemmel, procurators-fLscad, Glasgow. 80. Harriet Bain, a female warder in the prison of Glasgow. List of Exculpatory Witnesses for Mrs. Jessie M'Intosb or M'Lachlan, presently Prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow. 1/80. Crown witnesses, as named and designed in list annexed to Indictment. 81. Mrs. Mary Fullerton or Smith, wife of Alexander Smith, labourer, in Richard Street, Glasgow. 82. James Walker, grocer, residing in or near Elderslie Street. Glasgow. 83. Mrs. Walker, wife of and residing with the said James Walker. 84. Mrs. Jessie M'Kinnon. wife of Duncan M'Kinnon, ship carpenter, and residing in or near Dover Street, Glasgow. 85. Ann Macintosh, now or lately residing at or near Cornhill, Hope Terrace, Whitehouse Gardens, Edinburgh. 86. Mrs. Sarah Thomas, shopkeeper, in or near Broomielaw Street, Glasgow. 87. Jean Mann, servant to and residing with Mr. John Ronaldson, victualler, in or near Bridgegate, Glasgow. 88. Daniel Paton, furniture dealer, residing m or near Bridgegate, Glasgow. 89. Donald M'Quarry, residing in or near Water Street, Port Dundas, Glasgow. 90. George Paton, residing in Burnside Buildings, in or near Burn- Bide Street, Cowcaddens, Glasgow. 91. Alexander Cameron, policeman B17, one of the Glasgow police force, attached to the Western Police Office, Glasgow. 92. John Lauder, grain dealer. West Street, Tradeston, Glasgow. 93. Andrew Murray, junior, Writer to the Signet, and residing in Edinburgh. 94. Thomas Chapman, now or lately chief clerk in the Crown Office, Parliament Square, Edinburgh. 95. Thomas Shillinglaw, now or lately second clerk in the said office. 96. David Duncan, now or lately third clerk in the said office. 97. William Milroy, now or lately fourth clerk in the said office. 98. J. M. Adam, now or lately fifth clerk in the said office. 99. George M'Queen, now or lately clerk in the Justiciary Office, Reerister House, Edinburgh. 100. J. W. Hamilton, now or lately Depute-Clerk of Justiciary, Edinburgh. 9 Mrs. M'Lachlan. 101. Joseph Anthony Dixon, writer in Glasgow, and residing in Sauchiehall Street there. 102. John Strachan, writer in Glasgow, and residing in Avondale Place, Paisley Road, in or near Glasgow. 103. William M. Wilson, writer in Glasgow, and residing in Buccleuch Street there. 104. William Drysdale, one of the Sheriff-clerk Deputes of Lanark- shire, residing in Glasgow. 105. George Sellars, one of the Sheriff-clerk Deputes of Lanarkshire, County Buildings, Glasgow. 106. Hugh Freeland, messenger-at-arms, and residing in Glafigow. 107. Peter Scott, Sheriff officer, residing in Glasgow. 108. Andrew Buchanan, junior, M.D., residing in Athole Place, Glasgow. 109. Agnes Dykes, greengrocer, residing in Elderslie Street, Glasgow. 110. Hugh Macdonald, general broker, in or near M 'Alpine Street, Glasgow. 111. Helen Macdonald, general broker, in or near M'Alpine Street, Glasgow. 112. John ]\Iatthews, billposter, in or near Ropework Lane, Glasgow. 113. James M'Lay, rope spinner in Glassford Street, Glasgow. 114. Malcolm Campbell, master of the steamer " Vulcan," and now or lately residing in Rothesay. 115. Miss Campbell, spinster, residing in Kent Road, Glasgow. 116. James Thomson, hotel-keeper, Dunoon. 117. Mrs. Forrest or Thomson, wife of and residing with the said James Thomson. 118. Robert Chrystal, grocer and wine merchant. Charing Cross, Glasgow. 119. Tatlock, assistant to Frederick Penny, Professor of Chemistry, Andersonian University, Glasgow. 120. Pearce Adolphus Simpson, M.D., West Regent Street, Glasgow. 121. Thomas Watson, M.D., West Regent Street, Glasgow. 122. Simson Buchanan, M.D., now or lately residing in York Street, Glasgow. 123. WUliam M'Lachlan, moulder, residing at or near No. 6 Shaw Street, Greenock. 124. Robert Orr. physician and surgeon, Buccleuch Street, Glasgow. 125. Duncan M'lNIillan, carpenter, now or lately residing in Spring- field Lane, Paisley Road, Glasgow. 126. David Brand, clerk to W. M. Wilson, writer, Glasgow. 127. Archibald Dunlop, merchant, residing in Royal Terrace, Glasgow. 128. Patrick Griffins, city norter, in or near Bridgegate, Glasgow. 129. Margaret Drew, now or lately residing in or near Holm Street, Glasgow. 130. William Taylor, oil and colour merchant, in or near Holm Street, Glasgow. Robert MacLban. Additional List of Witnesses in Exculpation for Mrs. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, indicted for Murder and Theft, at the Glasgow Autumn Circuit, 1862. Colin Campbell, police constable, Western District of Police, Glasgow. Adam R. Bannatyne. Lord Deas finds the libel relevant to infer the pains of law. Geo. Dbas. 10 Evidence for Prosecution. The pannel, having pleaded not guilty, was remitted to an Assize, and the following jury was balloted: — Alex. Salton, commission agent, Miller Street, Glasgow. Wm. Holborn Fyfe, ship chandler, Shaw Place, Greenock. Wm. Smith, wholesale grocer, Argyle Street, Glasgow. Geo. R. Stephenson, brassfounder. Maxwell Street, Glasgow. Andrew Spencer, coalmaster, Wishaw. Andrew Black, saddler. West Campbell Street, Glasgow. John Stalker, jun.. Bank Street, Paisley. Alex. Phillips, Trongate, Glasgow. Robert Watson, colour merchant, Stow Street, Paisley. Gavin Hamilton, cartwright, St. James's Road, Glasgow. John Campbell, grocer, Alexandria. John Marshall, farmer. West Hills, Lochwinnoch. John Brodie, spirit dealer, Stobcross Street, Glasgow. Donald M'Donald, jun., merchant, Ardgowan Square, Greenock. Patrick Riddell, spirit dealer, Stobcross Street, Glasgow. Who were all duly sworn to try the libel. A special defence for the prisoner was here read. Special Defence for Mrs. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan to the Indictment against her at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate. The Pannel pleads not guilty, and, without prejudice to that plea, she specially pleads that the murder alleged in the Indictment was committed by James Fleming, now or lately residing with John Fleming, accountant, in or near Sandyford Place, Glasgow. In respect whereof, Robert MacLean, of Counsel for the Pannel. The following evidence was adduced in proof of the libel : — Evidence for the Prosecution. 1. Alexander Strathern, Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, a. StratheFn shown declarations of the prisoner, dated 14th, 16th, and 21st July, deponed that they were emitted by her in his presence, freely and voluntarily, in her sound and sober senses, and after receiving the usual warning. Cross-examined by Mr. Rutherpurd Clark — I think the husband of the prisoner, who had been apprehended on a warrant, was examined first. The husband and wife were included in the same charge. It came to be known to me IX Mrs. M^Lachlan. A. Stpathern that the husband had left Glasgow on the morning of 4th of July, and did not return till late the following week. I can't answer more distinctly as to when it became known to me that he had left Glasgow. The husband was examined first, his examination lasting within an hour. I think it was in the course of the examination that I came to know that he had been out of town. The wife was examined after the husband. I told her she might decline to answer any ques- tions. Her examination continued, I think, four hours. The examination was taken in the usual way. The Procurator-fiscal asked the questions, so far as I allowed him, and I dictated the answers to a clerk. She was again examined, some articles having been found in the interval bear- ing on the case. The second examination was conducted in the same way as the first, but she volunteered an explanation which I thought it right to take down. The articles were shown while the interrogatories were put. Some introductory interrogatories were put first. These lasted only a few minutes. The declaration shows the time and place where the articles were found. John Gemmel 2. John Gemmel, joint Procurator-fiscal, deponed to the declarations of the prisoner having been freely and voluntarily emitted in his presence. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — I believe the husband of the prisoner was apprehended on the same charge. He was liberated immediately after the pannel was examined. It was not known, though reported, that the husband had left town between the 4th July and the end of the following week. We had no means of ascertaining it. Do you mean to say that it was not well ascertained, before his examination, that he had been out of Glasgow during the period to which I refer? — I don't think so. Did you, as Procurator-fiscal, examine the pannel and her husband, on one citation, with having committed the crimes of murder and theft? — I did. I did not personally make inquiries after the husband, but I got reports from some of the criminal officers. Had you not got reports from some of the criminal officers prior to the examination? — I may; and personally I made some investigation before he was examined. I had no reason to believe that he was out of town before that period. I cannot say I had any reason to doubt it. By Lord Deas — I can neither state whether I doubted it or not. I was not satisfied that he was out of town. It was stated by some persons in the house where the husband was. I had reason to doubt it, because I was not satisfied that he was out of town. X2 Evidence for Prosecution. Mr. Clark — Did you not say that you had no reason to doubt John (}emin6l it? Did you not say sol — I think I did. Mr. Clark — And now you say you had ! Lord Deas asked Mr. Gemmel whether the following, which he had taken down, was correct: — " I heard he had been out of town from the morning of the 4th, and I had no reason to doubt he had been so. I was not satisfied it was true." — Yes. Mr. Clark — Mr. John Lang, Procurator-fiscal, gave informa- tion of this charge? — Yes. Did Mr. Lang tell you the prisoner's husband had been out of town during that period? — I told you it was reported he was out of town. Did you make inquiry at the agent of the ship at Glasgow? — I made inquiry. I did not receive an answer before the husband was examined. I think the inquiry at the agent's was made after the husband's examination, and before he was directed to be released. 3. William Hart, joint Procurator-fiscal, Glasgow, being William Hart shown a declaration dated 21st July, deponed — It was made by the prisoner freely and voluntarily in my presence, when she was in her sound and sober senses, and after she had been duly warned. 4. John Fleming, accountant, Glasgow, examined by Mr. John Fleming GiFFORD — I reside at 17 Sandyford Place, Glasgow. It is a ground flat, street flat, and a flat above. The house enters by half a dozen steps from the pavement. I resided with part of my family there, and part was at Dunoon. I was in Glasgow on Friday, the 4th July. From Friday to Monday I was generally in Dunoon. I left my house for my counting-house on the 4th July, in the morning at ten o'clock. My counting-house is in St. Vincent Place. I left my oflice at three o'clock afternoon for Dunoon, without going to the house in Sandyford Place. My father, James Fleming, and the servant Jess M'Plierson were left in the house at Sandyford Place on that Friday morning. Jess M'Pherson is the name of the deceased. I never knew she was called Richardson till after her death. So far as I know, these were the only two persons left in the house that morning. I had two female servants at Dunoon. By Lord Deas — These two servants were never at Sandyford Place. They had come but recently. Examination resumed — My sister, Margaret Fleming, was at Dunoon. My son left the house with me on the Friday morning. He was in the counting-house during the day. He went down to Dunoon by himself that Friday Z3 Mrs. M'Lachlan. John Fleming afternoon. He was at Dunoon all Friday night; in fact, he remained at Dunoon from Friday night till Monday. The deceased had charge of the house along with my father. The deceased was with me several years ago. She left me three years ago to commence a little business for herself in a small grocery. I never was in it. It was in the neighbourhood of Partick Road, near to Finnie- ston. She was away from my service, I think, about three years, and came back Whitsunday was a year past, or there- abouts. It was my habit to leave her in charge of the house while at summer quarters. She was in charge of the house all the present summer. She occasionally visited us at our summer quarters, but not often. She was not at Dunoon with me on either Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. I returned by the ten o'clock boat from Rothesay on Monday morning, and arrived in Glasgow about half-past twelve. I took the boat to Greenock, and train from there to Glasgow. I went direct to my counting-house on arrival. I did not go to Sandyford Place. My son had arrived at the office before me. I left the office at four o'clock with the intention of going to dinner. I took the omnibus and dropped off at North Street, and walked to Sandyford Place, which I reached at about half-past four. I went to the grocer's and butcher's on the way. How did you get into your house? — I rang the bell. Who opened the door? — I think my son opened the door on that day; he had gone on before me while I was in the butcher's. Lord Deas — Have you only one son? — Only one. Examination resumed — Well, tell us exactly what took place? — The old man was standing at the head of the lobby, nigh to the clock. My son had passed on, and was standing near to him. The flesher's boy had been in immediately before that with some collops, which I had ordered for dinner, and were laid at the head of the stair leading down to the kitchen. The young man said, " There is no use sending anything for dinner here; there is nobody to cook it." He alluded to the old man, my father, and added, " He says he has not seen her since Friday, and that her room door is locked." These were the words he expressed ; and I thought it a surprising story, as she was of steady habits. My son added, " She may be lying dead in her room for anything he knows." I put down my hat on the lobby table at the head of the stair- case. I said to them both, " Come away downstairs with me." We went down accordingly. I went down first, followed by the other two. I went into the kitchen, followed by them, and saw that the fire was half out; observed nothing particular in the kitchen to attract attention, and, indeed. Evidence for Prosecution. did not look. From there I went to the servant's room John Fleming door, which is on the same floor as the kitchen. I found the door locked, with no key in it. From there I passed into a sunk storeroom or pantry, my first idea being that, as there was an opening in the grating in that room, a window with iron stanchions, and by pushing open which entrance is got into the area, I could go into the area and look into the servant's room, and see if I could observe anything, and very likely to open the window and go in. The windows of the servant's room both look into the area; there are three windows in the area. It struck me, on second thought, that there might be a key in the pantry door that would suit the bedroom door. I turned to the door, found the key in the lock, passed it into the lock of the bedroom, and it opened it at once. When I opened the door the room was in a half- darkened state. The window blinds were down, and one-half of the window shutters were closed. The bed, which was placed with the foot to the door and the head to the window, was removed about a foot and a half from the wall. Lord Deas — What do you mean by the bed being about a foot and a half from the wall? Do you mean that the back of the bed was that distance from the wall? — Yes. Examination continued — I passed on to the foot of the bed, and there discovered the servant's body lying on the floor with the feet towards the window and the head towards the opposite end of the room, inclining towards the door, in a slanting position alongside the bed. The body was naked from the small of the back downwards, entirely naked; the upper part of the body was covered with some dark clothing, as was also part of the head. I exclaimed, "Good God, here she is lying here! " or words to that effect. My father and my son were then standing at my back, and they reiterated similar words of surprise. They said, " This is dreadful ! " or something to that effect. I touched nothing in any way, but said, '' Come upstairs with me," and ran out to call some of the neighbours or the police to see this. We all went upstairs accordingly, and I passed out at the hall door and ran along the row, calling at several of my neighbours' doors to bring them in. I found some of the doors locked, and at others learned that the gentlemen had not come home for dinner. I was unsuccessful in finding any party to take in, although several of the gentlemen were expected almost immediately. I then passed out to the street, and met one gentleman at the entrance to the row. I told him what had occurred, and asked him to come in; but he declined, saying, " No, no ; you have said enough to frighten me from my dinner." I then went to the butcher's shop at the corner, where I had been before going into the house (Mr. Train's), and asked him, IS Mrs. M'Lachlan. John Fleming in a hurried manner, to run down to the police office, saying that something dreadful had taken place at my house, and that I had found my servant's body dead on the floor. He accordingly ran in the direction of the police office, while I went along the street in the direction of North Street, with the idea of getting some person to take into the house. I first met Dr. Eben. Watson, and told him what had happened, and asked him to come into the house with me. Lord Deas — Did he come with you? — He came with me, and I took him downstairs and showed him the body. He put his finger on the hip and said, '' Quite cold ; has been dead for some time," and asked me if I had sent for the police. No matter what took place, did the police come? — The police came soon afterwards. Did you bring in anybody else? — Yes; I brought in Mr. Chrystal, the grocer, and then the police authorities came, and went into the examination. Dr. Watson and the police surgeon went downstairs together after the latter came. Did the police surgeon or the police come first? — I think the police surgeon came first. His name is Dr. Joseph Fleming. Mr. GiFFORD — What do you mean by saying that part of the body was covered with a dark cloth ; do you mean that there was a cloth thrown over the body, or that there was clothing on it? — It seemed to me to resemble some dark cloth thrown over the body, but I did not examine it. I do not mean that the body was dressed. Lord Deas — Was the body, to any extent, in a dressed state? — I could not see anything except on the upper part of the body. Mr. GiFFORD — When you came in with Dr. Watson did you find the body in the same state as it was when you left? — In exactly the same state. Did you notice then, or when you came back, the state of the room otherwise? — There was a basin-stand at the left hand of the door going into the deceased's bedroom. In this basin I observed something resembling the spitting of blood. I did not see any more blood in the room at that time; I did not, however, examine the room more particularly, and I think I did not examine the floor of the kitchen. The authorities examined the floor of the kitchen. I left them that night or early next morning in possession of the house. I did not see my father till I went home on Monday at four o'clock; indeed, I did not see him in the house from Friday till the Monday afternoon. I must have seen him in the counting-house during the course of Friday. I believe the deceased was on Friday morning in her usual state of health. I was in the habit of informing her when I left home if I would not be home in the evening. I am pretty sure that I told her that Friday morning i6 Evidence for Prosecution. that I "would not be home that evening. When deceased left John Fleming me three years ago she did so on account of her health; she was very bilious, and much troubled with her stomach. When she came to me last she enjoyed better health than she did previously. For some time before her death she was generally in good health. I could not say that ever I heard there was a quarrel or misunderstanding between her and any member of my family. I had great confidence in her. I came back to my house in Sandyford Place on the forenoon of Tuesday. I think I made a good search upon Monday evening before leaving, to see if any of my property were missing. I missed several silver and plated articles, which the deceased had out for daily use from the sideboard in the dining-room. I could not at the moment enumerate the different articles. In these I do not include forks and knives, which were not of much value. The cruet-stand was not amissing. I found it lying under the table in the servant's bedroom, near to the body of the deceased; it was without the bottles. I did not at the time make a complete search, but I made one afterwards, and I missed the following articles, which I am now shown: — Six silver table spoons, six plated dessert spoons, six silver toddy ladles, a silver fish slice, a silver soup divider, two silver teaspoons, a plated sauce spoon, and six plated forks. All these articles are my property, and were in my house when I left on Friday morning. (Witness shown what appeared to be an old window curtain.) When I saw this before I thought it was very like a piece of window curtain I had seen in the house. There were similar short screens about the servant's room. I knew the pannel, as nearly as I recollect, about four or five years ago ; she was housemaid for about two years, and went down to the coast some months with the family. Since then I recollect her calling at the house with a child in her arms, when she spoke to some of the servants, and was asking, I suppose, if we were all well. Cross-examined by Mr. Claek — My father, James Fleming, generally attended my office. He went about and collected some small weekly rents, of which I gave him the charge. The properties of which he collected the rents were old and decayed, and in the lower part of the town, about the Old Wynd. They were generally high houses, with common stairs, and the tenants did not stay long in them at a time. This was the way he was occupied about last July. When I left him on the Friday he was quite well. He was often ailing with cold, but he was quite well, I think, that morning. I think he was quite well when I returned on the Monday. Did you know whether you could get in by the servant's bedroom window? — I did not; it might be snibbed inside. Did you know that there were stanchions on that window? — o 17 Mrs. M'Lachlan. John Fleming There are stanchions ; but it did not occur to me at the time that there were stanchions. The stanchions in the servant's bedroom window are quite entire. My first intention, if you will allow me to state it, was to go to the area to look into the servant's room window to see what I could see ; certainly with the intention of opening the window and getting in if I could. I found a key in the pantry door, and took it out to see if I could get into the servant's room. When you put the key into the lock did you press out any key inside? — I do not think it; the key went in freely; I did not hear any key fall inside. Have you always thought so? — I do not know how to answer that question. I will tell you how to answer — have you expressed that opinion to any one? — I do not think so; but if there had been a key in the door I think I would have found it. Did you say to the policeman Cameron that the key fell into the inside? — I cannot recollect. Did you say so to Dr. Watson? — I do not think I did. Did you say so to Mr. Chrystal? — I do not think I did. Will you swear that the door was locked at all? — Yes. You can tell whether you said the key was inside or not? — I really cannot say. When did you see the articles last before you missed them? — I saw them during the course of that week, when I went out of town on the Friday; we used some of them that morning at breakfast; they were placed in a sideboard in the dining-room, which was kept under the servant's charge. Was it locked or open? — It was generally open; the only way that we can get into the area is through the pantry window; you may get in outside by climbing over the railing. Lord Deas — The area is to the front? — Yes. Is there a low door? — -At the back there is a low door, but none to the front ; there is a bleaching green and washing house behind on the level of the area at the lower part of the house in front; there is no area stair. Mr. Clark — How was the pantry window wicket secured? — It was secured by a padlock, but it had not been in use for some time, and it has not been replaced by a new one. Lord Deas — If a person got into the front area there was nothing to hinder any person to get into the window if the padlock was not properly affixed to the wicket? — No. Was the window fixed in any way? — There was a snib upon it ; I do not remember whether it was fastened that day. Mr. GiFFORD — Do you remember raising the sash of the window? — Yes; and I found it open easily. In raising the sash do you remember whether it was snibbed or not? — I really do not remember. I did not see any key, to i8 Evidence for Prosecution. my knowledge, upon the floor inside the room ; but I was very John Fleming likely to have put my foot upon it if there had been such a key. Before this did you observe that there was a key in the servant's bedroom door? — I really could not say, as I was not in the habit of examining the servant's bedroom to see whether there was a key in it or not; there is a door that goes through the back wall to the back green, and a door at the back wall of the green that gives entrance to a lane. It was by that door that we took in coals and such things. I was a good deal excited that afternoon, and if it is thought I said anything about finding a key inside the servant's bedroom door I must have been misunderstood. I really cannot recollect of saying anything at all about that. Lord Deas — Do you know what your father's age is? — I believe he was eighty-seven on the 9th of August last. A Juror — Is it possible for a person to get into the house by the window if they were to get over the railing? Lord Deas — You will observe that the witness said that there was nothing to prevent it if they were to get over the railing; if the sash of the window was not snibbed it could be lifted up and the wicket opened. 5. John Fleming, jun., examined by Mr. Gifford — 1 John Fleming, am a son of the last witness. I left my father's house in •'""* Sandyford Place at ten o'clock on the morning of the 4th July last, and went to Dunoon in the afternoon. I left my grand- father in the house in the morning. When at Sandyford Place I slept in the same bed with my grandfather. My grandfather was in the office on Friday, but he did not go down to Dunoon. I left Dunoon at eight o'clock on Monday morning. Lord Deas — When did you get to Glasgow? — Between ten and eleven o'clock. Mr. Gifford — Did you go to the house then? — No, I went to the office. I did not see my grandfather in the office that day. I went home alone at four o'clock in the afternoon. Who opened the door to you? — My grandfather. This would be about half-past four o'clock. Did he say anything; tell us what took place? — I asked him where the servant was. Did you speak first? — Yes. Were you surprised at him opening the door? — Yes, I was surprised; he said, "She's away, she's cut; I have not seen her since Friday."' What more? Did you say anything to him, or did he say anything more to you? — He said that her door was locked. What did you say? — I said it was very strange. Immedi- ately afterwards my father came in. I asked if he (my grand- father) had never thought of opening her door? 19 Mrs. M'Lachlan. John Fleming, Lord Deas — Was that before your father came in? — Yes, it ' was before he came. Mr. GiFFORD — What did he say? — He said, "No"; that he thought she was away seeing her friends, and that she was coming back again. My father came in then, and I told him. What did you say? — I said that she was off, or that she was there, lying down there (in the kitchen) dead. Lord Deas — Who said that? — I did. What did your grandfather say? — He said nothing. Mr. GiFFORD — What was done then? — We all went downstairs to the kitchen. Did you notice anything? — No. What did you do next? — My father tried the room door, and found it locked ; he then went into the store-room or pantry ; we were standing in the passage. Did you see what your father did in this pantry? — Yes, he opened the window. Lord Deas — Did he lift up the chess of the window? — Yes; he lifted up the lower chess. Do you know whether it was fastened? — I cannot say whether it was fastened or not. Mr. GiFFORD — What took place next? — I went along the passage and passed to the back door. Did you go out? — No. What did you do then? — I opened the door to let the air out. Why did you do this? — The air had a close smell. Lord Deas — Was the door locked ? — Yes ; the door was locked with the key inside. Mr. GiFFORD — What did you do next? — I came back to the room door. Well, and where were your father and grandfather? — We were all in the passage. And what took place after you went back to the room door? — My father took the key out of the store-room door, and put it into her door. Lord Deas — Which door ? — The door of the servant's room. Mr. GiFFORD — And was the door opened? — The key of the store-room door opened it, and we then all went in. Lord Deas — You then all went in at once? — Yes, we all went in together. Mr. GiFFORD — And what did you see? — We found her lying there on the floor, just alongside the bed. She was lying with her head towards the door and her feet towards the window. How was the body clothed? — The body was undressed and naked up to the middle. The face was downwards to the floor, and there was a cloth of some sort thrown over the upper part of the body and covering the head. Lord Deas — Was anything said when you saw this? — Yes; Evidence for Prosecution. my grandfather held up his hands on seeing this, and said, John Fleming, " She's been lying there all this time, and me in the house I " •^""* Mr. GiFFORD — What did you do then? — We went upstairs. All of you? — Yes; and my father went out, and came back with Dr. Watson. You and your grandfather were alone in the house while your father was away? — Yes. Did either of you do anything in the room while he was away 1 — No ; nobody touched anything in the room while he was absent, and there was no one in the house except ourselves at that time. He returned with Dr. Watson, and shortly after- wards the police came into the house. Did you make search, or help to make search, to see if anything was amissing in the house? — No. (Witness shown Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of inventory, being articles of silver plate.) Are these your father's property? — Yes; that is the plate that was in use in the Sandyford Place house. Lord Deas — Up to Friday, 4th July? — Yes, up to that date. Mr. GiFFORD — Look at the prisoner (who here stood up) ; do you know her? — I do; she was in service in my father's house more than two years, and also in our house in Dunoon. She was married out of our house. LfOrd Deas — What do you mean? Do you mean that the marriage took place in your house? — No, but she left our house to get married about four years ago. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Was the smell you felt in going down into the passage a strong smell? — It was a close smell, closeness in the air. Where did you first feel the smell? — I did not feel a smell at all. It was just a closeness. Was there any word of the servant Jessie going away on the Friday?— No. Lord Deas — Not that you heard of? — Not that I heard of. Mr. Clark — Was it intended she should stay with your grandfather 1 — ^Yes. 6. James Fleming^ was called, his name, on being heard, '^^^- Fleming creating a sensation in the Court. He entered the box nimbly. Fresh and healthy looking, apparently cool and composed, he repeated the oath with a distinctness that was heard all over the Court. 1 The text of the evidence in the present report is that of the " Copy of the Proceedings at the Trial," &c., printed by order of the House of Commons, which was reprinted from the Morning Journal. In view of the importance of James Fleming's evidence, it has been collated with the reports in the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman, and the North British Daily Mail, and the principal variations are here shown within square I rackets. — Ed. 21 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas, Fleming Examined by Mr. Gifford — How old are you? — I was eighty- seven on the 9th of August last. What is your employment? — Eh? I'm a little dull o' hearing, sir. VV^e will try to make you hear. How were you employed? — I was employed in my son's office to be generally useful. I took cluirge of letting and managing houses, seeing after mechanics working, and repairing houses. I lived in my son's house at Sandyford Place. I was there two or three years — all the time he had been stopping there. I knew Jessie MTherson. When did you know her? — She was a servant wi' Mr. Fleming, and cam' back the second time. I first kent her when she cam' the first time to be a servant wi' my son. How long ago is it since Jessie M'Pherson came to be a servant? — (No answer.) How long is it since she left? — She gaed to keep a bit shop for hersel'. It will be — my memory is no very guid ; I can't tell you exactly. She gaed ony way, her and anither comrade, and took up a bit shop and sell't grocery goods. It's a few years ago. She cam' back again. How long ago is that? — It's — let me see — a year ago. In July last was your son residing part of his time at Dunoon? — Yes; he has a cottage there, and spent part of the week in Glasgow and part in Dunoon. Who had charge of the house? — Jess M'Pherson; she had the whole charge. The other servants were at Dunoon ? — Yes ; but there was anither servant at hame besides Jess. It was anither servant that assisted her in the kitchen. Did she go with the other servants to Dunoon? — No; she is a witness here the day. I canna tell ye her name. Martha M'Intyre? — I daursay yes. Or is it Margaret M'Innes ; which? — (No answer was given.) [Lord Deas — No matter; she will tell you herself.] Mr. Gifford — Do you mind the 4th of July last? — Yes. Had you breakfasted at Sandyford Place that morning with your son and grandson? — I bi-eakfasted there that mornin'. I dinna recolleck whether my son was gone or not, sir. Did Jessie M'Pherson serve you that morning? — Yes. Where did you go upon that Friday? — She had been thrang for three days wi' a washin', and she was finishin' the shirts and dressin' that day. What o'clock? — And her maister's were laid by, and mine were finishin', an' they were hanein' on the screens, ye ken, at the side o' the fire, an' I cam' hame to my dinner at the usual time, aboot four o'clock, an' took my dinner ; an' after I took ma dinner I had a custom of going up to the West End Evidence for Prosecution. Park an' takin' a walk after dinner. This was Friday, an' I Jas. Fleming went away the feck o' couple of hours. (Mr. Gifford — Stop a moment.) It was very wat thae days. I was vera much fasht wi' cauld feet, and there was no fire in the room, and I went doun to the kitchin fire to get ma feet warmed, and Jessie MPherson made my tea. What o'clock? — I reckon it wad be wee! on eight o'clock. She made my tea, and she poored it oot, and took a cup alang wi' me; and after the tea was by Lord Deas — Was it in the kitchen you got the tea? — Yes. Mr. Gifford — Well? — Then after I got my tea by, I yoked the readin' ; I had always the papers in my pouch ; and then I stopped till half-past nine o'clock. In the kitchen? — At the kitchen fire. At that hour I said I would go and mak' ready for bed ; and I went away to my bed up the stair. I left Jess M'Pherson working away in the kitchen, ye ken ; and in the mornin' I was wauken't wi' a lood squeal. Where is your bedroom ; Avhat flat of the house is your bedroom on? — It is a flat above the kitchen, ye ken. Weel, I was sayin' I was wauken't i 'the mornin' wi' a lood squeal ; and after that followed ither two, not so lood as the first ane. But it was an odd kind o' squeal I heard, and I jumped oot o' bed, and I heard no noise. A' was by in the coorse o' a minute's time ; in a minute a' was quate, and I heard naething nor saw naething. I took oot my watch ; I kept the time below my pillow; and looked what o'clock it was. It was exactly four o'clock ; a bonny, clear mornin'. I gaed awa' to my bed again. A' was quate. I thocht she had got some- body to stay with her. There was a woman she caM a sister o' her's — she bood to be in her room. [There was a body she ca'd a sister, and wis stoppin' wi' her, or else some ither body.] So when I heard a' was quate and jio noise, I gaed away to my bed again, and wisna lang in it till I fell asleep again. I lay till about six o'clock o' the morning, and she always used to come up. I lay wauken after that. She always used to come up with a little porridge about eight o'clock. She did not come up that morning, and I was surprised she did not come. I wearied very much for her. I lay still till nine o'clock. Then I raise and put on my claes. I forget whether I washed myself before I went down [but I went doon the stair exactly efter that]; but I gaed down to her door and gied three chaps that way. (The witness here gave three taps.) I got no answer. I tried the sneck of the door latch, and fan' that the door was locked ; [there was] no key in the door, and sae I gaed up till the storeroom. The storeroom and her bedroom was just adjoining ane anither maistly. I gaed into 23 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming the storeroom, and then I found what was a bit window in the area standing open. It did not use to be that way. I drew it to, and returned to the kitchen again. The fire was w^ake. I put on some coals on the fire. It was still burning. This was Saturday morning, ye ken. And after that the main door bell was rung. I went to the door. It was Mr. Stewart, the next door neighbour's, servant. I dinna mind her name. She wanted the len' o' a spade to clean the back door. She said their people were all away to the coast the nicht before. So I gaed doun to get the bit spade to the washing-house, and when I got to the washing-house there was nae key in it. I could not get the key, and the girl did not get the spade. At the same time, ye ken, when I got out to give the girl the spade, the back door was locked, and the key in the inside o' the door, ye ken. That was the way I gaed down to look for the spade. Wliat o'clock was it? — About eleven [four] o'clock, sir, I think. After that Mr. Watson, the baker's man, cam' wi' his van, and the bell was rung, and I gaed up. But did I tell you first about the main door being not locked? No, tell us that? — It was not locked. The key was in the inside o' the door, and [the door] was on the latch ; just snecked, ye ken, not locked. Sae whaever had been in, they had got out by the door ; there is nae doubt o' that. An' so Mr. Watson, the baker's man, cam' wi' his van shortly after that servant girl was seeking for the spade, and I took a half quarter loaf. The man was sitting upon the cart ; but he had a little boy that handed me in the loaf at the door. [So, always looking and wearying, wondering what was become of Jessie that she did not make her appearance,] I stopped in till about twelve o'clock, when I thought I would go to the office. I looked for the check key, and got it on a shelf in the pantry, and I locked the door and went aw^ay to the office [in Glasgae, and stoppet a wee while there, and] then I gaed awa' down to the Briggate to see a property that I had charge of. A water-pipe had burst there twa or three days before, and I went down to see if it was all right [and to see whether they had plaistered it up ; it had to be plaistered up wi' lime, ye ken]. All was right, and I came awa' up again to the office, and stopped till about two o'clock. I then took the 'bus and gaed up to Sandyford ; thinking, maybe, that Jess would be waiting till I gaed up. When I got up, all was quiet and no appearance [o' Jess]. I did not go out after that night, and made myself some bit dinner. About seven o'clock at night the bell was rung, and a young man came to the door. He said he was from Falkirk, and his name was Darnley. He said he promised to call on Jess when in the town. I said she was not in. He went away. My shirts [ — there were a dozen 24 Evidence for Prosecution. o' them — ] were on the screens in the kitchen [set on the side Jas. Fleming o' the fire]. I laid them by one by one, off the screens, which were laid against the pantry door. [The screens were lying in the kitchen beside the pantry door. They had been laid or driven down. There was a pantry door they keep their things in, and the screens were either laid or driven ower upon it. So I took my shirts off the screens.] There was a room off the kitchen that my drawers and kist stood in. I laid by my shirts; there were two marked with [like] blood on them. I laid them [all] by, and laid these two on the tap [o' the ithers]. Did you get any supper that night? — I made myself a cup of tea. This would be eight o'clock. I thought if Jess had gone away with any of her acquaintances, that she would make her appearance, but she did not. I sat up till after nine, and then went to bed. On Sabbath morning the bell was rung by the milkman, but I did not answer. You supposed it would be the milkman? — Yes. Well, I made my breakfast again ; a cup of tea and a boiled herring to it, and that was my breakfast. I made ready for the church. I went to the church in the forenoon, Mr. Aikman's, in Anderston. After the church skailed I went straight hame. When I was going to the church, Mr. John M'Allister, who was coming out of his house door to go to the church, spoke to me. In the afternoon, after I had had a bit of bread and cheese, I went to the church again. After I was home the lad Darnley, who had ca'ed before, ca'ed again, and asked if Jessie MTherson was in. [I said, " No."] He asked, " Is she at church t " I said, " I don't know." Says he, " If she comes out the town, will she come this way? " I said, " I suppose she will." He went away. I had no more calls that night that I recollect, and at half-past nine I went to bed. On Monday morning I rose at eight o'clock, as was usual, to go through the properties on that day. Some tenants paid weekly, and others monthly ; but we had to go through every Monday morning to collect the rents. I went to the office and got my books, and gaed awa' to collect and to lift what I could. I afterwards went to the office, and gied in what cash I had gotten. I then gaed awa' hame to Sandy ford ; this would be about one or two o'clock. All was quiet, and I heard nothing. I kent that Mr. Fleming would be hame after he came up frae doun the water in the morning, and that he would be out for dinner. About four o'clock young John came in, and his father followed him. I told them what had taken place, and said I had not seen Jess M'Pherson since Friday [nicht]. My son, astonished, ran away downstairs, and his son and me followed him. He found her bedroom door locked, but had the " recollection " of trying the storeroom key, and it opened her 25 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming door. When he opened it he saw the murdered woman lying [near the empty bed]. Her head was covered either with a skirt or white sheet, which was all blood, and her body was naked as she was born, downwards ; she was lying on her face. [So he was in an unco state tae, and] my son then ran and got in some of the neighbours, Mr. Chrystal and some others, and went to tlie Police Office. The police officers came directly, and took possession of the body. Dr. Fleming and Dr. Watson were also brought to the spot directly, but their presence was of no avail, ye ken, the woman was gone [ ; but it was regular that they should be called]. From the Friday night to the Monday morning, did you make all your own meals? — I was not very particular, but I made all that I needed. Did you see [use] any silver spoons or forks? — I do not think I did. If I did, I only used a teaspoon; but I dinna mind. (Witness shown the articles of silverplate libelled.) Are these your son's property? — ^Yes. Were these things used in the house generally when your son was at home? — Always when he was at home. Were they used on the Thursday and Friday before? — [There was none of it used on the Friday, ye ken.] They were used always when my son was at home. Did you take any of that plate out of the house? — Never. Did you give them to anybody on that Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday? — I did not. I never gave them to any person. Look at the prisoner ; do you know her? — Yes. I first knew her when she was a servant with John. How long is that? — She left when the othei- girl came back, ye ken. Is it some years ago? — It will be three years ago, Tse warrant, but my memory is not so good. Have you seen her since she left your son's service? — Yes. Where? — She came up along with her husband to pay a visit to Jessie MTherson ; I saw her that night in Mr. Fleming's house, Sandyford Place ; that is twelve months ago. Did you ever see her anywhere else ? — Yes ; she invited me to see her house [and I went down to see it]. When ? — A twelvemonth ago. Did you ever see her on any other occasion? — I saw her in her own house at another time ; that was before she flitted to that other [her last] house. How long ago? — It would be two or three years ago. I saw her also at the examination in the County Buildings. The Sheriff showed her to me there. Excepting at these times you have mentioned, you have never seen her, did you? — Not since she left my son's service. 26 Evidence for Prosecution. Did you ever give her these articles (referring to the silver Jas. Fleming plate)? — No, never. Did you ever tell her to pawn them? — No, never. Did you see her on the Friday evening that Jessie MTherson went amissing? — No. Nor on the Saturday? — No. Did you ever get any money from her? — Never. Did you give her any money on that Friday or Saturday? — I did not. Did you ever call at her house excepting on the occasions you have told us about? — I only called twice, to my recollection. And these are the two occasions you have already referred to?— Yes. Have you money in the bank? — Yes ; a little. I have £150 in the Savings Bank and £30 in the Royal Bank. (Witness showoi the two bank books libelled.) Are both of these your bank books? — Yes. You told us, Mr. Fleming, that on the Saturday morning you went into the pantry and found the wicket open? — Yes. Did you open the glass window? — No. You say that you drew to the wicket? — I did. Tell us how you got that done? — It was straight open. It opens outwards. Did you put out your hand to pull it to? — Yes. To do that had you to lift the window? — It was a little window, ye ken, inside of the big window. How did you get hold of the window [wicket] to draw it to? — I put out my hand and drew it tae. Did the glass window not prevent you? — I forget. [It was cast iron.] Is there not a glass window to the pantry? — Yes. Was it open or shut when you went into the room? — It was open. The glass window was open? — Yes, or I could not have got out my hand to draw it tae, ye ken. Well, did you open the glass window, or did you find it open? — I found it open. The glass window? — Yes. [I opened nothing, but just put oot my hand and drew it tae.] Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Was your watch right that Saturday morning? — Yes. You know that? — Ay, it gangs very reg'lar. Therefore, you are sure about the hour you have given us? — Yes ; exactly four o'clock, and a fine clear morning. You are quite sure that you lay in bed till nine o'clock? — Yes. You were not out of your bedroom or dressed till nine o'clock or thereby? — I didna leave my bed till nine o'clock. 27 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming Who was the first person that you spoke to on that Saturday morning? — On Saturday morning, it was the girl for the len' o' the spade. Her name is Brownlie, I believe? — I dinna ken. She's Mr. Stewart's servant. What time was that? — About eleven o'clock. And until she came there was no one in the house that you had seen ? — No one that I saw. But was there any one? — No. When does the milk usually come? — It aye came betwixt eight and nine o'clock. When does it usually come on Monday morning? — It came aye about one time, but I didna require any on Monday morning as I had tae gang awa' early tae the toon. Why did you not require any milk on Monday? — I had tae gang awa' early tae the toon, and there's a milk shop in our property in the Briggate, an' I went in there an" got a ha'penny roll an' a mutchkin of milk. That was a' the breakfast I got on Monday morning. Did the milk come upon the Saturday morning? — I don't think it came. It is brought to the front door? — Always to the front door, but it was not locked, nor a chain on it, nor anything but the latch [but it was not locked that morning; it was just on the chain, and nothing else]. But did you hear any ring at the front door bell at the time when the milk should have come on Saturday morning? — No. Do you swear that you did not open the door before that woman — Mr. Stewart's servant — came for the spade? — Yes. Did you not open the door to the milkman that morning? — No; I don't recollect the milkman coming [getting any milk] that morning. Did you not open the door to the milkboy, and tell him that there was no milk required that morning? — There was one that I told that to. I recollect that. [There was one at the door, I tell you, but I do not recollect.] You remember that now? — I do. Then it was not true that Mr. Stewart's servant was the first person to whom you opened that front door on Saturday morning? — It was Mr. Stewart's servant to whom I opened the door first. Did you open the door for the milkboy? — No, I didn't [say so]. Mr. Stewart's servant was the first that I opened the door to, and then to the baker. Did the milkman come to the door on Saturday morning? — I'm sure I canna charge my memory particularly about the milkman on Saturday morning. Mr. Fleming, you told me a little time ago that you remember Evidence for Prosecutioiic him (the milkman) coming on Saturday? — I did not require Jas. Fleming any milk. I don't care about that ; you told me that you remembered that the milkman came upon that Saturday. Did the milk- man come on Saturday or did he not? — [Witness, after a pause — I am sure I cannot declare that.] I'm sure I really canna answer that question. Mr. Fleming, can you tell me whether you opened the door to any person before that servant of Mr. Stewart came for the spade? — No ; I don't think I opened the door to any person till she came. I am sure of that. It was about eleven o'clock that she came, and the baker came shortly after. Are you sure, therefore, that the milk did not come that morning? — I am sure that I did not get any milk that morning. Never mind that; but are you sure that it did not come? — I rather think it did not come. Could it have got in that morning without your opening the door? — There was no milk brought in. Did you refuse to take milk that morning? — ^Yes. Did you refuse to take in the milk that Saturday morning? — I refused to take milk; I did not require it. [Lord Deas — Are you sure, Mr. Clark, that he fully understands the question? Mr. Clakk — I am persuaded he does, my lord. {To Witness)—] Did you say to any one that you did not need any milk that morning — that Saturday? Did you say that to the milk-boy? — I told him that I did not need it. [Now, Mr. Fleming, do not let us mistake about this matter.] Did you say to the milkboy that you required no milk that day? — Yes; I think I did. This was the morning that I got no milk at all. [A JuRTJkiAN — Make sure that there is no mistake about the morning, if you please. Mr. Clabk — I am very anxious to see that there shall be no mistake in the matter. {To Witness) — You understand, Mr. Fleming, that the morning I am speaking about at present is the Saturday morning? — Yes.] Just attend, Mr. Fleming. On that Saturday morning you said to the milkboy you required no milk at that time? — Yes. Well, at what time of the day did you say this? — The boy rang the bell and I said I did not need any. [The boy, ye see, would ring the bell, of course, and I would just say, " I do not need any milk." Lord Deas — He might have said that without opening the door. 29 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming Mr. Clark (to Witness) — Could you have said that without openino; the door? — Yes; I could take the front door off the sneck, leaving the chain fastened, and speak to the milkboy. I think I left the front door on the chain. Lord Deas — Are you sure, Mr. Clark, that ho fully under- stands you? Mr. Clark — I am trying to make it as plain as I can, my lord ; I do not wish to take any advantage. Lord Deas — I have no doubt of that. Mr. Clark (to Witness)] — Had the door a chain? — Yes. Could you have opened the dooi- and spoken to the milkboy without taking off the chain? — Yes. Did you do so? — Yes. [Now, did you do so, Mr. Fleming? Are you quite sure that the chain was not on the door on Saturday morning? — I am quite sure of that. And to speak to the milkboy, if you did speak to him, you did not, you say, require to take off the chain? — No.] Now, Mr. Fleming, do you remember going to the door that morning and opening it to the milkboy? — No, I did not let him in. Did you see him at the door? — It's likely I would. Mr. Fleming, do you lemembei- of speaking to the milkboy on that Saturday morning? — I would just say to him that I would not require any milk. Do you remember [saying so] seeing him at the door? — Yes, I think I do. Did the bell ring when the boy came? — It's most likely it would. But do you remember if it rung? — Well, I would not have gone to the door if the bell had not rung. Well, but you remember if it rung? — I cannot mind everything. What time of the morning was it that the milkboy came? — It was just about his usual time — about [betwixt] eight or nine o'clock in the morning. Were you dressed at the time the milk-boy came? — On Saturday morning, you mean? Yes, on Saturday morning? — I can't say that; I suppose I would. [Yes; there is no doubt but I would be dressed.] I got up about nine o'clock that morning. Well, if the milkboy came about eight or nine o'clock, how could you be dressed if you did not get up till nine? — (A long pause here ensued, witness finally replying slowly) — Whether I was dressed or not I cannot charge my memory. I might not be dresesd. You said that you lay in bed till about nine, then got up and dressed yourself? — Yes. 30 Evidence for Prosecution. Is that true? — Yes. Jas. Fleming Why did you not let Jessie open the door when the milk- boy came? — On Saturday morning, you mean? Yes, on Saturday morning? — Jessie, ye ken — it was a' ower ■wi' Jessie afore that. (Sensation in Court.) [I don't doubt that, Mr. Fleming.] Why did you not let Jessie open the door to the milkboy when he came? — There was nae Jessie to open the door that morning. Lord Deas — You had better put the question another way. Ask him why he opened the door himself that morning. Mr. Clark — Willingly. [Why did you open the door when the milkboy came in place of allowing Jessie to open it? — I was just saying to him — the chain w-as on — we did not require any milk. She was deed before that. Mr. Clark — My lord, there is one matter in this answer which, I think, is very important. He says the chain was on. {To Witness) — Mr. Fleming, I must have an answer to this question — why did you go to the door and open it when the milkman came, and why did you not allow Jessie to open the door? Witness — On Saturday morning, ye ken, Jessie was deed; she couldna open the door when she was deed.]i Quite true, but why did you open it? Did you know that Jessie was dead [when the milkman came to the doorj? — No, I did not. (Said sharply and with emphasis.) If you did not know that Jessie was dead, why did you go to the door? — Ye ken I was up, and I would just go and open the door [to say that we didna require any]. Did you leave Jessie time to open the door before you opened it? Lord DbAvS — You had better ask — Did you wait some time before you opened the door ? Mr. Clark — Well, did you wait long before you opened the door? — Oh, ye ken, I went down the stair, and through the house before that, and got nae answer. How long before the milkman came would you go through the house? — Through the house? I suppose it would be nigh aboot the time. I knocked three times, ye ken, at her door, and got nae answer, and this was after nine o'clock. Are you quite sure that it was after nine o'clock? — Yes. (Answer given as if doubtingly to a question heard indistinctly.) 1 In the report of the trial by the North British Daily Mail this answer is given as follows: — " We knew that Jessie was dead and could not go to the door." The significance of this statement, if made, is obvious. — Ed. 31 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming Lord Deas — Put it again ; perhaps he misunderstood you. Mr. Clark — Are you certain that this was after nine o'clock 1 — Yes, after nine o'clock [I am quite sure; the milkman whiles does not keep the appointed time.] Did you go downstairs before you dressed that morning? — Yes; it is likely I would. [I would be unshaven and unwashed, ye ken, and might go down undressed.] I speak about Saturday morning? — I can say no more than I have. I have told you everything in my heart. The memory of a man of seventy-eight years of age is not so fresh as a young man's. Be as easy as ye can. I am willing to answer every question. (A Juryman called attention to the fact that Mr. Fleming had just stated his age to be seventy-eight, whereas he had fornjerly given it as eighty-seven.) Mr. Clark — How old are you? — I was born 9th August, 1775, and am eighty-seven past. On Saturday morning, were you down in the kitchen before you put on your clothes? — (Reflects) — Before I put on my clothes? [I might.] Did you chap at Jessie's door? — Yes. Had you all your clothes on then? — I could not say I was completely dressed. I might have had part of my clothes on. [When she did not answer me] I tried the sneck, but the door was locked, and the key away. What more could I do? When the milkman came on Saturday morning, was it before or after you had chapped at Jessie's door? — I could not be pointed wi' that question [whether it was before or after]. Did you take in any milk on Saturday morning? — No, I did not require it ; I could take my breakfast without milk as well as with it. Had you your breakfast on Saturday morning? — I made mysel' a cup o' tea. Had the refusal to take milk in on Saturday morning any- thing to do with your not having got your porridge that morn- ing? — No; I could take my porridge wanting my milk, and can do so yet. The servant was in the habit of getting in the milk in the morning [for her use. She would get a larger quantity when she was alive]. When you first saw the back door on that Saturday morning, was it locked on the inside? — It was locked on the inside, and the key in [out of] it. And when you first saw the front door on that morning, how was it? — It was on the latch. There was no lock or chain. You are sure of that? — I could give my oath on it. You never took the chain off that front door? — There was no chain on it. And you did not take it off? — No. 32 Evidence for Prosecution. Now, you heard a " squeal " about four o'clock on the Jas. Fleming Saturday morning. Where did this " squeal" come from? — When I jumped out of my bed, and heard the squeal, I thought it might be on the street. Next a squeal followed twice, and then I heard it was down below. How long would it be between the first and last squeal? — I think it would be bare a minute; then all was quiet as if it never had taken place. Was it the same voice that squealed each time, so far as you could judge? — Yes, but not so strong. Was it a squeal as of distress? — It was a squeal like as if something [somebody] was in distress. Did you recognise the voice? — No. What did you think of it at the time? — I thought that Jessie had got some person in to stop wi' her [after I had gone to bed]. And what did you think had caused the squeal at the time? — Oh, I could not say what caused it; but I heard it just as if something [some person] was in great distress, and it was by in a minute. Why did you not go down? — It was all quiet afterhind, and I did not think of going down. If the noise had continued any time it would have been alarming, and we would have had to call in the police. When you found in the morning that Jessie was not there, and her door locked, why did you not send out for the police? — [I was aye thinkin' she was awa' wi' some o' her freens.] It never occurred to me to send for them [ ; that there was murder or anything else o' that kind gaun on in the hoose]. In the course of the night you had heard squeals indicating that some person was in great distress, and you did not see your servant in the morning. Can you tell me why you did not in these circumstances give information to the police? — I did not think about anything at the time. I was always look- ing for her coming back, and if any drink or anything had been gaun, she might have been induced to go out, and would be back, and I never thought of calling in the police. I was looking for her back every other minute. I thought she would be back, and it never occurred to me [trouble or murder, or] any such thing. Her going away was a very unexpected thing to you, was it not? — Yes. Wlien she did not come back all Saturday, why did you not send for the police? — I did not think of sending for them. When she did not come back all Sunday, why did you not send for the police? — I kent Mr. Fleming would be home on Monday, and would put all things right. Was there anything in the kitchen that attracted your atten- tion upon the Saturday? — There was naething. D 33 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jas. Fleming Nor upon Sunday? — No; nor upon Sunday. Nor upon Monday? — Nor upon Monday. You were a great deal in the kitchen during these three days ? — It was gey wat thae days, and I was glad to go down to heat my cauld feet. I mended the fire in the morning. But it was in, so I had to put on some coals. You kept the fire burning? — Yes, and I put on coals [a gathering coal] at night. Did you see any blood in the kitchen ? — None. Did you see any blood on your shirts? — When I was laying them by there were two which were marked. Did you not think that queer? — I never thocht of blood [murder, or ony trouble of that kind]. It never struck me there would be anything which would cause the blood. How do you, Mr. Fleming, account for blood upon your shirts? — I know I mentioned to [the Fiscal and them] him who was examining me that I saw on one of the shirts something like paint or iron ore. (Shown three shirts, No. 49 of inventory.) I see two of them marked red. That is what you saw? — That is what I seed. [Did you not think at the time that it might be blood? — I thought that it might be blood.] When did you notice this blood on your shirts? — On Saturday night [when I was laying them past]. (The jury here examined the three shirts.) Mr. Fleming, when you snw the blood upon the shirts, how did you account for its being there? — I can't say. Did you not think something was wrong? — No, I did not [it never entered into my head]. When you had heard squeals of great distress, and could not see Jessie, had not even seen her for a day, and also fo^nd her door locked, as well as blood on your shirts, did you not, Mr. Fleming, think that something was wrong? — No; I never thocht anything was wrong. It never occurred to you that anything was wrong? — The squeals were only for a minute, and I did not give heed to them. I never thought on the matter. Why did you not get Jessie's door opened? — Mr. Fleming opened it. Why did you not get it opened ? — I never had the recollection to take that key off the other door. If I had thocht of it I would have done it. Why did you not send for so'^e one to open it, you who are accustomed to that sort of thing : to get doors opened and locks repaired? — I didn't do it. [All I can say is, that I didna think of it.] When Darnley came upon Saturday, did you know he was a friend of Jessie's, and did he tell you he was from Falkirk 34 Evidence for Prosecution. for the purpose of seeing her? — He had been in town along Jas. Flomlngr with other two young gentlemen, who were waiting upon him when he came to the door, and he said he had to go away in the train at half -past eight o'clock. He, however, called again upon the Sunday, as I told you. Why did you not tell Darnley Jessie was amissing for so long a time? — I did not tell him; I had no business to tell him. Were you not anxious about Jessie? — I was looking for her every minute to come back. Did he say he had stopped over night to see Jessie? — He said he had promised to call on her. Did he not mention he had stayed over night to see Jessie? — No; he never mentioned that. Why did you not tell him on Sunday night that she had been away for two days? — He only stopped a minute, and I had no occasion to tell him. Was she ever out for such a length of time before? — She had often been out to see her friends [has been out for the day]. But she told you where she was going? — Yes. Did you not make inquiry at the shops about her? — No. Did you tell Mr. M'Allister about her absence when you saw him on Sunday? — No; he asked me if I was going to church. [I saw him coming out of his own door.] Was Mr. Sloan in your office on Saturday? — Yes. He is your son's confidential clerk? — Yes, I saw him upon Saturday. Did you tell him anything about it? — No, I told nobody. I was expecting her every hour and every minute. When did you see your son first? — Upon Monday, after he came to his dinner, about four o'clock. I saw my grandson at the same time, as they both came home together. Now, Mr. Fleming, did you look for silver spoons when you wanted to take your meals? — No, I did not. I did not require them. I had a teaspoon ; it was enough for me. What sort of a teaspoon was it? — It was a silver teaspoon. Was that teaspoon left in the house afterwards? — I ken naething about it. I had no charge of the silver at all ; Jessie had the whole charge. Where did you get that silver teaspoon? — There was always a silver teaspoon in the kitchen. I sometimes have seen table- spoons in it. Do you know what has become of that silver teaspoon? — I tell you I ken naething about it ; I took nae charge. What had you to your dinner on Saturday? — I was not very particular for inj dinner; I had a dish of ling fish that I had steeped. It served me baith Saturday and Sabbath. Had you no other teaspoon than the silver teaspoon? — I had none. 35 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jaa. Fleming You did not look for any? — I did not need them. Or fork? — I used a fork. What kind of fork? — Just a table fork; it served the table many a time. Did it ever occur to you that Jessie, your servant, had run away? — No [I never thought of that]. What sort of dress had you on that Friday? — I had on the dress that I usually wear. I had on a pair of mixed trousers, black vest, and black coat. Had you a brown dress at that time at all? — The trousers were bro-miish. And the coat? — I had a brown coat, which I sold to a person buying them. When was it sold? — It might have been two or three weeks afore this took place. To whom did you sell it? — I sold it to a person named Paton, [one of the tenants,] along with some other clothes. Is that Daniel Paton, of the Bridgegate? — Yes. Did you never have a brown coat after that? — No. Are you quite sure you never saw the prisoner within twelve months? — ^Yes; unless at the examination in the County Buildings. Had you any quarrel or dispute with Jessie MTherson? — Never. Of any kind?— No. You read the newspapers regularly, you say? — ^Yes. Do you use your spectacles when you read? — I have got a pair of new ones. Did you ever use them before? — I got a present of them, and have got a pair of new glasses put in. When you read, did you use spectacles till yesterday? — No; I could see weel eneuch to read without them — at least, gey weel. Was no milk taken in till the Tuesday? — On the Sunday I did open the door for milk, and there was none taken in on Monday. [There was no milk taken on Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday. Sometimes I did not even open the door when the milk came.] Lord Dbas (to the jury) — Have you any question to ask? (There was no reply; and, addressing Mr. Fleming, his lordship said) — Now, you may go. E. Watson 7. Ebenezer Watson, physician, Newton Terrace, examined by Mr. Gifford, deponed — I am a physician in Glasgow, and know Mr. John Fleming, accountant. He called upon me at my house on Monday, the 7th July, about five o'clock in the after- noon. I went to his house with him. Well, tell us exactly what you saw, and what you did there? — On the way there Mr. Fleming told me 36 Evidence for Prosecution. Lord Deas — You are not to tell us what Mr. Fleming said ; E, Watson tell us what you saw and did. Mr. GiFFORD — What did you do? — He took me down to the laundry of his house, and there I saw the dead body of a woman. Describe how it was lying? — It was lying on the face, the back being uppermost. The upper part of the body was covered with carpet ; the lower part was not covered ; it was naked. I saw, likewise, marks of blood upon the floor. I said to Mr. Fleming, " This is evidently not a suicide ; you had better call in the police." He did so, and at his request I remained in the house till the police and the police surgeon, Dr. Joseph Fleming, arrived, with whom I again descended to the room, and examined the body. We removed the carpet from the upper part of the body, and found various wounds upon the head, the face, and the neck, and also upon the wrists of the body, with one remarkable bruise upon the lower part of the back. The body was at that time cold and stiff. We had it turned over, and examined it as well as we could, without making a thorough inspection of the body. Of the various wounds there was one, a very long one, across the forehead. The bone was cut as well as the soft parts. There were several similar wounds on the back of the head. The right ear was cut in a great many places, and the bone behind it was fractured and broken into small fragments. The right side of the lower jawbone was likewise fractured in several places, and the soft parts cut right down upon the fractures. The neck was also wounded deeply upon the right side. The wounds upon the wrists were one on the back of one wrist, and another upon the front of the other wrist, but I cannot say which wrist had the wound on the back and which on the front. They were clean cuts through the skin down upon the tendons, which seemed to me to be unhurt. I then examined, with Dr. Fleming, marks of blood, which we traced from where the body lay through the passage into the kitchen, and I also noticed several marks, apparently of blood, upon the door of the kitchen, and on the door mat in the kitchen doorway. The marks upon the kitchen door were inside, and were about a yard and a half above the floor. The mat was stained with blood, apparently, and when I attempted to lift it I found that it adhered to the floor of the kitchen doorway. I thought it did so from blood having coagulated under it. I then went upstairs, and, after a few words with Mr. Fleming, I took mv leave. It was with the police surgeon, Dr. Joseph Fleming, that I made this inspection. You say that you could trace blood marks from the room where the body was lying to the kitchen door ; what like were they? — They were a trail like as if the body, while the blood 37 Mrs. M'Lachlan. E. Watson was fluid, had been dragged through the kitchen into the laundry, the sleeping room of the servant. What kind of a floor is the lower lobby of the house? — It is a stone floor of a very dark blue colour. The kitchen is the same kind of a floor, and the room has a wooden floor. You said that you noticed blood marks upon the inside of the kitchen door ; did you notice any other blood marks in the kitchen? — Yes, on the other side of the jawbox there was a slight mark. On anything else in the kitchen? — No. Was there no part of the kitchen floor that you observed anything peculiar about? — No. Did it appear as if it had been washed? — Well, it did, but it being of a dark blue colour I could not tell whether it had been recently washed. Did you observe any blood marks in the room where the body was found? — Yes; between the body and the door. Was there any considerable quantity of blood? — SufiBcient to make it quite remarkable. It had the appearance of the body having been dragged in when the blood was warm. Was there any other part of the room where there were marks of blood? — I observed marks of blood upon a white basin, and likewise upon the stand ; but I did not observe any other marks of blood in the room. To what extent was the body dressed? What had it on? — It had on a shift and a jacket — a flannel jacket. Lord Deas — On the upper part of the body? — Yes, on the upper part of the body. Mr. GiFFORD — Did you form any opinion how the different wounds had been inflicted ; with what kind of instrument ? — Well, my opinion was that it must have been a cutting instrument of considerable weight. [Shown an iron chopper or cleaver, marked No. 4 in inventoi-y, a cleaver evidently not new, with a short handle and a long curved blade.] Look at that ; was it an instru- ment like that? — It could have been that instrument. At the same time, it was my opinion that the cuts on the wrist were not made by this cleaver, and I think that it must have been a sharper instrument that made the cuts in the wrist, and when I said that might be the instrument I referred to the wounds on the head and neck and face. The wounds I observed were sufficient to produce death. Did you notice any peculiarity about the wounds on the head? — That on the forehead was made almost transverse, and those on the neck were sloping cuts, sloping across like that. (Witness here placed his left hand aslope on the neck, and the right across the brow, illustrating the position and form of the wounds.) 38 Evidence for Prosecution. Was there any probability of these wounds being self- E. Watson inflicted? — Oh! I cannot think they were self-inflicted. It is quite impossible. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Doctor, you said at the beginning of your examination that this was not a case of suicide. What led you to make that observation? — The marks of blood on the floor, and other things, caused me to think it was not suicide. Was there anything said about a key? — Yes. What was it? — When Mr. Fleming and I were going to the Sandyford Place house, he said he had found the room door locked on the inside. Lord Deas — Who said that? — Mr. John Fleming, master of the house. He stated he thought he had seen a key in the lock of the door inside. Mr. Clark — What did he say became of the key? — He had taken a key from a neighbouring door, and opened with it the laundry door. Lord Deas — The servants' room? — Yes, the door of the servants' room. Mr. Clark — But, about the key — what became of the key in the inside? Lord Deas — He said nothing about the key. Mr. Clark — Yes, my lord, he spoke of a key inside. (To witness) — Did Mr. Fleming say anything about the key? — Yes, he said he thought the key was on the inside. But did he say how he had got rid of the key? — I am not quite certain, but I think he said that he had struck it out, and that it fell in the inside. Did he say whether he heard the key fall? — No, I do not think he did. Was he quite collected when he spoke of the key? — No, he appeared very much excited. Did old Mr. Fleming hear him speak of it? — No. It wa8 said before we reached his house, on going from mine to his. Did you hear him repeat that saying about the key? — Yes, I think he did, when the policemen were there. Lord Deas — You think you heard him repeat that statement, or some such statement? — Yes. Mr. Clark — The same statement? — ^Yes. What you heard Mr. Fleming say was, that there was a key inside of the door, which he had pushed out? — Yes. Now, you say that there was a remarkable bruise on the lower part of the back? — Yes. Would you be good enough to indicate where it was? — It was on the lower part of the backbone. Well, but would you indicate the exact spot, either on my body or yours? There's my body (here the learned coimsel 39 Mrs. M'Lachlan. E. Watson turned his back towards the witness, who placed his hand near what is known as the " small of the back.") — It would be there. Lord Dbas — The lower part of the backbone. That will do. I can't write down this as you give it. I'd require to draw it. Mr. CiiARK — Very well, my lord, the place indicated is the lower part of the backbone, near the spine. What did you think had caused that wound? What is your opinion as to what caused it? — It might have been produced by a blow from a blunt instrument, or it might have been the result of a fall. What would you say was the most likely instrument to form that bruise? — I formed no opinion at the time. Have you formed any opinion now? — No; there are many instruments which could have produced it. Have you not said already that the wound had been caused by a heavy shoe? — I never said that was the only cause- Was it ever your opinion that it was the most probable cause? — No. Would a knock from a heavy shoe account for the bruise? — Quite well. Must it have been a violent blow? — It must, and have been forcibly given. Must it have been given by a person with great force? — Yes. Lord Deas — If it was given by a person at all? — Surely, my lord. Mr. Clark — Were any of the wounds in the head inflicted by a flat instrument? Lord Deas — You mean by the flat surface of an instrument? Mr. Clark — I understand that the doctor has been speaking of the wounds on the head being inflicted by the cleaver ? — One of the wounds on the head might be inflicted by that instrument, used laterally. Is a hammer not the more likely instrument? — Quite as likely. To produce that wound? — What wound? The wound behind the ear? — If the wound behind the right ear, yes. Was the wound across the nose fitted to produce stupor? — Not necessarily. Was it likely? — I should say it was rather likely, but not necessarily. Is it the wound across the bridge of the nose you speak of? — Both wounds. They might not necessarily lead to stupor. Was the bone cut through in two places? — Yes Would that be the result of the application of great force? — I think it would. 40 Evidence for Prosecution. It was the lower jawbone. Is not that a very difficult bone E. Watson to cut through? — Yes, it is. The most difficult to break of the whole body? — Yes, a dense, tough bone. The wound in the neck might have produced death from haemorrhage from the large vessels included in it, and the repetition of the blows upon the head might col- lectively be the cause of death. By Lord Deas — I mean the greater wounds upon the head, though not individually necessarily mortal, yet, being repeated, might be the cause of death. Mr. Clark — Were the wounds on the forehead and on the neck likely to produce death? — Do you mean immediately? I mean necessarily. Not immediately necessarily? — They would not have produced death at the time, but at a distance they might. Were they mortal wounds? — I don't think so. 8. Joseph Fleming, surgeon of police, examined by Mr. Jos. Flemlner GiFPORD, deponed — On Monday, 7th July, I was called to Mr. Fleming's house, Sandyford Place, and went thither about half-past four o'clock. I found Dr. Watson there, in the room where the body of deceased was lying. Dr. Macleod went with me on the following day, and we made a post-mortem examina- tion. (Reads Report No. 56.) Glasgow, July 8, 1862. The undersigned this day, by the authority of a warrant signed by Alexander Strathern, Esq., Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, made a post-mortem e-^amination at No. 17 Sandyford Place, of the body of Jessie M'Pherson, which had been found under circumstances of great suspicion in a front room in the ground floor of the above house. [Here Lord Deas remarked to Dr. Fleming, as a police surgeon, that it was proper to state there was matter here which was not suit- able to a medical report.] The body was lying on its back on the floor, close to and in front of the bed, the clothes of which were heaped together, and in many places deeply stained with blood. The lower limbs of the deceased lay fully exposed, and a piece of carpet was thrown carelessly over the head and trunk. On removing the carpet the body was seen to be dressed in a chemise and a knitted worsted jacket. These clothes were all quite damp, and much stained with blood. The neck and chest appeared to have been partially washed. The furniture of the room was in confusion. Large drops of blood were seen on the floor, and that even at a distance of 6 feet from the body. On further examination it became apparent that the body had been dragged from the kitchen (which lay to the back of the house, and where evidence of a 41 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jos. Fleming severe conflict was obtained) along the lobby, to the apart- ment in which it was found, and also that imperfect attempts had been made to obliterate the traces of this removal. The deceased was identified by Mr. James Fleming. She was of ordinary stature, and apparently about thirty-five years of age. There was no cadaveric rigidity except in the ankle and knee joints, and the body was perfectly cold. There were no signs whatever of decomposition. The head was dreadfully mangled, and the hair was dishevelled and matted with blood. Two deep incised wounds passed transversely across the bridge of the nose, dividing the soft parts and the bones. Another trans- verse wound, 3^ inches long, crossed the forehead in the middle line, and cleft the outer table (only) of the skull. In the right side of the neck eleven wounds could be distinctly distinguished. These partook partly of the character of lacerated, contused, and incised wounds. The right ear was destroyed, and the right half of the lower jaw broken into fragments. Some of these wounds penetrated deeply throughout their whole extent, while others only passed deeply at their anterior extremities, and got more and niore shallow as they proceeded backwards. Some of these wounds also were not continuous throughout their whole length, the contact of the instrument with the tissues being at points intf^rrupted. The great vessels of the neck were destroyed, and the outer table of the skull much injured, just below the right ear. Ten wounds of much less extent, and of a less severe character than those found on the right side, were observed on the left side of the neck. A few shallow incisions existed also on the back of the neck. Midway between the right ear and the crown of the head the scalp was divided by two cuts, each 3|^ inches long, which had run into one another. A third incision lay close to these, and beneath these the skull was deeply cut, but not divided in all its thickness. Nearer the forehead than these incisions, and still upon the right side of the head, a large irregular wound was fotmd, formed by the coalescence of several incisions, and the skull underneath was irregularly but completely cleft, part of its outer table being wholly detached, and a piece about the size of a florin driven in and pressed upon the brain. The brain was here exposed, and, as was subsequently found, the membranes were wounded to the extent of about | of an inch. Three other severe scalp wounds existed on the right lateroposterior aspect of the head, and these were all accompanied with irjury of the outer table of the skull. A further small wound, without injury to the bone, was found more towards the forehead than any of those last described, and between them and that on the frontal bone. In opening the head the membranes of the brain were seen to be uninjured, except at the limited spot above noted, where several wounds were concentrated, and where alone both tables 42 Evidence for Prosecution. of the skull were penetrated. The viscera of the chest and Jos. Fleming: abdomen were free of disease or injury. All the wounds on the head and neck, with the exception of the two on the bridge of the nose and that on the forehead, which were transverse, sloped from above downwards, and from behind forwards. The wounds on the rieht side of the neck were much more severe than those on the left, and it was only on the right side that the bones of the skull were injured. A large ecchymosed spot existed on the top of the right shoulder, and another presented itself on the middle and back part of the left upper arm. There were flesh wounds of greater or less depth and extent on both hands and arms. The right hand was dreadfully mutilated. One deep incision divided the forefinger, and another the knuckle. There were nine distinct wounds on each of the hands and wrists. Some small abrasions were seen on the outer aspect of each knee, and the skin of both knees and legs were abraded and soiled on their anterior surface, and both feet were extended to the utmost. Faeces escaped from the anus, and the abdomen afforded evi- dence of the deceased having at one time given birth to a child. The reporters consider themselves justified in drawing the following conclusions from their examination of this body, and the place where it was found : — 1. That this woman was murdered, and that with extreme ferocity. 2. That her death had taken place within three days. 3. That a severe struggle had taken place before death. 4. That such an instrument as a cleaver, for cutting meat, or a similar weapon, was that most likely to have caused the fatal injuries found. 5. That the injuries had been inflicted before or immediately after death. 6. That all the wounds on the neck and head, with the excep- tion of those on the nose and forehead, had apparently been inflicted by a person standing over the deceased as she lay on her face on the ground. 7. That the comparatively slight degree of strength shown in the blows would point to a female, or a weak man, as having inflicted them ; and Lastly, that the body had been drawn by the head, with the face downwards, along the lobby from the kitchen to the front room. This is the truth on soul and conscience. Gko. H. B. MACLEOD, M.D., F.R.C.S. Joseph Fleming. Surgeon. Mr. GiFFORD — You say in your report that " the body was lying on its back on the floor, close to and in front of the bed, 43 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jos. Fleming the clothes of which were heaped together." Would you explain what appearance the bedclothes presented? — The clothes were all heaped together upon the bed, and stained here and there with blood. Did you form any opinion whether the bed had been slept in or not? — It would be difficult to form an opinion; but I think it highly probable that it had been slept in. The sheet referred to in the report appeared to have been washed, but it had, notwithstanding, a large quantity of blood in the centre. Did you draw any inference from that? — The inference which I drew was that the sheet belonged to the bed, and that it had been taken from it. I don't know whether there was any sheet on the bed or not. The impression upon my mind is that there was no sheet on the bed. Did you look particularly? — I am not aware of any sheet being on the bed, and I repeat that my impression is that there was not. I noticed the pillows. They were stained with blood, and were scattered about the bed along with the bedclothes. There were two of them. There were large marks of blood on them. Any on the bolster? — I don't recollect. I know very little about the bed. What were the marks of blood on the floor like? — They seemed to be large spots of blood. Was there a table in the room ? — Yes ; there was a mahogany square one-leafed table, about 4 or 5 feet broad, in the centre of the room. All round this table there were marks of blood. The body was lying between that table and the bed. You say there were marks as if the body had been dragged along the kitchen. Explain what they were like? — The bloody track was about the breadth of the body. Was all the track bloody? — Part of it was blood; the rest of it was just marks of streaking. Lord Deas — Were they streaks upon the floor, or were they only in the dust? — The floor was streaked regularly. Examination resumed — You say that in the kitchen there was evidence of a severe conflict having taken place. What was the nature of that evidence? — There were blood stains upon the end of the jawbox at the inner side of the kitchen door. But what led you to say there were marks of a severe conflict? — These marks were principally upon the flags. How did that show that there had been a severe conflict? The dragging of the body was not a sign of a severe conflict. I therefore want to know what marks of a severe conflict were apparent to you before the dragging commenced? — My con- clusion, that there were marks of a severe conflict was founded upon the streaks upon the kitchen floor. 44 Evidence for Prosecution. I again ask, what were the marks of a severe conflict before Jos. Fleming the dragging took place? — There were regular marks as if caused by some rough substance. Lord Deas — That is streaking still, and the remark in your report about " evidence of a severe conflict '" just confirms what I have said already as to the introduction of matter not proper to a medical report. Mr. GiFFORD — I show you a cleaver. Would such an instrument produce the injuries you observed upon the body? —Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — When I examined the bed I found blood upon it ; on the ticking, which was on the upper part of the bed. Do you mean by the ticking, the mattress? — Yes. There was blood on the mattress, which was stained in certain places. There were one or two stains. The stains were the size of a half -hand to a whole hand. Was there much blood on the sheet? — To my mind there was a considerable quantity. Was there blood on both sides of the sheet? — I am not aware that it was. (To Court ofiicer) — Show the sheet (No. 2) to the witness. (The sheet when exhibited was, to a great extent, as much saturated with blood as if it had been steeped in it.) — I think that is the sheet I saw at the corner of the room. It was quite damp then, and to appearance has so far changed. I thought then that the sheet had been washed. Does it have the appearance of having been washed ? — I am speaking of the impression on my mind. Was there any appearance of the deceased's person having been washed? — Yes. The face, neck, and upper part of the chest appeared to have been washed. Had the kitchen floor the appearance of having been washed? — It had; between the kitchen jawbox and lobby. Was the mark of the trail, from the kitchen to the bedroom, washed out with water? — From the kitchen to the bedroom door there was a distinct appearance of the floor having been washed. Did the washing stop at the room door? — Yes. Lord Deas — That is the pavement that was washed? — ^Yes. Mr. Clark — When you saw these places in the kitchen and lobby washed, were they dry or moist? — The lobby was perfectly moist; it was very damp, as if it had been washed recently. The kitchen was drier, but still there was a damp appearance. When you say washed recently, what do you mean ; what time do you mean? — It had a damp appearance, as if it had been recent. 45 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Jos. Fleming Lord Deas — You are asked how recently. Was it an hour or a day before? — It might have been a day before from appearance. Did the lobby and kitchen seem to have been done together 1 — They had the appearance of not having been done on the same day, but that would depend much on the stone. Was the appearance of the two stones different ? — They might be. Is that in favour of the washing having been done at both places in one day or against it? — I cannot form an opinion. Mr. Clark — What sort of an appearance had the kitchen fire on Monday? — It seemed to have the appearance of an ordinary kitchen fire. It was burning. Could the washing of the kitchen have been done in more than one day?— To form an opinion as to when the washing took place would depend much on the kitchen fire. How near was the moist place in the kitchen to the fire? — It might be about 7 or 8 feet distant. The place I looked to, in a great measure, was that near the kitchen door, which was about 10 or 12 feet from the kitchen fire. Lord Deas — Was there only one place moist? — ^Yes ; that was at the jawbox, near the kitchen door. Mr. Clark — Did you notice any blood on the door? — I did. It was a mark of blood of such a description that it seemed as if a brush had been steeped in blood and drawn across the back and the post of the door. Lord Deas — Your voice, doctor, is rather indistinct. Listen, and see if I have taken down rightly what you said. " I noticed blood at the back of the door, and it had the appear- ance as if a brush had been steeped in blood and drawn across the back of the door and the posts of the door." Is that what you said? — That is one way of accounting for it, but it might have been caused by a bloody dress coming across it. Lord Deas — Do you mean any part of a woman's dress? — Yes. Mr. Claek — Any bloody cloth would do it? — Yes. Was it a very obvious mark? — It was a very obvious mark. Was the door opposite to the window? — No, it was on the right hand side. But was there plenty of light showered from the window upon it? — There was a large kitchen table between the window and the door, which somewhat darkened it. But was there plenty of light to see the marks ? — If your eye had been turned in that direction they might have been seen at once. You say that it was an obvious mark? — ^Yes. And that there was plenty of light to see it? — Yes. And if you happened to look in that direction you would readily see it? — Yes. 46" Evidence for Prosecution. Lord Dbas — Did you say mark or marks? — I said marks. Jos. Fleming Were there any other marks? — Yes, there were the marks upon the jawbox. Mr. Clark — What colour is the wood of the jawbox? — The impression on my mind is that it was a wooden jawbox, but not painted. Was the jawbox opposite the window? — The end of it faced the window. Were these marks obvious? — They were quite distinct and obvious. Did you notice any other marks of blood in the kitchen? — I don't recollect. Did you notice any trace of blood on the floor of the kitchen ? — I saw no blood on the floor of the kitchen. I don't recollect of seeing f ny. Were any of the wounds of the deceased inflicted after death 1 — Some of them had the appearance of having been done after death, but the principal wounds were all inflicted during life. Did you notice a remarkable bruise on the lower part of the back, towards the bottom of the spine? — I don't recollect. Was there any such bruise? — I don't recollect. Did you not make a post-mortem examination? — Yes, and in my report I described all the marks. You do not in your report describe any bruise on the lower part of the back ? — That might be ; there were so many of them. All I want to know is, did you notice any trace of a bruise on the lower part of the back, for it is not mentioned in your report? — I do not recollect. Had it been there it would have been mentioned in the report ; that is, had it been noticed. Are you able to say that there was a remarkable bruise at the lower part of the back? — I rather think there was not. Can you tell me positively whether there was a remarkable bruise on the lower part of the back ? — All I can state is, that I don't recollect having seen any. Had it been there, I think I would have seen it. In your report you have stated all that you noticed, and you do not state anything of that kind? — Then it was not observed at the time, or it would have been put down. Lord Deas — Did you make a full examination outside and in ? — ^Yes. Mr. Clark — Was there a remarkable bruise on the lower part of the back, or do you say there was not? — I don't recollect seeing anything of the kind. I can only say that I did not observe it, and I made a full examination. A Juror — When you first saw the body, was it lying on its back or on the face? — On the face. 47 Mrs. M'Lachlan. A, M'Cail 9. Alexander M'Call, examined by Mr. Gifford, deponed — I am assistant superintendent of police in Glasgow. I went to Mr. Fleming's house in Sandyford Place on Monday, 7th July, about half-past nine o'clock in the evening. I saw the dead body of the woman there. I had two detectives with me, for the purposes of investigation. I noticed stains of blood in the room, on the flooring where the body was lying, and also beside the basin stand. On the door of the press there was also some blood. Did you trace any marks out of the room? — I did. I traced a trail from the bedroom to the kitchen. The trail continued inside the door, and there it apparently ended. Were there any bloody marks in the kitchen? — ^Yes, on the jawbox, and at the back of the kitchen door — that is, inside. Did you notice a chest in the room that night? — I did; a servant's chest. I opened it. Tell us what you observed? — I found it nearly empty, although some articles were still in it. There was also a small bandbox, with blood upon it, inside of the chest. It was unfastened. The catch of the lock was broken. What kind of marks of blood were on the box? — They were like those of a bloody hand. This examination was made with gas and cundle light. I went back next morning, and examined the room floor more particularly. Did you observe any peculiar marks of blood on the floor? — I observed some footmarks — marks of the left foot. These were opposite the bed, nearer to the fireplace. They seemed to be footmarks of blood. I afterwards saw that part of the flooring cut out ; it was cut out in my presence by Alexander Baxter. (Shown the part of the flooring referred to, which was afterwards examined by the jury and by Lord Deas.) How many impressions were there? — Two. Were the marks at the time you observed them more distinct than they are now? — They are much the same, 1 think. Lord Dbas — One of them is fainter than the other. Mr. Gifford — I got information regai'ding some plate that had been pledged, and, in consequence of that information, I apprehended Mrs. M'Lachlan, the prisoner. I had the informa- tion upon Sunday, 13th July, and went to her house that day. I found her ; she had a child with her about three years of age. 1 told her I was making inquiries regarding the murder of Jess M'Pherson. What did she say? Mr. Clark rose to object to this question, when it was agreed that the witness should confine his answer to the one question, without entering into the details of the conversation. Witness stated that Mrs. M'Lachlan did not make any reply to his question. 48 Evidence for Prosecution. Mr. GiFFOED — Did she tell you when she last saw Jess? A. M'Call Mr. Clark (to witness) — Don't answer that question. Mr. GiFFORD said he would not press the question. He then asked the witness — You took her into custody? — Yes. Then on the 14th July you went to the Greenock railway station to inquire there? — I did. I saw there a clerk of the railway. Lord Deas (to counsel) — Wait one minute. (To witness) — You took the prisoner into custody on what charge? — On that of murder and theft. Mr. GiFFORD — Then on next day you went to Gorbals station? — Yes. A box had been left there on Saturday, the 5th July, addressed to Mrs. Bain, Hamilton. I went to Hamilton the same evening and made inquiries there. Did you recover anything there? — I did, on Tuesday, the 15th, a box. (Shown a black leather box or trunk, No. 19 of inventory.) Whom did you get that from? — I got it from a young man named John Hamilton, saddler, Hamilton. On the succeeding day, Wednesday, 16th July, I went to the Greenock railway station. Did you recover anything there? — I did. (Shown a black tin japanned box. No. 28 of inventory.; From whom did you get that box? — From John M'Intyre, railway clerk. When you got that box, was it full or empty? — It was full. I took it to the County Buildings, where it was opened, and inside I found a black silk watered gown, a black silk polka, a changing-coloured silk dress, a black silk velvet cloak, and a broadcloth cloak. I got nothing else. (Shown articles labelled No. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 of inventory.) These are the articles. Mr. GiFFORD — You called one of them a changing-coloured dress. To me it appears brown? — It was called a changing- coloured silk dress to me, and that is it. Did any part of the floor of Sandyford Place house appear to have been washed? — The bedroom where the dead body was appeared to have been washed. That part of the floor near the press door appeared to have been recently washed. The kitchen floor also appeared in part to have been washed. Tell us what was the peculiarity in the appearance of wash- ing that led you to say it had recently been done ? — It was white and clean, whereas if it had been washed a considerable time before it would have been like the rest of the flooring. It was not moist. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — When did you notice that part of the flooring had been washed? — About ten o'clock on the Monday night. Dr. Fleming had been there before. E 49 Mrs. M'Lachlan. ▲. M'Call Did yuu notice any blood or trace of blood on the kitchen floor? — No, I did not. Well, the blood on the back of the kitchen door and on the jawbox, was it quite obvious? — It was quite so to me. I noticed this on the Monday night before I left. You say there was a broken lock in a box in the room. Did it look as if recently broken? — I cannot say. I saw old Mr. Fleming that night. He made a statement to me. What did he say? Lord Deas — Do you want to hear any one thing he said. Mr. Clark — I want to hear all he said. Lord Deas — You had better ask your questions in detail. Mr. Clark — Did he say anything about the noise he heard ? — - He said he had been wakened by the screams, and he thought he heard another scream. He said he thought they came from the outside. Did he say what kind of screams they were? Loid Deas — These are questions to be put to the man himself. Mr. Clark — The position I wish to occupy is to lay before the jury the same evidence which would have been laid before the jury if Mr. Fleming had been the party at the bar; because one of my defences is that Mr. Fleming was the person who committed this murder. Surely I am entitled to go into that evidence for my own justification, which the Crown would be entitled to go into for the purpose of proving an accusation. If Mr. Fleming gave to this witness a diflferent account regarding what he had seen and heard, I am entitled to bring it out. Lord Deas — I do not object to your putting questions to the witness Avith the view of contradicting anything that James Fleming said in the box ; but I question the correctness of a course which might lead to the contradiction of what has been said out of the box. What I have dowTi is that James Fleming said to the witness that the screams he had heard came from the outside. Mr. Claek (continuing the examination) — Did he say from what kind of person those screams came? — No. Did he not say anything like " the screams of loose women " 1 — He said that it was not an imusual thing to hear screams from loose characters at the back of the house. Did he account for the screams he had heard in that way? — That was the explanation he gave to me. Did he say he had got out of bed? — No, he did not. Did he say what he had done in bed? — Yes; he said he raised himself upon his elbow and looked at his watch, which he said he kept below his pillow. Did he say that he jumped out of bed? — No. Mr. Fleming was apprehended? — ^Yes. When was he liberated? — 1 think it was the Monday follow- So Evidence for Prosecution. ing. The prisoner's husband was also apprehended at the A. M'Call same time as herself; it was upon a Sunday. Was it known at the time he was out of town upon Saturday and Friday? — No; I did not know. He said he had been absent; but I had not the means of testing the correctness of his assertion. There was a box, now produced, got at the Greenock station. Lord Deas — Was it closed? — It was tied with a rope, the lid being tied down. The box I got at Hamilton was not locked when it came into my hands. Mr. GiFFORD — Did you look at the feet of the murdered woman? — A piece of wood was applied to the sole of the mur- dered woman, but it was found that the length of her feet did not correspond with the footprints on the floor. Lord Deas — What was the length of the feet of the deceased and that of the footprints? — I can't say what was the length of the feet, but there was half an inch between the length of the feet of the deceased and that of the footmarks. Did you satisfy yourself that the feet of the deceased could not have made these footmarks? — I did. Mr. Clark — How did you compare the length of the feet of the deceased with that of the footprints? — I did it with a piece of stick. I laid it upon the impression. Was that all the material upon which you formed your judg- ment? — Yes. You had not even a footrule? — No. Lord Deas — Which foot was the longest? — The foot of the murdered woman was the longest. I measured with the stick, keeping my finger and thumb at the place. 10. Donald Campbell, detective officer, Anderston district, D. Campbell examined by Mr. Gifford — I am a criminal officer in Glasgow. I went to Mr. Fleming's house on Monday, the 7th July, at half-past five in the evening. I found Dr. Fleming and Dr. Watson there. I was present when they examined the tody. (Shown shift, semmet, and woollen polka, No. 1 of inventory.) Did you take possession of those articles? — I did. I also took possession of a sheet. It was found on the basin-stand at the door of the bedroom where deceased was lying; it was on the sole of the basin-stand. (Shown petticoats and a towel, &c., No. 3 of inventory.) You also took possession of some articles of clothing? — They were found lying on the floor of the room. In a drawer of the kitchen dresser I found a cleaver. What made you take possession of that? — Nothing further than that the rust upon it looked fresh, and there appeared to be something on the handle lik° blood. I saw bloody marks upon the room and other places. SI Mrs. M'Lachlan. D. Campbell Did you notice a footstep in blood on the floor of the room? — I did. I examined the feet of the dead body to see if they could have made the footprint. I measured the footprint, and compared it with a measure I took of the feet of the deceased. Lord Deas — How did you measure themi Did you measure their length and breadth? — Yes. Mr. GiFFORD — What was the result? — I found that the foot of the deceased was longer than the measure of the marka on the floor. Lord Deas — Did you measure them with a f ootrule ? — No ; I measured them with a piece of wood, a thin spale, which I cut to exactly the length of the mark on the floor. Mr. Clark — Where is this spale? Did you preserve it? — I did. Where is it? — Here it is (taking the piece of spale out of his pocket, and handing it to Mr. Clark). Mr. Clark (addressing the Court) — We cannot have that now, but it should have been produced by the Crown authorities. Mr. GiFFORD — The footprint, you say, was shorter than the foot of the deceased? — The foot of the deceased was rather longer. You are satisfied that the footprint could not have been made by the deceased? Mr. Clark — Really, we should have the means of substan- tiating that for ourselves. Lord Deas — You were satisfied that the deceased's foot could not have made the mark ? — I was satisfied of that by the length of the footmark. Mr. GiFFORD — You say you were at the house at half-past five o'clock. Did you at that time — it was good daylight — notice any marks on the floor of the lobby and kitchen ; upon the kitchen lobby? — Well, there was a large score along the floor of the kitchen, and in the lobby leading into the bedroom of the deceased, and also on a portion of the floor of the room on which deceased was lying. Were there marks of washing on any part of the floor? — On the kitchen floor it appeared as if some person had washed a portion of it. What was the exact appearance? — Well, it was quite dry at the time, and it appeared as if it might have been done a couple of days previously. Did it seem as if it had been trodden upon since the washing? — No, it did not appear as if it had been much trodden upon. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Did you notice any blood upon the kitchen floor? — Well, I did not; but the floor had a greasy appearance in parts where it had been washed up, and had a reddish tinge upon it as from a greasy substance. 52 Evidence for Prosecution. Did it appear as if blood had been washed from off the D. Campbell floor? — That was the impression on my mind at the time. Was the washing continued from the kitchen into the lobby? Was there any washing in the lobby? — There did not appear to be any. I was left in charge of the house that night. I searched the house. Did you find any brown clothes in the house, men's clothes? — Yes, there were some clothes found in a room upstairs. Were they brown coloured?—^! cannot say. I think they were of various colours. Did you find brown clothes in the house? — As to colour I cannot say. Did you find anything in the room where old Mr. Fleming kept his clothes ? — Yes ; I found some shirts in a chest of drawers with spots of blood on them. Lord Deas — With spots of blood on them, you say? — ^Yes, on the sleeve of the shirts. Mr. Clark — Are those the shirts? (Shown No. 49.) — They are. Lord Deas — Do you say that these were found in a drawer pointed out by old Mr. Fleming? — Mr. Fleming gave me the key to open the drawer in which I found them. Mr. Clark — Did you notice any marks of blood on the floor of the room? — Yes. What were they? — Some spots of blood in the centre of the room floor. Lord Deas — There was no bed in that room, was there? — No. Mr. Clark — Did you find anything in Mr. Fleming's bed- room upstairs ? — No ; I am not aware of anything being found there. Mr. GiFPORD — Were the shirts you found folded? — They were. Did they appear to have been newly dressed? — Yes. Did you get keys to open the other chests of drawers that were in the house? — No, they were open. Lord Deas — Did he give you more than one key? — He gave me a bunch. But were there more keys than one on the bunch that opened the drawers? — No; there was just one. Mr. Clark — Did you see anything that had been used in washing up the blood ? — I cannot say that I saw anything that had been so used, but there were a number of cloths which I saw ; but whether they were so used or not I cannot say. But did you not examine to see if there were any such cloths? — I did. There were two small cellars, in which there were some wet cloths which might have been used. Were they marked with blood? — No, they were not. S3 Mrs. M'Lachlan. A, Thomson 11. Audlbt Thomson, criminal oflficer in the Central District — I was at Mr. Fleming's house, Sandyford Place, on Monday, 7th July, and saw the body and the appearances there. I went about nine o'clock at night. I went in com- pany with Superintendent M'Call. I was back on the 13th, when I took possession of the key now shown me, label No. 6, which was found in the door of the room where deceased was found. I applied that key to the pantry door, and found it opened it and locked it. I was with Mr. M'Call on Sunday, the 13th, when the prisoner was apprehended, and was, at different times afterwards, at her house, which is at 182 Broomielaw. (Shown a key, label No. 38.) I got that key in the prisoner's house, in the press door in the lobby. By Lord Deas — The key was standing in the lock of the press door in the lobby. Mr. GiFFORD — Did you try whether that key would open the check lock of the outer door of the prisoner's house? — I did, but it could not. Mr. Smith, who was along with me, took the lock off to try it, but it would not do. Did you go with Bernard M'Laughlin to the house of Mary Black or Adams? — I did. (Shown crinoline wires, label No. 25.) I got these there. Did you look at the crinoline wires? — I did, and found portions of the wires bare, and on another portion I considered there had been blood. I got possession of other two small keys in the prisoner's house. (Shown them, label No. 39.) They were too small to open the outer door. (Shown the two keys, label No. 40.) These keys were also found in the prisoner's house. None of them would open the outer door. (Shown a sleeve, or part of a sleeve of a dress, label No. 23.) I found that in the prisoner's house on the 17th. It was picked up by Mary Black or Adams, in my presence. Did you go to Sandyford Place in search of a bottle? — (Shown a bottle, label No. 5, and identifies it.) There was no cork in it ; it smelled of rum. I also tasted a small portion that was in it, and was quite satisfied that it contained rum. I found the bottle on the 15th. By Lord Deas — I got the bottle in a press or closet, where were a number of other bottles, in the lobby in the low flat. W. Smith 12. William Smth, criminal oflficer in the Central District of Glasgow Police — I went along with the last witness to the prisoner's house, and got a number of keys there. I went on the 13th, Hth, and 15th July. I tried these keys to see if any of them would open the outer door of the prisoner's house, but they could not. I even took the lock of the door off, and tried it, but they could not open it. I was present when the sleeve was found in the prisoner's house on the 14th July. The house consisted of three apartments, two rooms and a kitchen. It is situated up two stairs. 54 Evidence for Prosecution. 13. Christina Fraser, wife of and residing with John Fraser, C. Praser seaman, Grace Street, Finnieston, Glasgow, examined by Mr. GiFFORD — I am acquainted with the prisoner. I have known her from the time she was a little girl. I was on the north side of the river on Friday, 4th July, about half- past nine o'clock. I went across to see Mrs. M'Lachlan. I went to her house in Broomielaw. The house consisted of two rooms and a kitchen. Mrs. Campbell occupied the kitchen and bedroom of the house, and Mrs. M'Lachlan the parlour. There was a concealed bed in the prisoner's room. Mrs. Campbell opened the door to me. I found Mrs. M'Lachlan in her room dressing to go out. She had on her cloak, and seemed to be putting on her bonnet. She said she was going to see a delicate child of Mrs. M'Gregor, a friend of hers, and that she would not be long. The prisoner's child, about three years old in June, was in the bed in the. parlour. This was about half -past nine. I went out of the house along with the prisoner. We went along the Broomielaw, up Washington Street, to the corner of Stobcross Street, where I parted with her. She crossed the street towards the Gushet House. It might be ten o'clock, or five minutes past ten, when we parted. I could not say what way she was going. She had on a grey cloak and a velvet drab-coloured bonnet, and it seemed to be a dark dress which she wore. Before I left the prisoner's house that night she gave me a glass of rum and a biscuit. She went out of the house, but I cannot Bay whether she brought in the rum then or not. She was not many minutes away. It was a small bottle, but I could not say what kind it was. (Shown dress, label No. 27.) I can't say that I saw the prisoner wearing that gown, but I have seen her wear one like it. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — I have known the prisoner since she was a child. She is of a mild disposition. She has been in weak health since the birth of her child. She was long confined after it was born. She has had only one child so far as I know. She is not a violent woman in any respect, and was always civil to others. She and her husband always lived comfortably together. 14. Margaret M'Kbnzib or Campbell, wife of Donald Camp- M. Campbell bell, seaman, Clydesdale Buildings, Broomielaw Street, Glasgow, examined by Mr. Gifford — I lived in the Broomielaw with the prisoner. I came to her house in May last. I took two of the apartments of the three of which the prisoner's house consisted. My two apartments were the kitchen and bedroom. I still live in the house. There is an outer door and a long lobby. The first apartment you come to on passing through the outside door is the kitchen. The next is the bedroom, 55 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. Campbell and the third is the apartment which the prisoner occupied, and "vvhich is at the end of the lobby. These three apartments are all on the same side of the lobby. The prisoner's husband is a sea-faring man, and was often from home. Their child is three years of age. I remember the 4th July last. The prisoner sent my girl to the post oflBce on the evening of that day for envelopes. This was ten o'clock. The prisoner got the envelopes, after which the prisoner dressed herself in a drab bonnet, a grey cloak, and a brown merino gown. Mrs. Fraser, the last witness, came in before the prisoner went out. I admitted Mrs. Fraser, and showed her into the prisoner's room. I then went to mine in the kitchen and got to bed. I sleep in the kitchen. The prisoner came into the kitchen and opened the press, and appeared as if she had taken away something. I can't say what she took out ; but I know there were a bread basket and a bottle in it. I looked carelessly into the press next morning, but did not miss the bottle. I, however, do not remember seeing it there at that time. I missed it on the Monday following. It was a common bottle. (Shown glass bottle, No. 5.) That is about the size, shape, and colour of my bottle, but I can't say that it is mine. I heard, after this, footsteps go out, and the outer door shutting. This was about ten o'clock. I never saw a check key for the door since I came to the house. There is no handle at the outside of the door which admits of its being opened from the outside. The prisoner often talked of getting a check key for the door. There was a check lock which could have been opened from the outside had there been a key. I did not fall asleep till my lodger came in, which was about eleven o'clock. His name is John Macdonald. He's away to Karashae (Kurrachee, East Indies). When he came in he went right to his bedroom. I could not say when I fell asleep. It might be a while, but I could not say how long. I was under the impression that the prisoner went out, owing to her having spoken of going out, and as I saw her dressed to go out before Mrs. Fraser came in, I had an expectation that I would have to rise to let her in ; but I was not quite sure. I did not wake till next morning, at half-past five o'clock. I was awakened by the crying of the prisoner's child. I went into the prisoner's room, and took the child out of bed and dressed him. The prisoner was not in the room. The child was alone. I dressed the child. Did you see the clock when you said it was about five o'clock? — ^Yes, I see the clock in the south side quite visibly from my house windows. Lord Deas — A public clock? — Yes, a public clock in the south side. 3^ Evidence for Prosecution. Mr. GiFFORD — Did you look at the door at the time? — Yes; M. Campbell I went to the door to see that it was fast. It was just as I had left it, on the " check." Lord Deas — Did you go to bed again? — No, sir, I remained up. Mr. GiFFORD — What did you do with the little child? — I gave him a " piece " and he fell asleep, and I put him into his mother's bed again. Did anybody come to the door after that? — No, sir; the milk girl was the first that came to the door after that, and I took in the milk. That would be between eight and nine o'clock. Mrs. M'Lachlan came after that — about nine o'clock on the Saturday morning. She rang the bell, and I, opening the door, let her in. I had not seen her since the night before, when she was dressed to go out, and came into my kitchen. When she came in she had her own bonnet and cloak on, but I do not know, not having looked, whether the dress was the same. She was carrying a bundle — a large bundle — under her cloak. When she came in, and, just as I opened the door, she said, "Is that you?" or "There you go?" or something like that, and passed straight into her own room. I did not ask where ehe had been. I next saw her going down the stair carrying a clothes basket a short time after, and she returned very soon again. I observed her dress. I noticed that she had on a dress which I had never before seen on her — a merino dress of reddish colour, and the back of it pleated, and I think it was trimmed with blue velvet. The prisoner has a cellar downstairs in which she keeps things. When she returned from going downstairs s4ie went into her own room, and I next heard her come into the lobby and call out to me, asking me to kindle a fire in her room; she then went out. This would be about ten o'clock, and she returned once more between twelve and one. I saw her shortly after that on going into her room for a little basket which she had borrowed from me on Friday night. Did you notice what dress she had on then? — ^Yes; she had on a blue poplin dress. (Shown dress, label in inventory No. 27.) That is Mrs. M'Lachlan's own dress, and I have seen her wearing it before. When did you see laer next? — I saw her again about two o'clock, going out with her little boy, and she soon returned once more, and went out again with a black box. Lord Deas — At what time would this be? — I cannot exactly tell, but I think it might be about three or four o'clock. The box was similar to that I now see (being shown leather trunk, labelled No. 19), and I think I have seen that box in the house before. Mr. GiFFORD — Do you know the girl Sarah Adams? — Yes, sir. 57 Mrs. M'Lachlan. H. Campbell Did she come in about that time? — I did not see her at all. Mrs. M'Lachlan came back again soon after taking out the black box, and she went out again with her little boy that night. She had on a grey cloak. (Shown grey cloak, No. 33 of inventory.) It was a grey cloak that, but it had tassels, and that has none. They must have been taken off, if that is it. She came in again that night, and when she returned she showed me a little bonnet which she had bought for her son. Did she show you anything that she had bought for herself? — Not that night, but on the following Monday she showed me a black cloak, which she said she had got very cheap, at 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. Do you know Mary Black or Adams? — T have seen her at Mrs. M'Lachlan's, and I think she was there on Saturday afternoon, calling on Mrs. M'Lachlan; but I cannot say at what time. Mrs. Adams washed for the prisoner. (Shown article in inventory, labelled No. 32, a merino gown.) That might be the same gown she had on on the Saturday morning, but I cannot say. The colour is changed, and it looks like as if it had been dyed. The trimmings on it do not appear to be like the way it was trimmed before. Did you know the deceased Jessie M'Pherson? — I have seen her more than once in Mrs. M'Lachlan's. Have you ever seen these dresses before? (Shown black and brown silk dress, No. 30) — I think I have seen the black silk before. It is very like a dress I saw one Sabbath day in Mrs. M'Lachlan's on Jessie M'Pherson, the deceased. I observed it had black silk flounces covering a black skirt. The flounces were the same as those now shown you? — Yes. (Shown thirteen pieces of flannel, No. 20.) Do you know these? — They are very like a petticoat that Mrs. M'Lachlan had. Lord Deas — That is to say, they are like pieces of a petticoat? —Yes. Mr. GiFFORD — Is there any mark that you can know them by? — No farther than at one time Mrs. M'Lachlan washed it, and I noticed it was very stiff, and I remarked it to Mrs. M'Lachlan, and she said that it was made out of a piece of blanket. Was the texture the same as these pieces? — Yes, it is very like it. (Shown twenty pieces of coburg, label No. 22.) Do you recognise these? — They are very like the dress that Mrs, M'Lachlan w^ore on the Friday. They are pieces now, but they are like the pieces of the dress? — Yes; they look like the colour of the dress. That was a dress I knew very well. 58 Evidence for Prosecution. Are there any remains of flounces there? — ^Yes; these are M. Campbell small pieces of flounces. Was Mrs. M'Lachlan's dress a flounced one? — Yes; it had three flounces. (Shown sleeve, label No. 23.) Is that like the sleeve of her dress? — That is like the sleeve of the dress which has just been shown me. The dress she wore on Friday. (Shown six pieces of wincey, No. 21.) Do you know these? — That is not like the colour of the dress I examined before. It may be the gaslight. Lord Deas — Look at the label attached to them. Is your signature on it? — Yes. Did you examine that in the Fiscal's ofiice before? — Yes. I then thought it was something like the wincey petticoat that she (Mrs. M'Lachlan) used to wear. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Do you know that flannel petticoat? (Shown label No. 24) — I have never seen that before, except in the County Buildings. You say that Mrs. M'Lachlan had on a blue poplin dress on Saturday. What time of the day was that? — Well, I cannot say. I noticed it in Mrs. M'Lachlan's when I went in for the little basket between one and two o'clock. When the prisoner was living with me she was always in delicate health, but I cannot exactly say what was the matter with her. She used to complain of heart disease, and her shortness of breath was very great at times. Was she in her house on Saturday night, Sunday, and Monday? — Yes; but she could not be in all day on Monday, as she was going out and in. I was in the house all the time. Mr. GiFFORD — Were you at home all that Friday? — Yes, I was, except for a few minutes that I might be out. Did you see any man call upon her? — I cannot say that I saw any strange man calling that day. Did you see anybody calling for her on Saturday? — No; I cannot say that I saw anybody call on Saturday. No old man? — I have never seen any old man calling for her. [It being now nearly nine o'clock in the evening, in respect of the len^Tth of time already occupied and the impossibility of bringing this trial to a conclusion in the course of the present sederunt, Lord Deas, with the consent of both parties, continued the diet against the pannel till to-morrow morning at a quarter before ten, and ordained all concerned then to attend under the pains of law, and the haill fifteen jurors now in the box being hereby ordained to repair under the charge of the macers of Court, and of John Murray, Sheriff- ofl&cer, Glasgow, as their assistant (who, being present, was duly sworn de fideli), to Carrick's Hotel, George Square, 59 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. Campbell Glasgow, to remain under their charge till brought here to-morrow morning, in the hour of cause above mentioned, being kept strictly secluded during the period of adjournment from all communication with any person whatever on the subject of the trial, the Clerk of Court having liberty to communicate with them in relation to their private affairs ; meantime ordained the pannel to be detained in the Prison of Glasgow.] The Court then rose. 60 SECOND DAY. At Glasgow, the Eighteenth day of September, 1862. Present the Honourable Lord Deas, one of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Present also the Sheriffs as in the preceding sederunt. Intran. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now or lately prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, Pannel. IiTDiCTBD and Accused as in yesterday's sederunt. The Jury having come into Court, they all answered to their names on their being called over, and the Advocate-depute adduced the following additional evidence : — 15. Mabt Black or Adams, examined by Mr. Gifford — I Mary Adams know the prisoner; I have known her for two or three years; I was in the habit of washing clothes for her all that time; I used to wash in her own house at the Broomielaw; she employed me sometimes to go to the pawnbroker's; I was sent to different pawns ; to Clark's in Brown Street and Hutchinson's in Argyle Street; I was sent there to pledge goods. What sort of goods? — Her own clothing. I gave the name of Fraser, 5 Main Street. That was not her own name nor her own residence. She told me to give that name. I was in the prisoner's house on Thursday, 3rd July. I was washing for Mrs. Campbell, a person who lived in the same house with the prisoner. I was there the next day also finishing up the washing for Mrs. Campbell. I saw the prisoner. She sent me to the pawnbroker's, Clark's, in Brown Street, with a dressing glass. This was on the forenoon of Friday. She told me to get 6s. upon the glass, and to lift a cloak out of the pawn. I got 6s. upon the looking glass, and took out the cloak for 4s. 7^d. I brought the cloak to the prisoner. (Shown a cloak, label No. 33.) That is the cloak. When she got the cloak she said she wanted it to go from home. It was eleven o'clock in the forenoon when I brought the cloak. I saw the prisoner again in the afternoon about five o'clock. She then said she wanted me, if I were not engaged, to come back and keep her little boy, between nine and ten o'clock in the evening. That was Friday, 4th July. She said she was going to see Jessie. She did not say what Jessie, but I understood her to mean, when she spoke of Jessie, Jessie M'Pherson. We never used to mention the hindmost name. We both always called her Jessie. I knew Jessie M'Pherson for about the same time as the prisoner. I usked prisoner why she went to Jessie's so 6i Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mary Adams late. She said it was the time she was got alone; that the old man went to bed at that time. She did not give the " old man" a name; but I knew she meant old Mr. Fleming, in Sandyford Place. Jessie was a servant there. I knew that perfectly. I have only been once in Sandyford Place. That was after the murder. She said nothing about the old man after that. I said if nothing came in the road I would be back. There was nothing else passed at that time? — She wanted me to call on the smith to get a check key sorted. She said it was for the front door, as she said she did not always like to trouble Mrs. Campbell to open the door. She told me to go to a smith's at the foot of Carrick Street. I never heard his name. Did you go to the smith? — No, sir; I forgot. Lord Deas — Didn't you get a key to go with? — No. I was to tell the smith to come and sort the key. Mr. GiFFORD — Try if you recollect anything else that passed that night? — I think that was all that passed. Did she not say something about old Fleming? — She said that he was fashious about any person coming to the house. Did she explain how it was he was fashious? — She said he was especially so when he saw an old servant about the house. I left the prisoner's house at about half-past five. I did not go back that night, as I did not feel well, and went to bed after I got home. Next morning, Saturday, I went out about six o'clock to go to Mrs. Vicar's, at the foot of Bishop Street, and was out till about four o'clock in the afternoon. My landlady's name is Mrs. Rainny, 128 Holm Street. When I came in, and in consequence of what she told me, I went to Mrs. M'Lachlan's. It would then be near four o'clock. I found Mrs. M'Lachlan in her o^ti room. Her child was with her. She had on a dark dress. (Shown a black and blue watered gown. No. 27.) That is the dress she had on. I knew it to be her dress. I have often seen it. Well, did you know anything about that dress which made you make an observation about it? — I knew that it was out of the house. I knew it was in the pawn. I then said to the prisoner I had been informed she was at my lodgings for me. What more did you say? — I said to her, " Had you to go your own message? " What did you mean by that? — I said that because she never went to the pawn herself before. Lord Deas — She never before went to the pawnshop herself, that you knew of? — Never, except once. I remember of her saying that she went once. Mr. GiFFORD — Did she give you any answer? — I don't remember of her saying anything. 62 Evidence for Prosecution. Well, what was said next? — I said that she was up for me, Mary Adams and she said that I could not be got when she was wanting me. She then said, " I want you to go a mesage to Clark's pawn." She gave me three tickets and £2 in money. Did she say what you were to get? — She never mentioned anything that I remember of. Did you remember the articles? — Yes. Had you pawned them? — I don't remember doing so, but I knew them. I redeemed a silver watch of her husband's, a dress coat of his, two shirts, and a ring. Lord Deas — Whom did they belong to? — The two shirts were her husband's, and the ring was her own. Mr. GiFFORD — Do you mind what you had to pay for all these? — As far as I recollect, it was £1 16s. 6d. Were you surprised at her having the money? — I was a little surprised she had the money, and I passed a joke at the time and asked her whom she had robbed, just for fun. She said it was money that her husband left for the tailor. Well, did anything else pass that night between you and her? — I went for no more messages, unless for the house. This was on Saturday night. She asked me to come back on Monday. She said she wanted some more parcels home from the pawn. I went on Monday, about twelve o'clock, and washed for her in the afternoon. Did she give you any message to the pawnbroker? — I don't remember whether it was before I washed, or after that, that she gave me a message to Mr. Clark's, the pawnbroker. She gave me 16s. 6d. and two tickets. I went to Clark's and redeemed a pair of trousers and vest, and a jacket. They belonged to the prisoner's husband, and were in two parcels. I paid 15s. 9d., and gave the prisoner the change. I gave the pawn tickets to Mr. Millar, the pawnbroker's manager. (Shown the parts of a petticoat crinoline, attached to label No. 25.) I got these from the prisoner on Saturday, the 5th July, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, in her own house. She said the little boy had pushed them from a chair into the fire. Lord Deas — What did she say you were to do with them? — She said I was to make them down for a crinoline to my little girl Sarah. Mr. GiFFORD — Were there wires in the petticoat? — No, she said her little boy had burned them. Was it the petticoat that was burned? — No, it was these (the wires). Did she say it was the cloth of the petticoat that was burned? — No; that was all she said. These wires you gave to the police? — Yes. You had occasion, from having washed for the prisoner, to 63 Mrs. M'Lachlan. V Hary Adams know the prisoner's clothes? — Yes. She had a brown merino gown. It had a flounced skirt. Had she a merino gown with a plain skirt? — Not that ever I saw. (Shown a merino gown attached to label No. 32.) I never saw her with such a dress. I never saw it, that I know, till it was shown me at the County Buildings. It has the appearance of being dyed. Mr. Clark — It appears to be dyed? — Yes. Mr. GiFFORD — (Shown a flannel petticoat, and shift, attached to label No. 36.) Did you ever see these? — I never saw them till they were shown me in the County Buildings. I never washed them for the prisoner. Look at the petticoat. Does it appear to have been newly hemmed? — Yes. (Shown a velvet cloak and a cloth cloak, attached to label No. 29.) I can say nothing about them. I never saw them in the possession of the prisoner. Did you ever see Jessie M'Pherson with these on? — I can't say I ever saw her with them on. (Shown a black silk dress, a brown silk dress, and a silk jacket or polka, No. 30.) I never saw the prisoner with these on, nor anybody else to my knowledge. Did you ever see Jessie M'Pherson with dresses like these? — No ; but I have been informed Mr. Clark — Stop, stop. Mr. GiFFORD — Look at the brown or changing silk dress. Did you ever see Jessie MTherson with one like that? — Yes, I have seen her once or twice with a dress like that. (Shown a plaid, labelled No. 31.) I never saw the prisoner with that. Did you ever see Jessie M'Pherson with it? — No. (Shown several pieces of woollen or flannel cloth, labelled No. 20.) I recognise these — they are parts of a petticoat of the prisoner's. Have you ever washed them for her? — Sometimes, I think. Lord Deas here cautioned the witness against saying any- thing but what she knew from her knowledge to be truth. Mr. GiFFORD — Is there any peculiarity about this petticoat? — ^Yes, it was made of a half-blanket. I know nothing about the making of that petticoat. I never spoke to her about it. You said it was made out of a half-blanket; how do you know that? — I did not make it; but I knew the time when it was made. (Shown six pieces of wincey, labelled No. 21.) Do you recog- nise these? — I cannot say so much for that. Did you ever wash it for her? — I never washed it to my knowledge; but I have seen her wearing such like. Did you see her wearing it, do you say? — Wearing it, sir. Yes, wearing it as a petticoat. (Shown twenty pieces of coburg or other cloth No. 22.) Do 64 Evidence for Prosecution. you recognise these ? What are they 1 — I recognise these as Mary Adams part of a dress of the prisoner's. They are all torn to pieces. Do you see these, part of the flounces? — Yes, part of the flounces and part of the trimmings. I saw the prisoner with that on on Friday, the 4th July. (Shown a sleeve, or part of a sleeve, of a dress, labelled No. 23.) That is part of the sleeve of the same gown. It is coburg. I found that in the prisoner's house on the Thursday after she was apprehended. The police officers were there at the time. Audley Thomson, the detective officer, was there, and the police got it. Do you remember the prisoner saying anything about money ? —Yes. Lord Dbas — Get the time first when anything about money ■was said. Mr. GiFFORD — Was it about the 4th July she spoke of getting money? — I cannot mind the date. She said she would have to get money. Use her very words? — She said she would have to get money somewhere. I don't know what for. She was needing it, I suppose. She did not give any reason. Lord Dbas — Was this before that Friday? — Yes, I think it was. Cross-examined by Mr. Clark — Look at the merino gown. (Shown No. 32 of inventory.) You said that appears to you to be dyed? — Yes. Why do you think that? — Because I see it's dyed. You mean that it is coloured? — Yes, from the colour it was. How do you know that? — I see that it is dyed. How do you know that it was not coloured before? — Just because I see it's dyed. It's not its first colour. Lord Deas — You say you think it is not the original colour ? — It has been dyed, whether it is the original colour or not. It's new. Mr, Clark — How do you know that is dyed new? — Any person can see that it is dyed. Can you give me any reason how you know that it has been dyed? — I see it. New dyed? — I do not know whether it has been dyed new or not, but I think the dye is new. How can you tell that it has been newly dyed? — Anybody could by the smell. (Shown flannel petticoat in shreds, labelled No. 20 of inven- tory.) How do you know that to have been a petticoat? — I know it, just. (Question repeated) — I know that it is parts of the petticoat which I told you before had been made out of a blanket. How do you know that these are pieces of a petticoat? — I think any person would see that. F 6s Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mary Adams When, do you know, was this petticoat made? — I do not know the time. It's some time back since, but how long ago I cannot say. Lord Deas — But perhaps you can tell about how long? — I cannot. I have no idea of the time, but I think it was before the prisoner was living in her present house. How long ago — months, days, or years? — I cannot say; it has escaped my memory. Mr. Clark — You see these pieces of wincey petticoat. (Shown articles No. 21 of inventory.) Such petticoats are very common, are they not? — ^Yes, and of that colour. Lord Deas — When did you see that flannel petticoat you spoke of that was made out of the blanket? When did you see it before you saw it in the County Buildings? — Well, I could not say, for it was herself that scoured it last, and I could not say how long it is since that. Mr. Clark — Had you washed or scoured it when the prisoner was in her present house? — It is most likely I did so during that time ; but I could not say how long before it. I was in the habit of washing the prisoner's things as well as her husband's things. (Shown a flannel petticoat, label No. 24.) I knoW' nothing about it. Lord Deas — Have you shown the witness the petticoat? Mr. Clark — I have shown it to her, but she said she knew nothing about it. Lord Deas — I neither heard question nor answer. You keep it all down there among yourselves. Mr. Clark — Have you ever seen that petticoat before? — I have only seen it in the County Buildings. Lord Deas — You said you recollect the prisoner speaking of getting money somewhere? — Yes. Do you mind the words she used? — I think these were the words she used, '" I will have to get money somewhere or another." I thought her husband had a few pounds by him that she was going to lift. What did you understand by what she said? — I thought that perhaps she had some little money by her, and that she was to lift it. What did you understand by that? — I understood that sho wanted to get her clothes home from the pawn, and would require money to get them. [The witness was re-enclosed at the request of Mr. Clark.] Sarah Adams iq Sarah Adams, aged twelve years, and daughter of the last witness, examined by Mr. Gifford — I know the prisoner; I have known her for two years and ten months. I went to be a servant with her when she lived in Elliot Street, Anderston; I was with her also in Stobcross Street. I was servant with 66 Evidence for Prosecution. her "when she left Elliot Street and went to Stobcross Street. Sarah Adams I also went with her to her present house in Broomielaw Street, and remained with her there until five weeks before she was apprehended. Her husband is a sailor, and is often away from home. I knew Jessie M'Pherson. I used to see her in prisoner's house in Elliot Street. I do not recollect seeing her in Stob- cross Street. I saw her in Broomielaw Street. She came often to that house. She came generally on a Sabbath. I have been •where Jessie M'Pherson lived with Mr. Fleming in Sandyford Place. I have been sent there to Jessie M'Pherson on messages by the prisoner. After leaving the prisoner's service, five weeks before she was taken up, I went as a servant afterwards to Mr. Kinloch, Eglinton Street. Miss Agnes Kinloch was my mistress, and she gave me leave generally on a Saturday. I then went to see my mother and Mrs. M'Lachlan, the prisoner. I remember being at the prisoner's house on a Saturday. It was on the day after she was apprehended. Try and recollect? Was it the Saturday before word came out in the newspapers of the death of Jessie M'Pherson? — Yes; and I was there on the Saturday after that too. Lord Deas — Then you were there on both Saturdays? — Yes. Mr. GiFFORD — I was very often at the prisoner's house on Saturdays. On the Saturday before the prisoner was appre- hended I was at the prisoner's house, but cannot esactly say at what time. I think it would be about half -past three or four o'clock. I found the prisoner in, but there was nobody with her except her child. She was writing at the time. She asked me if I would go a message for her, and I said I would. She then asked me if I would carry a trunk to the Hamilton station. I said yes. She then w-ent down to the cellar in connection with her house. It w^as at the bottom of the stairs. She took a little hammer with her and the address which she had written, and told me to follow after her with the baby. She did not say ■what she was going to do with the hammer or the address. When I went downstairs with the baby I found her in the cellar. She was putting on the address, and told me to pass by the cellar, which I did. After she had put the address on she told me to come and see if it (the trunk) was too heavy for me to carry. (Shown a trunk attached to label No. 19.) That is the same trunk. I was able to lift it from the cellar, from which I carried it. She told me to go across the Broomielaw Bridge, and then to go to the station of the Hamilton railway. She gave me particular directions. The bos was tied up with twine. It was small twine. She gave me Is. to pay the carriage. The box w^as weighed at the station. I paid 4d. for carriage. I could not read the addi'ess, because I cannot read writing. I said at the station that it was from ]\frs. M'Lachlan, Broomielaw. I did not see the box opened, nor 67 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Sarah Adams what was in it. She told me not to open it. I did not open it, and I went back to the prisoner, and she gave me something for my trouble. It was 3d. She did not say anything to me that i mind of. I remember now, she said I was to tell no person I had been at the station. Did she say anything about your mother? — I was not to tell my mother anything about it, because she thought she would be angry. Have you seen that black box before? — Yes, often. It belongs to the prisoner. I left her and went to my mother. I next saw the prisoner on the Saturday after. Did you not see her on the Tuesday? — Yes, sir, that is the Tuesday after the murder was heard about. I don't know what time it was. Well, did you see anything she had? — Yes; a bonnet and a black shawl on the table. (Shown a straw bonnet, trimmed with blue or other ribbon, labelled No. 26.) That is the bonnet I saw. I had never seen it nor the shawl before. I next saw her on the Saturday — that is the day before she was taken up. Do you mind of being sent a message by Mis. M'Lachlan to Jessie M'Pherson shortly before you left her service? — Yes. How long before? — About three or four months. Would it be so long as that? — Yes. What was it for? — It was with a pair of crinolines. Do you mind on being sent to Jessie M'Pherson at another time? — Yes. What was that for? — It was for the loan of £2. When was that? — It was three days after the other message. I got the money, and brought it to Mrs. M'Lachlan. (Shown thirteen pieces of woollen or flannel cloth, labelled No. 20.) I recognise that. What was it? — She had once cane in it. What do you mean by having cane in it? — It was in it for a crinoline. That was to make it wide. It was a petticoat when the cane was in it. It belonged to the prisoner. I have seen her wearing such like dress. I know it by the stitching. Lord Dbas — Did you say that you knew the stitching? — It is my own stitching. Mr. GiFPORD — When did you stitch it? — One day when she was in a hurry. She gave it to me. Lord Deas — Do you mean that she asked you to stitch it? — Yes. Mr. GiFFORD — When was this? How long before you left the prisoner's service? — It was a good while. Did you give it back to the prisoner? — Yes. (Shown six pieces of wincey or other cloth, labelled No. 21.) I have seen her wearing one like this. 68 Evidence for Prosecution. Lord Deas — What was it? — A petticoat. Sarah Adams Mr. GiFFORD — (Shown twenty pieces of coburg cloth, labelled No. 22.) I recognise that. It is the prisoner's. Were there bits of the dress flounced? — Yes, there are bits of the flounces left. The prisoner's dress was flounced. What was that when you knew it? — It was a gown or wrapper. I have seen Mrs. M'Lachlan wear a wrapper like that in the house in the Broomielaw, and before that. She had it when I left her service. Did you ever see her wearing a gown like that, after you left her service? — Not that I know of. Do you know the pieces well? — Yes, I know that part of the wrapper. (Shown a sleeve attached to label No. 23.) Do you know that? — Yes, it is the sleeve of the same dress. (Shown a flannel petticoat attached to label No. 2-i.) Look at that, Sarah, did you ever see that before? — I have seen her sister wearing one something like it. What is her sister's name? — Ann M'Intosh. (Shown w4res of a crinoline attached to label No. 25.) I never saw these. Did you ever get them from the prisoner? — No. Did you ever get them from anybody? — No. (Shown merino gown attached to label No. 32.) Do you know that? — No; I never saw Mrs. M'Lachlan have that. Do you see the trimming on the dress? The prisoner never had trimming like that? — No. Cross-examined by Mr. C1-ark — Were you ever examined as a witness? — No, sir. Lord Deas — What do you mean? In a Police Court? Mr. Clark — W^ere you ever examined in any Court before? "Once before the Sheriff? — Yes. And it was a case between Jessie Mackay and Edward M'Geachie, before Sheriff Strathern? — Yes; it is more than two years ago. I was examined as a witness for the pursuer, Jessie Mackay. And do you mind that your mother had, after you were examined, a quarrel with Jessie Mackay? — Yes. And then were you examined for the defender? Lord Deas — Do you mean after the quarrel? Mr. Clark — Yes. Did you then say all that you had said in your first examina- tion was quite untrue? — I told them that Jess Mackay had told me to tell lies. Was any part of what you said at your second examination different from what you said before? — I don't think it; I oannot mind. You can read print? — Yes. Lord Deas — What is it you are going to ask her? 6o Mrs. M'Lachlan. Sarah Adams Mr. Clark — I am merely going to let her look at this printed deposition (exhibiting it in his hand). Mr. GiFPORD — It is not produced. Mr. Clark — I am not asking her anything about it. I wish merely to ask her to read this, to refresh her memory. [This course being objected to, Mr. Clark proceeded to interrogate the witness.] Then, Sarah, did you tell the same story on your second examination that you told upon the first?— I think I did. Why did you say that you had been told to tell lies? — Jess Mackay told me to tell lies. That was before you were examined the first time that Jessie Mackay told you to tell lies? — Yes. And when you were examined did you tell lies? — ^Yes ; I said when I was examined I told lies. She said she would give me a dress and bonnet. When you were examined the second time did you tell the- truth or tell lies?— The truth. Then did you tell a different story when you were examined the second time, from the story you told when you were examined the first time? — My mother thrashed me, and put me back to tell the truth. Was it after the quarrel between your mother and Jess^ Mackay that your mother thrashed you? — Yes. Then, Sarah, you told a different story the second time from the first?— I told the truth. Lord Deas thought it was unnecessary to press this ques- tion further, the thing being quite plain. (Witness shown part of a coburg dress, torn into twenty pieces, label No. 22.) I know that the prisoner had a dress of this colour, of that kind of stuff, and trimmed like this. The body was trimmed with narrow velvet. And all that you can say about this is that this is tlie same colour, the same kind of cloth, and the same Idnd of trimming; you cannot say any more than that? — No. At the request of Lord Deas the witness was again shown the pieces of wrapper or gown, labelled No. 22, and asked by his lordship if she had any doubt that these were part of the prisoner's dress. The answer was indistinctly heard by the reporters, but on Mr. Clark afterwards wishing to put a question to the witness relative to the same matter. Lord Deas said he had taken the answer given by the witness as follows : — " They are part of the prisoner's dress." Mr. Clark said he understood the girl to have said, " I think they are part of the prisoner's dress." On the jury being appealed to, they stated that Lord Deas' notes were, in their opinion, correct. Lord Deas said that, if Mr. Clark wished, he would agaia 70 Evidence for Prosecution. put the question to the witness (who had been removed out Sarah Adams of Court), but this was not pressed by Mr. Clark. Before the witness had been removed she was also asked by Lord Deas if she knew what the quarrel between her mother and Jessie Mackay was about? — She said, " No," in reply. Lord Deas — Do you know whether it was about anything said at that examination? — I think it was. 17. jAi. Peter Morton. Bernard M'Laughlin. Third Declaration. At Glasgow, the 21st day of July, 1862, in presence of Alexander Strathern, Esq., Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, Compeared, Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, presently a prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, and the declarations emitted by her, in presence of said Sheriff-Substitute, on the 14th and 16th days of July current, being now read over to her, after being again judicially admonished, and being examined, declares and says — I adhere to said two declarations as being correct. And, being now shown thirteen pieces of flannel, to 131 Mrs. M'Lachlan. which a label is attached ; as also six pieces of wincey cloth, to which a label is attached ; as also twenty pieces, or thereby, of merino, to which a label is attached ; and being interro- gated, declares — None of said articles now shown me belong to me, and I never had any of them in my possession. I was not wearing a gown of the colour of the pieces ot merino shown me on Friday, the ith July current. I am now shown a piece of merino, apparently part of the sleeve of a gown, to which a label is attached. Declares that it is not the sleeve of any gown belonging to me that I know of. I had at one time a gown of the same colour as that sleeve, the skirt of which I gave to the washerwoman, Black or Adams, as I have mentioned in a previous declaration. I never had a go^vn of the same colour except that one. The body of the gown was worn done, and I gave it away about a twelvemonth ago to a poor woman who came to my door ; or perhaps, for I am not quite certain, I may have thrown it into the ashpit. The several labels above referred to are docquetted and subscribed as relative hereto. All which I declare to be truth. Jessie M'Lachlan. Alexander Strathern. The foregoing declaration, written on this and the two preceding pages, by Peter Morton, clerk in the Sheriff-clerk's Office in Glasgow, was freely and voluntarily emitted by the therein designed Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, while in her sober senses, and was adhered to by her on being read over to her, and was subscribed by her and the said Sheriff-Substitute, before these witnesses, William Hart, writer in Glasgow, thfr said Peter Morton, and Bernard M'Laughlin. William Hart. P. Morton. Bernard M'Lauqhun. Evidence for the Defence. The counsel for the pannel then adduced the following evidence in exculpation : — G. Paton 1. George Paton, examined by Mr. Clark — I am a milk- man, and I have been for some time in the habit of supplying milk to the people who live at 17 Sandyford Place. I sup- plied milk to that house in July last. I remember hearing of the death of the servant in that house on Tuesday morning, 133 Evidence for Defence, the 8th. I remember having been at Mr. Fleming's house on g. Paton the previous Saturday. I had a cart with nie, in -which was a boy named Donald M'Quarrie, then in my service. I got to Mr. Fleming's house between half-past seven and twenty minutes to eight o'clock in the morning. I am quite sure of that. I came off the cart, but did not go up to the house ; the boy Donald went up, and he rang the bell. It was answered immediately. I did not see who answered it. I saw the door opened a small bit, but I did not see who was at it. There was very little delay in opening the door. I •could not pay much attention in serving other people ; but there was not much delay. I could not say if the bell was rung twice. No milk was taken. I was there on the Sunday and Monday. No milk was taken at either of these times. Did you see old Mr. Fleming any of these times? — The only occasion on which I saw him was on the afternoon of Monday. How long has the boy M'Quarrie been wath you? — I could not say ; it would be some months. Cross-examined by Mr. Gifford — Are there many families in Sandyford Place to whom you supply milk? — A good many; I could scarcely tell how many. Give us an idea? — Fifteen or sixteen. I called upon them all on Saturday morning. I call on them all every morning. There are a great many families out of town at that time. Does it frequently happen at that time of the year that milk is not required? — They all get milk that are at home. Some of them do not get it. Lord Dbas — Do some of the houses, which remain inhabited, not take in milk at that season? — Yes. Mr. Clark — Did the Flemings always get it? — Yes. Do you remember any instances, except Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, when the milk was not taken in at their house? — Never, to my knowledge. 2. Donald M'Quarrie, examined by Mr. Clark — I was d. M'Quarrie with George Paton, helping to take round the milk in July last. I know Sandyford Place, and used to go there with him. I know old Mr. Fleming, who lives there. I mind of hearing of the death of the servant in that house. I heard of it on Tuesday morning. I mind the Saturday before that Tuesday morning. I was there with the milk along with George Paton. I went up and rang the bell. Old Mr. Fleming answered it. I did *iot ring more than once. I had not to wait any time before it was answered. The door was shut when I went. I did not hear anything before Mr. Fleming opened the door. The first thing I heard after ringing the bell was the chain coming off the door. Are you quite sure of that? And after the chain came 133 Mrs. M'Lachlan. D. M'Quarrle off the door the door was opened ? — Yes ; by old Mr. Fleming I saw him. He was dressed. He had on black clothes. Did he say anything? — He said he was for nae milk. He said nothing more. This would be about twenty minutes to eight. That is the ordinary time of getting to Sandyford Place. I am sure of all that I have said. Cross-examined by Mr. Giffoud — Did you find any day on which the door was not opened at 17 Sandyford Place at all? — No. Did you always get an answer when the bell was rung? — ^Yes. Mr. Clark — Did you ever know of old Fleming answering the door before? — No. Mrs. Smith 3 ]^|j.g jvIary Fulton or Smith, Richard Street, examined b}^ Mr. Maclean — I knew the deceased Jessie M'Pherson. I have known her for five or six years. I know the prisoner Mrs. M'Lachlan. I have seen her in Jessie MTherson's when she was in Grace Street, and had a shop there. Have you heard Jessie M'Pherson speaking of the prisoner? — I have seen them in company. I have heard her speaking of the prisoner many a time. She spoke of her in a very friendly way. I last saw Jessie M'Pherson on the 28th of June. That was in Sauchiehall Street. I spoke to her. Tell us the conversation that passed between you? — Walking along the street with my husband, I met the deceased, and not having seen her for two years and two months, I was quit© astonished when she came forward. She was looking real ill, and I asked her, " How are you liking Mr. Fleming's family? " She said, " I do not feel very happy or comfortable with old Mr. Fleming, for he is actually an old wretch and an old devil." These are the words she said. She said that very seriously. I then asked her if she was not comfortable with him, as I never heard her saying anything bad of him before. She said she was very unhappy and uncomfortable, and stated that she would come to see me on that day fortnight, as it was her Sunday out, and stay to tea. There was something, she said, she would like to tell me, but, as Sandy was walking beside me, she would tell me when he was away. I understand she was to come to your house on Sunday fortnight to tell you something? — Yes. What did you understand that something to refer to? — I could not tell what it was about, for she never lived to come and tell me. I said to her, " You are looking ill," and she said, " I cannot tell you what is the cause, because Sandy is with- you." Do you think she did not like to tell you before your hxisband? — That is what I understood. You have said that you have seen Jessie M'Pherson and the prisoner together? — Yes, many a time in her own shop. 134 Evidence for Defence. On these occasions did they seem fond and affectionate? — Mrs. Smith Yes. I knew that they were great friends. Lord Deas — Did you ever understand that Jessie M'Pherson was thinking of going abroad ? — She never said to me that she was going abroad. 4. Mary MTherson or M'Kinnon, wife of John M'Kinnon, M. M'Klnnon fishmonger, Ann Street, Greenock, examined by Mr. Maclean — I am foster-sister of the deceased Jessie MTherson. I have seen the prisoner and Jessie MTherson together. They were quite good friends and affectionate. I last saw Jessie MTherson about a month before the murder took place. Did she say anything on that occasion about old Mr. Fleming? — On that day on which I called upon her, I said it was very strange that she never came to see me. She replied that it v.-as very easy for me to speak ; she had got so much to do by some servant going away, and that her heart was broken by the old man, who was so inquisitive that the door bell never rang but he must see who was there and know all about them. M. M'Intyre 5. Martha M'Intyre, examined by Mr. Maclean — I was in the service of John Fleming. I went on the 11th November last. I left on the 25th January. I saw a good deal of old Mr. Fleming. Did you see anything peculiar about him? Was he an inquisitive old man? — Yes, very inquisitive, by inquiring who was in the house, and as to when the servants went out. Lord Deas — He made inquiries where you had been, and what you were doing when out? — Yes. Mr. Maclean — Was he special in his inquiries about Jessie MTherson? — Yes, specially so. Lord Deas — What do you mean by specially? I thought he inquired about all. Mr. Maclean — Did he inquire more particularly after her than the others? — He always inquired after her. Have you seen him get out of bed to see who was ringing the door bell? — Yes. Lord Deas — When did he do that? — In the morning. Mr. Maclean — Vv^as Jessie MTherson a strong woman? — She was a wiry woman. 6. Alexander Cameron was the next witness whose name was called. It was found, however, that he was in the dock guarding the prisoner. The Court ordered that he should be relieved, and after two minutes had elapsed, he entered the box, and was examined by Mr. Maclean — Alexander Cameron, you are a policeman in Glasgow? — ^Yes. I went to Mr. I3S A. Cameron Mrs. M'Lachlan. A. Cameron Fleming's, at Sandyford Place, on the afternoon of Monday, the 7th July. I was there before Dr. Fleming. He came shortly afterwards. I was there a little after five in the afternoon. I saw Mr. John Fleming there. Did you hear him say anything about opening the door of the room in which the body of Jessie M'Pherson was found? — Yes. Would you tell us what he said? — He stated that his son had been told by old Mr. Fleming that Jessie was amissing, and that he (Mr. John Fleming) had gone down the stair and found that the door of the deceased's bedroom was locked. He also said that he went down into the pantr5% like to go out to the area to look through the room window. Lord Deas — With the intention of going in by the window? —Yes. Mr. Clark — Well, I understand that he went to it 1 Witness — Then he looked through the keyhole of the room, and saw a key inside. Then he took the pantry key and shoved the key which was inside out of the door. Lord Deas — And opened the door with the pantry key? — Yes. Mr. Clark — Did he say he heard the key fall in the inside? — Yes; and a considerable time after I got a candle, and when the doctors were making an examination, and when I understood that a murder was committed, I remarked to Mr. Fleming and Mr. Chrystal that I could not find a key in the room. Mr. John Fleming then remarked that he thought he heard a key falling, but that he was rather confused. Mr. Claek — In consequence of what he said first you looked for a key? — Yes, when I understood a murder had been committed. A. M'Intosh 7. Ann M'Intosh, examined by Mr. Maclean — I am a sister of the prisoner, Mrs. M'Lachlan. Her husband is a seaman, and mate. His wages are 30s. a week. He always gave his wages to my sister. I have a brother called John M'Intosh. He is a seaman. He was in the habit of giving money to Mrs. M'Lachlan. Pretty large sums ? — Yes ; he gave her at one time twenty- five sovereigns. Do you know if Mrs. M'Lachlan was ill after being confined of her child? — Yes, she could scarcely come out of her bed. For a long time at once? — ^Yes ; she was confined for four months. Was she unwell in the Broomielaw house? — Yes; she lay there for six weeks at once. 136 Evidence for Defence. Mr. GiFFORD — When was it she got the twenty-five A. M'intosh sovereigns? — It was on the 9th November. What year? — Last November. Mr. Maclean — Was he in the habit of giving her money after every voyage ? — Yes ; he always gave her money after every voyage. 8. Robert Jeffrey, examined by Mr. Clark — I am a r. Jeffrey criminal officer, and was engaged in searching the house of Mr. Fleming, in Sandyford Place en the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th July last. I remember of finding a bag in old Mr. Fleming's bedroom. There was a little blood upon it. I found the bag on the 8th or 9th ; I am not confident wliich day. [Mr. Clark here made inquiry whether the bag referred to had been labelled by Mr. Hart, when he was informed that it was not among the articles produced in evidence.] Mr. Clark — You found it in Mr. Fleming's bedroom? Lord Deas — What kind of a bag was it? — It was a bag of about 3 feet long by about 2 feet broad. It was a grey canvas bag. It was like a clothes bag; it was made of coarse canvas, something like the bag now shown me. Lord Deas — Is that not it? — [After examining it a little, witness said it was not the bag.] Mr. Clark — What was the blood like? — It was like a bloody mark, and was of the size of a shilling, and was in the centre, on one side of the bag. It was dry, and had a faint appear- ance of blood. It appeared to me to be not new. Might it not have been something else? — My impression is that it was blood. Lord Deas — What do you say you did v.'ith the bag? — I labelled it, and one of the officers took it away to Messrs. Hart and Gemmel, giving me a receipt for it. I have never seen it since. He gave you a receipt for it along with the other things? —Yes. Who gave you the receipt? — Bernard M'Laughlin. Did you call the attention of any of the authorities to the marks? — Mr. M'Call handed it to me. Did you call his attention to it? — Mr. M'Call saw it. Did you call his attention to it? — He handed it to me, and asked if I thought it was blood, and I said that I thought so. That was in the house? — In the house. Did you see any appearance of blood on any other article found in the bedroom? — I found a strip of cotton cloth, with bloody spots upon it, under a chair. Cross-examined by Mr. Gifford — It was under the covering of the chair. 137 Mrs. M'Lachlan. R. Jeffrey Under what chair? — Under an easy chair. In the same bedroom? — Yes, in the same bedroom. (Shown label No. 50.) Is that it? — Yes. It is a long, narrow strip. (Witness here pointed out the bloody marks upon the strip, which was handed to the jury for examination.) Lord Deas — Did the marks seem to be new or old? — They seemed to be old at the time I saw them first. They are very small? — Yes, very small. What is the size of the mark? — They are so mixed that I cannot exactly tell the size. With this exception, was there any blood upon any article that was found in old Mr. Fleming's bedroom, or upon hia clothes? — There was no blood that I could see upon his clothes. Nor upon any of the other articles that were found in his bedroom? — Not that I am aware of. Was Mr. Fleming in custody at the time? — Yes. When you made your search ? — We had him in custody when we found the bag, and the cloth found under the chair cover was got after he was taken to Messrs. Hart and Gemmel; but we had him in custody from the first. Was he in custody until after you sent these articles to the- Fiscal's office? — He was taken away on the AVednesday urt, December 9, 1861, Irvine, vol. iv. p. 125. — Ed. i68 Addresses to Jury. had raised the money which paid her rent by the pawning of Mp. Clapk the plate, of which I am to speak. Gentlemen, that was dis- proved. The Crown did not know that fact — the Crown did not notice the fact that the money by which she paid her rent on Saturday, the 5th July, was money which was not raised by pawning that plate, because the rent was paid before the plate could have been pawned. I confess, gentlemen, my amazement when the Advocate-depute was driven conclusively out of that suggestion by evidence which he himself had led; that he should have resorted, for the purpose of explaining that mystery, to a mere insinuation which he had not made matter of open charge, that he should have insinuated that, in addition to those articles that are charged on the indictment, and of which alone the prisoner had notice, that she had committed the theft of some =£4 from the trunk of Jessie M'Pherson, of which money we have not the slightest evidence, the existence of which money depends merely upon the insinuation of the prosecutor — an insinuation which he did not even attempt to prove, and of which he did not give any notice. But, gentlemen, even if he could prove it, he could not have proved it — he could not have proved the separate crime of the theft, as has been laid down in a variety of cases, without giving the prisoner notice of the fact. But, gentlemen, I do complain that when the only theory on which he explains this foul murder — the only motive which he in reality assigns — is disproved by facts which he has adduced, it should be made to depend not upon the matters which he has proved, but upon matters which he himself has alone insinuated. Now, gentlemen, I think we have no motive assigned, but something insinuated, which must be thrown to the winds, for the consideration of this crime. Is it likely, in the circum- stances in which this crime was committed — is it in the least degree consistent with likelihood that the prisoner was the murderer of her own friend? Just consider the circumstances which we certainly have traced in the course of our long inquiry. These you must keep in view in deciding this question. The murder is committed in Mr. Fleming's house while he is present, and when, according to the prosecutor's case, the prisoner must have known that he was in his house. The murder is com- mitted when he is present, and the murder is committed in such a way as to show you, according to the statement of the doctors who have been examined — I mean Dr. Fleming and Dr. Macleod — in a way which shows that there had been a severe conflict between the person who committed the murder and the deceased. We have evidence, at all events, of the existence of strife, even on the evidence which Fleming himself gives, and to which I shall immediately speak; but the doctors tell you that there was evidence of a severe conflict. And 169 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mr. Clark what my learned friend says is this, that the person who had Btood over the body of a friend, mangling it with that weapon, having committed the bloody deed by the infliction of upwards of forty wounds, and having done that in a house in which she knew that a person was living, and after a severe conflict between herself and the deceased, that, instead of going away from the house as fast as she could get, that there might be the fewer traces of the guilty deed which she committed, she stayed apparently in that house until a little before nine o'clock in the morning, washing at the floor, and washing the dead body — all these circumstances are said to be consistent with the prisoner's guilt. Is that a conceivable proposition, that a person having committed, after a groat conflict, a severe conflict, a murder in this house, would have remained for hours, it may be, and I think it must be, if she, according to the prosecutor's theory, did not reach home till nine o'clock in the morning — that she would remain hours washing out the traces of the crime from the kitchen where it had existed, rubbing out or washing out the traces of the crime from the lobby, and washing out some blood, a considerable portion of blood even in the bedroom? All these things are part of the prosecutor's case; and I want you to consider whether it is possible that this can be con- sistent with the prisoner being the person who committed that crime — and committed that crime according to the prosecutor's theory, as he has explained his case to you, unaided and unseen. He doesn't assert that Mr. Fleming was in any otiier position than in his bed, as he says, during that night; and, therefore, the account which he gives of the case is such as I have represented, and that is the case wjiich he wishes you to believe. Aye, and having been so much pressed for money, as he says she was, ;is to lead her to the commission of this fearful oft'ence, what does she take? Only some plate and some clothing. Not the whole clothing. All that we hear of is the taking of some articles of plate vvhich are said to be all the plate in use in the open drawer, and some dresses which belonged to a friend, but could not have been all her clothing. And if she could have waited to wash up the traces of her crime, as the prosecutor asserts, and her object had been plunder, how is it that these articles which he libels as having been taken by her after the commission of that offence are so few — that she did not take the other articles which must have existed in the house, and which F.he must have been wanting if her object was plunder? And, further, there was not one of these articles v/hich she is said to have removed after the commission of the offence stained with blood — not one of them, I say, has been proved to have been stained wnth any blood whatever. My friend the Advocate-depute says tkat 170 Addresses to Jury. bloody hands had taken these articles out cf the trunk which Mr. Clark was in the kitchen. Now, if this had been the case, the skill of my friend Dr. Penny would have detected the marks of blood upon the articles. But it has not been so, and there- fore, gentlemen, I think it is incredible to believe that a person who contemplated murder, whose only motive for murder was plunder, would have acted in the way in which the prisoner is said to have acted — would have remained to have washed out the traces of the blood and at the same time have contented herself with the few articles which she ia charged with having taken. Now, gentlemen, these are the leading features of this case as they present themselves, apart altogether from the evidence by which the prisoner is said to be proved guilty of that crime which, I say, is one of the most unparalleled and unprecedented that ever was heard of — a case of all others the most difficult to prove. I say, gentlemen, it is altogether impossible to believe that for the purpose of obtaining a few pounds this woman would have committed such a frightful crime — this weak, frail woman, labouring under sickness for some time, could have struck down in that ferocious and horrible manner her dearest friend. Now, let us see what are the facts on which the public prosecutor relies for tracing the guilt of this prisoner. I shall refer to it without alluding to the declarations of which you have heard me speak to-day, and which the Advocate-depute said he did not care about, and yet to which he constantly, and in almost every sentence, referred. Let us see v/hat is the evidence on which this matter depends. She never was seen near the house in the course of that night. She was seen at the Gushet House, which, at all events, is ten minutes or a quarter of an hour's walk from Sandyford Place ; and the Advocate-depute was candid enough to admit that the statement you received from the witness Mary Adams, that the prisoner said she was going to see Jessie M'Pherson, would not sustain the theory of premeditated plunder. Nor v/ill that statement entitle you to infer that she was present in the house that night. But let us see upon what the prosecutor relies for proving her presence in it. A bottle is one part of the evidence — a common pint bottle, in which there had been some rum, v.hich had been put aside into a common press, as the witness, Audley Thomson, told you, beside a great many other bottles. Surely that is very slight evidence to resort to? The bottle has no peculiarity. It was not seen taken by the prisoner. The absence of the bottle from Mrs. Campbell's house was not discovered until Monday, the 7th, and she did not pretend to identify the bottle in any respect. There was the lodger in Mrs. Campbell's 171 Mrs. M^Lachlan. Mr. Clark house, -whose evidence we have not in this matter, and which, I think, certainly the Crowm ought to have advanced if they had pleased. Now, gentlemen, the prisoner is out all night according to the statement of the Crown. That is not very well proved either. There is no doubt that there are some inconsistencies in the declarations as compared with the evidence which has been put before you. Mrs. Campbell says she went out at ten o'clock, and that she did not return until nine o'clock in the morning ; and the prosecutor again refers to the declarations in which it is alleged that she was in at night. Mrs. Campbell does not know but what she had a latch key. The lock was an ordinary one, and it may be that she had some key which opened it, or it may be that she was let in by the assistance of John M'Donald, who was living in the house at that time. In the absence of his testi- mony, which the Crown could have procured if necessary, it is impossible that the single statement made by Mrs. Campbell — without at all impeaching her honesty — that the prisoner was not in the house at five o'clock, and that she let her in at nine o'clock, can be relied upon as conclusive. Another matter to which I have to refer, and to which my friend Mr. Gifford referred in rather a poetical way, is the footmarks. There were three footmarks on these boards, but only two have been produced. I cannot tell why. There was only one person who made the comparison of these footmarks, and he does not say how he compared them. He does not say that he had put the foot and the footmarks together. All he says is that he compared them, but he does not tell how. All he says is that the footprints might have been made by a foot such as the prisoner had. And are you to found on that? I believe Dr. Maclecd is not stating anything but what he thinks is the truth on the matter, but yet, like other men, he is not infallible. But we have between his observations and Dr. Watson's a most singular contradic- tion, which, I think, entitles me to say that the evidence of Dr. Macleod cannot be received with the same weight when we find that he omits from the report of the injuries which the unfortunate woman had received — what Dr. Watson describes as a remarkable bruise on the lower part of the spine. But all you have on this matter of the footprints is Dr. Macleod's statement, and he thinks they might have been made by the prisoner's foot. That is all the evidence he has given on the subject. And therefore, gentlemen, I think that in the absence especially of the other footprint which we ought to have had here, and in the absence of any cor- roboration of Dr. Macleod, which might easily have been here ; in the absence of any clear proof that these footmarks were absolutely identical with the prisoner's, it is impossible 172 Addresses to Jury. to lay very much stress on the circumstances said to establish Mr. Clapk that she was present in that house. But let us see some of the other facts on which my friend relies for establishing — be it observed — that she was present in the house. I am speaking now of the matter of the plate. The plate, it is said, was pawned on Saturday morning, and it was in the house as late as nine o'clock on Friday morning. It was pawned by the prisoner, according to the Crown, about half-past twelve on Saturday, so that, says my friend the Advocate-depute, is conclusive proof of the theft ; and not only conclusive proof of the theft, but of the circumstance that the prisoner was in the house at the time. And why? The only proof of the theft, and the only proof that she was in the house with the plate on the Friday night, just consists in this, that she is contradicted in this matter by Mr. James Fleming. Now, unless you believe James Fleming's evidence, and can trust to every particular of that evidence — can believe the strange story which he told, and which I shall again have to comment on — ^there is nothing whatever to imply that in pawning that plate the prisoner was either guilty of theft or that she was in Fleming's house on the Friday night. She says she got it from Fleming, and even accused as she is, I think I would believe her word sooner than the word of Fleming, whom you have heard examined, and whose evidence was not of the character to command respect. And what are the other things through which the prisoner is said to have been in that house? Why this, that she is in possession of some of Jessie M'Pherson's clothes. These clothes of Jessie M'Pherson are not proved to have been in the house recently, unless, again, there may be some reference to that in the declarations as to some of them. My friend says she went out with a brown gowTi of her own and returned with Jessie MTherson's gown on her back to her own house nest morning. That the prisoner disputes; and when Mrs. Campbell, who saw the prisoner come in, was examined about the gown — the gown that was dyed — she says the prisoner had on a different gown on Saturday morning from the gown she had on on the Friday evening; but on looking to the gown, she frankly admits that the gown was not trimmed in the same manner as the gown which she saw the prisoner wear on that Saturday morning. It is told you that she returned with a gown. Mrs. Campbell, whose evidence was given in such a way as to entitle it to respect from all, is given to the effect that she was not aware that the gown she Avore was differently trimmed, and the prosecutor tells you that this circumstance shows to you that she was present in the house that night. The other articles are articles of dress of Jessie M'Pherson which, he says, he 173 Mrs. M'Lachlan. MP. Clark has traced to her, founding triumphantly upon her declara- tion. Again, you are not to presume that because she may have been proved to have been in possession of these articles on tlie Saturday morning that she necessarily got them on the Friday night at Sandyford Place. That is a great infer- ence to draw. She may have got them on the Friday night, but she may have got them without being present in Sandyford Place, without being present when the murder was committed at all. Think, in the first place, how the witnesses' identifications are to be distrusted in the proving of the box which was sent round from all these different railway stations. Do you remember the evidence of the witness, Mr. Smith Dunlop, when he was examined in the box. He was going to leave the witness-box with tlie impression that the box which was shown him was the identical box which the person had been speaking about when the person was in the shop on Wednesday, the 9th. But could he ulti- mately say that it was the box which had been got in his premises, and of which he had no recollection whatever? Yet he was prepared at first to identify it and speak of it as the very box which the prisoner had got, and yet we have it traced to different railway stations, we have it broken up, and it is said that these dresses were in the box. That is not proved by a particle of evidence which is laid before you, because we have the box going to the railway station without being broken — ^it is broken before we see it again; and these railway officials speak merely to the transit of the box without the particular dresses; but they do not speak of the box in which it is said that on Saturday the prisoner deposited a certain bundle. Then Blair tells you about the box, and tells you that it had an overlook. But, Vv^hatever the box contained when it was passing along these railways at that time, I maintain that it is not proved by evidence to have contained these articles. And again, upon that matter, the prosecutor has to resort to the prisoner's declaration upon this matter too, and points first to a series of questions, in which she is asked about a variety of articles and not shown them; and then they are suddenly produced against her, and then he says she contradicts herself. That is the way the prosecutor deals with her declaration. But, even supposing these articles to have been hers, and to have been traced to the prisoner, it has not been stated that she was at the house in Sandyford Place on the Friday night. She might have got them without being there. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that she should; and surely, in such a case as this, nothing whatever could be made matter of inference and assumption unless it is absolutely necessarily inference and necessarily assumption. Now, gentlemen, another matter is strangely founded on by 174 Addresses to Jury. the prosecutor, and that, I tliink, is about the last by which he Mr. Clapk proposes to establish, by what he calls a chain of circumstantial evidence, and almost to your satisfaction, that the prisoner was in Sandyford Place that night. It is those clothes which are found at Hamilton, and his case is this : they are put into that black box which Sarah Adams took to the railway station, and which the prisoner followed on Tuesday to Hamilton, where she was seen with a box and bundle, and where she was seen near a place where afterwards certain articles were found. Now, the proof against the prisoner on that point depends entirely upon this : are you satisfied with the identification which these articles have received? That is one part. They are not proved to have been in the prisoner's custody. They are not found in her custody; but certain rags are picked up on the highv/ay or in some other parts near Hamilton and near Low Waters, populous places, and they are said to be part of the prisoner's dress. Now, what proves that statement? Mrs. Campbell did not swear that any one of them belonged to the prisoner. She, her lodger, who is living with her, declines to identify those rags, and to say that they must be the prisoner's, and could be no others; because you must keep in view that what identification means is not that they were likely to be prisoner's, but that they were the prisoner's and no others, and could not be another person's. But there are two witnesses who are said to have identified these articles, and let us see what it is that they propose to identify. Two witnesses — one of whom admits that on a former occasion when she was examined she told a lie, and who is the daughter of the other woman, who had quarrelled with the prisoner, and had got ber daughter examined — they swear that they can identify these shreds as a petticoat, and, not only that they can identify these shreds as a petticoat, but that they can positively assert it to be a petticoat of the prisoner; and Sarah Adams speaks to one or two stitches which she says she made a considerable time before — May, 1862. Upon what strong links does the prosecutor hang his chain of circumstantial evidence when he says that you are, in a case of this fearful atrocity — in a case of life and death — to believe that these articles which I now hold in my hands — these shreds and patches — were one and all of them parts of a petticoat which belonged to the prisoner? I defy any person to tell with certainty — I mean with the cer- tainty which alone is important in cases of this kind — that that was a petticoat which belonged to the prisoner, or to be able to say more than that it is a piece of flannel which is stained with blood. Again, gentlemen, look at these rags of a wincey petticoat, of which they speak with equal certainty. They say that that is the prisoner's, without telling you how 175 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mp. Clark they know. They say they identify it. Can you believe that they can identify that as the prisoner's, or can you believe they can identify the.se rags of a gown, and that you are entitled to jump to the conclusion to which Mrs. M'Gregor jumped when in the box, that because a sleeve of the same material is found in the prisoner's house, that must necessarily be the sleeve of the gown which was found near Hamilton? Gentlemen, tliat observation of Mrs. M'Gregor's just shows you how these persons, without really intending, it may be, to be dishonest, jumped to conclusions. Hearing of this case, they think they can be no other than the prisoner's; hearing of this case, they proceed to their identification. Do you suppose that if these articles had been found at a place where the prisoner never had been, and which place she never was near, they could have identified these articles or that you could believe and trust to that identification which they give? Gentlemen, cir- cumstantial evidence must depend, surely, upon some far stronger facts than these — far stronger and better evidence than you have from these women — Mrs. Campbell declining identification altogether, the two Adamses, mother and daughter, saying that these articles belonged to the prisoner. And, gentlemen, there is another somewhat important part of the prosecutor's case. Along with these rags was found another petticoat on which my friend relied, and pathetically told you that it belonged to Jessie M'Pherson, the murdered person. Well, Mary Downie said so, and said that that petticoat — a common flannel petticoat, with no marks whatever — was Jessie MThcrson's. That was the prosecutor's case with one witness. But when the petticoat was put into Sarah Adams' hands she told you a different story, and told you that it was like a bit of a gown that belonged to the prisoner's sister. Now, is Sarah Adams telling you the truth that this is a petticoat that belonged to the prisoner's sister, and might have been in the possession of the prisoner? Is that the prosecutor's case? One matter of evidence I think I may also notice, and it is that in that box which is supposed to have contained all the bloody clothing there are no marks of blood. Not a trace of blood is foimd, and the handkerchief in which the articles were, which was said to have been carried by the prisoner, did not conceal what it contained. Mrs. Chassels told you that she saw a flounce of a dress in the parcel which the prisoner had in Hamilton. The flounce is not trimmed in the way in which the coburg is trimmed — the coburg v/hich was found. It might be said by his lordship upon the bench that this is a mistake of Mrs. Chassels ; but are you to discredit mistakes to make your chain of evidence complete? Surely a chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be completed and woven into such strength aa 176 Addresses to Jury. to enable you to return a verdict unless there were no mistakes Mr. Clark to throw discredit upon such a matter as that. And is the conduct of the prisoner likely or consistent with the conduct of a person going to conceal the evidence of her crime? She does not do the thing stealthily. She might have gone to Hamilton herself and got up that box without being seen ; but she goes up to Mrs. Chassels, gets assistance, and takes a walk out that road where these articles were found many days afterwards. She comes back to Hamilton, and the witness Mirrilees Chassels could not undertake to say that she had not even then a bundle with her. There is no evidence to show that she got rid of that bundle. And now I will, in the meantime, pass from those pieces of evidence which are directed against the prisoner for the purpose of bringing under your notice certain matters which I think throw greater light upon this mystery than anything which we have yet heard. Gentlemen, the prisoner is not the only person who was, according to the Crown, in suspicious circum- stances connected with this matter. The case of the Crown is that James Fleming, although in the house at the time of the murder, and for three days thereafter, is wholly unconnected with that murder. It won't do for my learned friend to say that he was an accomplice. His case is that James Fleming was wholly unconnected with the crime; and the prosecutor relies on the evidence of James Fleming, who himself was at one time in custody upon this charge, and was afterwards liberated, under what circumstances I shall now show you. James Fleming is said to be eighty-seven years of age. It would have been well had that allegation rested on more satis- factory evidence. He himself let out, somewhat unwittingly, in his examination that he is seventy-eight. But, at all events, his faculties are unimpaired. We know, moreover, that, while the prisoner at the bar was on the most friendly terms with the deceased woman, he was not so; but, on the contrary, we have the evidence of Mrs. Smith, who declares that the deceased complained to her of his conduct, that the old man had rendered her life well-nigh insufferable; and that Jessie had a etory to tell the witness which she could not tell in the presence of her husband. Gentlemen of the jury, that is something to take with you as to the part which James Fleming played in this extraordinary tragedy. But let us see what James Fleming himself says. He says that at four o'clock on the Saturday morning he was suddenly startled from his sleep by three loud squeals as of a person in great distress in the house. He jumped out of bed, looked at his watch, went in again and slept till about eight, and lay awake till nine, when, and when only, he rose. That was his positive statement in the course of the examination-in-chief. It will be N 177 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mr. Clark in your recollection that he repeated the same statement, tho same positive assertion, to me when I commenced my examina- tion-in-cross. The next statement "which he made was that he went down to the kitchen after being dressed, after nine, and saw nothing there to attract his attention except that the screen, on which some clothes had been, had fallen on some press or closet off the kitchen. He found the servant absent and the house in this condition, that the back door was locked on the inside, and he could not tell now whether the wicket which opens to the area was snibbed in the inside or not, though ho said to the witness M'Call on the Monday that it had been so snibbed on the inside. And then he said that the outer door, by which he would obtain access to the street, was just on the check, and added, " Aye, that was just the way she must have got out." Now, gentlemen, you must observe that it is very important for Mr. James Fleming to make means by which the party whom he says was in the house and committed the crime emerged out. He does not bar the door in the inside, so as to show that it must have been some person remaining inside, and therefore he arranges the bars, so that the only exit from the house is by the upper door. He says that the first person he spoke to that morning was let in. Now, the first person he spoke to — for I put the question most plainly at the outset, as I hope you will remember — was the girl Brownlie, Mr. Stewart's servant, who, he says, came at eleven to ask the loan of a spade. She came at two, but that does not matter. The important matter with us is as to the person he first spoke to. That, of course, was after the prisoner must have been away from the house, and by nine o'clock, even the getting-up time, the prisoner must have been away from the house. But was Brownlie the first person that James Fleming spoke to? My friend says I began to refresh his memory in the box about the milkman, and he candidly admitted that he spoke to the milkboy. He says the milkboy came at nine o'clock, and that he was not dressed when the milkboy came, and also that he had never been at the kitchen before he was dressed. The bell is rung by the milkboy, and was rung, as the master and boy told you, always a quarter before eight o'clock. The bell is not rung twice, and there was no delay in answering it. Fleming, who had never done this before, answers that bell by opening the door, and the boy, who knew him, saw him at the door. What does he hear? He hears the chain taken off the inside of that door. He says he heard it, and you heard him give his evidence on that point. Every means of egress was secured upon the inside, every person was out of the house except James Fleming, by his own statement. Now, 178 Addresses to Jury. that is all proved, I think, to demonstration. Gentlemen, I Mr. Clark presume these facts were not known to the Crown before Fleming was liberated, or they would not surely, in a case of life or death, have kept back witnesses so material as Paton and M'Quarrie. These statements, if they are true, are inconsistent with any person having gone out of that house, leaving the dead body in, because all the means of egress could not have been shut up in the way in which Fleming describes them. It has devolved on the zealous exertions of those who are engaged in the defence of this prisoner to bring' forward this evidence which, upon her behalf, I am compelled to put before you for your consideration. Well, what does Fleming do? He comes down, he says, and noticed nothing remarkable in the kitchen, though there must have been traces of blood on the floor, though there were stains of blood, as Dr. Fleming said, obviously and distinctly, upon several places in the house — remains in the kitchen for three days, taking his meals there, without having his attention directed to any of these things. He knocks at Jessie's door, finds it locked, and then concludes that she has gone out, and for three days expects her instantly to return. He finds blood, which I think he notices upon the Saturday afternoon, on the shirts on the screens which were before the firs. And he tells you that in all these circumstances there was not one which made him think that anything unusual had happened or suggested that he should tell the policeman or even tell a private friend. He saw Sloan, his son's cashier, on the Saturday, and did not tell him. He saw Mr. M'Allister upon the Sunday, and did not tell him. He walked the streets of Glasgow upon the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, where he must have passed many policemen, and passed many friends. He saw Darnley, who called for Jessie on Saturday, and expressed his desire to see her — repeated his visit on Sunday, still more anxious. Everything is concealed from persons whom he comes in contact with, and he says that not a suspicion of anything wrong ever crossed his mind, that he was expecting the woman every moment back. That is the witness whom the Crown must rely on for their theory in this case. Another very remarkable fact in the Crown's case which came out was this — the kitchen was washed. It was very necessary that the kitchen should be very well redd up in order that Fleming might take his position of being ignorant of what had occurred. If the kitchen had shown such marks as I really think it did, after all, as no human being coming into it could possibly have missed, then Fleming's position is perfectly inexplicable. But, in order that all suspicion or proof of his knowledge of the condition of Jessie M'Pherson, and therefore proof of his guilt should not be apparent, the 179 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mr. Clark kitchen must be put in order, and the bloody streak, where the body was trailed from the kitchen to the bedroom, must be obliterated. It ia washed up, washed up in such a manner as to be totally inconsistent, in my mind, for the reasons I have already urged, with the guilt of the prisoner. The ques- tion is, when was it washed up? Dr. Fleming tells you that when he saw the lobby about seven o'clock on the Monday night it appeared to have been washed; that it was moist, and that the floor of the kitchen was moist, and Dr. Fleming was the first doctor that was th6re except Dr. Watson, who took no particular notice of the state in which the lobby was. The other witnesses no doubt found that the flooring was dry, but they did not see it until about nine o'clock, which only shows how fast the water will dry upon the kitchen floor. What Dr. Fleming tells you was wet at seven o'clock is dry at nine o'clock, and the washing out of the stains of blood upon the floor could not have been on the last occasion on which the prisoner could have been there — I mean on the Saturday morning, three days nearly before these marks were seen. Who washed that blood away? We do not know. W© have no person who saw it, but Mr. Fleming tells you that he was during the whole of that period — it is his case — alone in the house, unsuspecting anything wrong whatever. Now, gentlemen, is that a story which you can take o£E his hands, old man as he is? He has all his faculties entire, so as to be able to see the condition in which things are. He can read without glasses. He can Bee people well enough in the neighbouring gardens. He must have seen these obvious and distinct blood marks in the kitchen. Surely, gentlemen, you cannot believe that he took all his meals in the kitchen, and noticed blood upon his shirts, without suspecting anything wrong, and without its occurring to him to have the door of the servant's room broken open or picked in some way so as to see what had been the matter. Yet that is the account he gives, and it is said all that is per- fectly consistent with innocence. I think it shows, from Fleming's own statement, coupled with the statement which I elicited from that witness who had not been accessible to the Cro-\vn, that he was shut in with the body of the murdered woman, that he knew of the murder, and knew of her death when the milkboy came that morning. That he knew of her death is proved by his coming to the door at that hour and taking off the chain when he heard the milkboy there. These matters cannot be explained consistently with his innocence, and surely that would be of itself sufficient to show that there is a case of far graver suspicion attaching to him than to the- unfortunate woman at the bar; and I must therefore ask you i8o Addresses to Jury. to keep these facts in view which were imknown to the Crown Kp. ciark at the time when this investigation was conducted. And there are certain other matters which I think I should also call your attention to. There was also the stain of blood in Fleming's own room, which must be kept in view. Now, gentlemen, there is one more consideration which I think I must lay before you, for I am forced to bring before you every circumstance which connects Fleming with this awful tragedy. And, suppose I assume that the prosecutor has now proved that Mrs. M'Lachlan, the prisoner, was in the house at the time, will it prove her guilt with these circumstances as against Fleming, who, according to his own account, was with the deceased alone from eix that night, while the prisoner could not have come to the house much before half-past ten or there- abouts. Now, supposing she did come to the house — which I am far from assuming — at half-past ten, according to the prosecutor's theory, what awful deed might have been com- mitted by that time ! And she came there alone, according to the prosecutor's theory, and found herself alone in presence of that crime. Even supposing that this was the case, are you to assume that she was the guilty person, or was concerned in the frightful murder of a person for whom she entertained the greatest friendship, and between whom and Mr. Fleming there was that disagreement which arose from a cause which Mrs. Smith's evidence pointed at? Now, in this chain of circumstantial evidence, as it is called, there is nothing consistent with the prisoner's guilt; and yet all the Crown can show is this, that the prisoner was with Mr. Fleming in these circumstances in the house, and the prosecutor calls on you to select one of the two as being the guilty party. He asks you to select the prisoner at the bar — the woman, the friend of the deceased — as the person who would destroy a friend in that savage manner in which I have spoken. Is that theory the most consistent with the evidence led before you, and which, according to my friend, does not raise the curtain from the mystery in which this case is involved? I think a much more plausible theory — even accepting the position of my learned friend — is that she may have found the deed done, and, being in terror at seeing it, that these articles may have been taken away after the deed was done, though it would militate in favour of Mr. Fleming and against the prisoner. And she, a weak woman, found in the presence of that, what else could she do if she were there? You must consider that vieAV, which, I think, is inconsistent, and look to the washing of the wounds, which appears to have been done for the purpose of showing some act of kindness to the injured woman. If there were not two persons there, these wounds, which were not immediately fatal, were washed; but if two were at the i8i Mrs. M'Lachlan. MP. Clapk committal of this crime, is the person likely to commit the crime ^vho would befriend the other? If these wounds were given before the fatal blow, I think it is a man's hand, and not a woman's. At all events, you have this cloud of witnesses here to say that the present has been proved by conclusive evidence to have been one of the most foul and atrocious murders ever committed. I ask you not to trust much to the declarations of the prisoner. I am not aware how the extraordinary circumstances in which these were taken — the husband examined first, and the wife examined hour after hour by questions being put to her, and statements being forced from her — will be regarded by you. That was the kind of declaration to which the Lord Justice- Clerk Hope alluded, than whom, as I said before, a greater magistrate never sat upon the criminal bench of Scotland, for he was to be trusted in all respects ; that was a declaration which, in the case to which I have referred, would not prove the case, for the case was withdrawn and the declaration was not used. Therefore, gentlemen, I hope you will not proceed upon these declarations to convict the prisoner in respect of them, or fail to take notice of the extraordinary circumstances in which she was placed. Now, gentlemen, I think I have gone over as shortl}^ as I can — and this late hour requires that I should do so shortly — the principal facts which are imported into this case. I will not detain you longer by speaking upon these facts; but I am sure that your careful consideration of them will render thnt quite unnecessary, and that I may fairly take my leave of you and leave of this case. I am conscious how inadequately I have discharged the duty which has been put upon me; but I trust that you will consider this, that you, and you alone, are the judges of this case; that you, and you alone, must form your opinions upon the evidence vrhich is laid before you; and that you can accept no observations, from whatever quarter they come, except observations which commend themselves to you as consistent, absolutely consistent, with the evidence, and at the same time conclusive of the prisoner's guilt. I say that with you, and with you alone, is the consideration of this evidence and disposal of this case ; that on you, and you alone, rests the responsibility of the verdict; that you, and you alone, have the issues of life and of death in this case. And, gentle- men, it is a mere case of circumstantial evidence. It is a mere case of certain inferences to be drawn from isolated facts which are laid before you, and I think you will weigh well whether every chain of that evidence is sufficiently completed to enable you to say with certainty that the positive convic- tion tliat happened in the case of George Davidson may not happen irretrievably in this. You must be satisfied that 182 Addresses to Jury. every chain of that evidence is complete, strong, and con- Mr. Clark sistent ; and I think you will also reflect that if that cloud of mystery with which this case is enveloped shall ever be lifted up, that chain of facts, that chain of evidence which the prosecutor says is so strong and consistent, might at once be broken and become a rope of sand. I think even in the case of the last witness, Campbell, you will see it. That man says that he saw two women, one going into the house in Sandy- ford Place, and the other coming out of it on the Saturday night, and neither of these the prisoner. That may not be easily explained, but surely it is not consistent with the case of the prosecutor. If that were true,' and there is no reason to doubt the fact, it is quite at variance with his case. I do not require to account for these things. You must see that the evidence is real, sufficient, and strong, clear, and capable of convicting the prisoner. And even if that woman who was seen about the house was not the prisoner, it proves that there were women about the house on the day after the murder is said to have been committed, and that might explain the foot- prints said to be applicable to the prisoner. These are matters, however, with which I will not detain you. I will merely say that they are very material and very worthy of your con- sideration. And now, gentlemen, it may be that people feel that the blood of this unfortunate woman cries aloud for ven- geance. I hope you will leave that vengeance to Him who has claimed it as His own ; and who can direct the stroke with an unerring hand, and that in that humility in which human law and human justice acknowledges its proneness to error, you will remember that it is better that a thousand guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should perish. [Mr. Clark concluded his speech amidst loud applause from the audience.] Lord Deas (addressing the jury) said — Gentlemen, I am quite prepared, with your leave, to address to you now the few observations I have to make in summing up this case; but, seeing the late hour at which we have now arrived, I think it would be better for the ends of justice to postpone my remarks until to-morrow. The jury, having intimated their desire to leave his lord- ship's charge until next morning, the Court adjourned at nine o'clock till ten o'clock on Saturday morning, and the jury were enclosed in terms of the deliverance pronounced at the former sederunts. J83 FOURTH DAY. At Glasgow, the Twentieth day of September, 1862. Present the Honourable Lord Deas, one of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Present also the Sheriffs as in the preceding sederunt. Intran. Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, now or lately prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, Pannel. Indicted and Accused as in the sederunt of the Seventeenth current. The Jury having come into Court, they all answered to their names on their beina: called over. Lord Deas' Charge to the Jury. Lord Deas Lord Deas then charged the jury as follows: — Gentlemen of the jury, in the indictment before you the prisoner, Jessie M'Lachlan, is charged with the crime of murder and with the crime of theft. The murder is said to have been committed upon the person of Jessie M'Pherson, a domestic servant in the service of Mr. Fleming, accountant, Glasgow. The place where the murder is said to have been committed is the house of Mr. Fleming, in Sandyford Place. The time at which the murder is said to have been committed is the night of Friday, the 4th, or the morning of Saturday, the 5th, July last. The instrument with which the murder is said to have been committed is that cleaver which you have seen, or with some other equally deadly instrument of that description. The theft is said to have been a theft of certain articles of silver plate belonging to Mr. Fleming, which are enumerated in the indictment, and certain articles of dress belonging to the deceased Jessie M'Pherson, which are also enumerated in the indictment. The place from which and the time at which these articles are said to have been stolen are the same with the place and the time when and where the murder is said to have been committed. Now, gentlemen, the first thing you have to inquire into is whether there was a murder, and whether there was a theft; and if there was murder, and if there was theft, then you have to inquire who was the person who committed the murder, and who was the person who committed the theft. As regards the question whether there was a murder, I am afraid that none 184 . ■^^^ -M^^^® '.kl. . .5 The Honourable Lord Deas, {From a conteiiiporari/ photograph.) Lord Deas' Charge. of us can have much doubt about that. The deceased Jessie Lord Deas M'Pherson was seen in the course of that Friday, and she was seen on that Friday in her usual health — on Friday, the 4th of July. She was not seen again alive after Friday. Upon the Monday she is found dead upon the floor of her bedroom in the state which has been described to you, with so many wounds upon her head and face that, as the medical men said, it was difficult to enumerate them all, and some of these wounds were undoubtedly of a mortal character. A post-mortem examination of the body was made by the medical men to ascertain whether there was any disease of which she died, or any other way of accounting for the death except these wounds. And no cause was found. Some of the injui'ies were mortal — quite sufficient for death. There was no other cause of death discoverable. You will judge, therefore, whether there was any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that those injuries caused death. I need not read the medical evidence .to you on this subject, I think, further than remind you of what answer Dr. Macleod, who seemed to me to be a most intelligent medical gentleman, gave to a question which I put. He said there was no cause of death discoverable on the post-mortem examina- tion except the external injuries. And he told you also that one of these injuries in particular, behind the ear, was neces- sarily fatal, and that some of the other injuries would also prove fatal, most probably; and certainly prove fatal if immediate or early assistance was not obtained. You will judge, therefore, whether there is any room to doubt that the deceased died of violence. Though she died of violence, it does not necessarily follow that there was murder. A woman may die of violence by her own hand, or she may die of violence inflicted by some- body else in self-defence. I do not know that death by such violence as this could be well accounted for in any other way than one or other of these causes — either that they have been done by injuries inflicted by herself, or they were inflicted by somebody defending their own life, or that there was a murder. The medical men have told you — and you will judge whether there is any room to doubt the matter — that these injuries could not be self-inflicted; and certainly, if you believe that efforts were made after death to obliterate or obscure the appearances of what had taken place in the kitchen and in the passage, you will have no difficulty, I think, in coming to the conclusion that it could not be done by the person who was lying in this state on the floor. Then, as to the question of self-defence, there is no trace, or sux-mise, or suggestion of anything of that kind; and, indeed, the nature of the injuries that were inflicted are of themselves tolerably conclusive against any supposition of that kind. If there had been evidence of anybody defending his or her life against this poor woman, i8S Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas then most certainly v;e should have had some trace of it, some circumstances leading us to that conclusion. But there are none such, and you will judge whether or not there is reason to conclude that murder was then and there committed by somebody. In the same way, as to the theft, you have the testimony of Mr. Fleming, the proprietor of the house, that all the silver plate belonged to him, that it was in daily use in the family, and that it was in use up to and including that Friday morning. And you have the testimony of the pawnbroker — I am not at present speaking as to who pawned it, but you have evidence that it was all pawned by a woman, or by somebody certainly not authorised by Mr. John Fleming, and therefore you will judge whether you have not the ordinary kind of testimony that we have in such cases that that plate was the property of Mr. John Fleming, that it was taken away without his authority, and, if taken away without his authority, it was a theft most undoubtedly. Then, as regards the articles of dress, you will judge whether there is not the usual evidence of theft with regard to them. These dresses were all in the possession of the deceased up to the Friday, and here they are found in the possession of another party, and some of them got dyed by that other party, and unless you think the deceased gave them to that other party, there, again, you have undoubted evidence of theft, leaving only the question who was the thief, just as in the other case we have the question who was the murderer Mr. Clark — Will your lordship pardon me. There is no proof of the dresses being in the house up to the Friday. There is no witness speaks to that fact. Lord Deas — We shall see what may be the evidence on that point. It is for you, gentlemen, to judge whether there is or is not evidence to satisfy your minds, in the first place, that the dresses were the property of Jessie MPherson, or in her posses- sion, and whether, if they were her property or in her possession, there is any presumption that can account for them going out of her possession, unless by theft. And then, since the learned counsel makes the observation, I must call your attention to the fact which the prisoner states in her declaration, that these dresses were sent to her on the Friday by a girl who, she says, was in use to clean knives for Jessie MPherson, but whom she does not know, and of whom she does not give us any trace. It is for you, therefore, to judge whether there is evidence to prove that up to the Friday these dresses were not only the property, but in the possession, of Jessie M'Pherson. Well, then, gentlemen, if you are satisfied that there was a murder, and that there was a theft, you will then proceed to inquire ■whether the prisoner at the bar is the person who committed 186 Lord Deas' Charge. that murder, and the person who committed that theft. And, Lord Deas to begin with the lesser charge, namely, that of theft, what is said on the part of the Crown is this — what the Crown says has been proved is this — I am not saying that it is proved, I am only saying what the Crown says in regard to the theft, and that is, that those silver articles were in the possession of Mr. Fleming up to that Friday; that they were taken away from that house without Mr. Fleming's knowledge; and that they were pawned by the prisoner upon the Saturday. Then as to the dresses of the deceased, it is said that these, having been in her lawful possession and her property up to that time, are found to be then, or immediately afterwards, in the posses- sion of the prisoner, who is using them as her own; and upon these facts the observation is made that you have there the ordinary proof of theft; because there is no doubt at all— you all know, I dare say — that when there is a theft committed, the usual mode in which that theft is proved is that the articles stolen are found in the possession immediately, or soon after- wards, of another person, who can't satisfactorily account for these articles being in their possession. That is quite sufficient, in point of law, to prove the theft, if nothing appears to you to throw a reasonable doubt as to the theft having actually been committed. It lies, then, upon the individual who was in possession of the articles to account how he or she came into possession of them. Now, the Crown prosecutor says it cannot be doubted that these articles — both the silver plate and the dresses — were in the possession of the prisoner almost immediately after the theft was committed. The theft must have been committed on the night of Friday or the morning of Saturday, and on the forenoon of the latter day the prisoner is found pawning the silver plate, and it is likewise proved that she was in possession of some of the clothes or dresses which belonged to the deceased. Then, the only other question in regard to the matter is whether she satisfactorily accounted for the possession of them. Now, the way in which she accounts for the possession of the silver plate is this. It is said that it was all given to her by old Mr. Fleming, and the way in which she accounts for the possession of the dresses is that the whole of these dresses were sent to her upon the Friday night. You will judge, if you were tiying an ordinary case of theft, if you would take a story of that kind or not — whether you would think it was enough for the party charged with the crime to say — " Oh, I got them not from the owner, but from somebody supposed to be acting as owner " ; and whether, as regards the dresses, you would take the story off her hand that the deceased sent her dresses to her; and, coupling with this the use which is said to have been made of them, that the 187 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas prisoner was wearing one of them on that Saturday morn- ing, that she sent another to the dyer, as if it were her own, and sent several of them to her friends in another town. Now, I don't wish to go into the particulars of this just now, because we must look at all this again when we come to consider the charge of murder. I am merely indicating what the Crown presents to you as the charge against the prisoner for theft — ^that she was immediately found in the possession of the articles, and that the account she gives of them is not to be credited. If you are satisfied that she was immediately in the possession of these things, and that she is unable to give a satisfactory account of that possession, it is quite sufficient to prove the theft. Then, as to the murder, we have had a good deal of evidence ; but laying aside a good deal of what has been proved and founded upon in argument, I think the substance of the case alleged by the Crown — I am not here to say anything more than that — the substance of the case which the Crown says has been proved against the prisoner in reference to this murder is this — that she had been a servant in the house ; that she knew all the silver articles and the other articles in question ; that she was intimate with the deceased, frequented the house as a friend of hers, and had access at any time she chose to go. That about that Friday, the ith of July, she was very much in want of money ; that she was behind with her rent ; that she had a great many articles in pavm. ; that almost all her husband's clothing was in pawn ; that he was expected immediately home ; and that there were in that small house of one apartment which they occupied no less than forty-one pawn tickets. That she went out upon Friday evening, and that she had arranged upon the Friday evening with a witness — Mrs. Eraser, I think it was — to come and keep her child, of three years old, whom she could not well leave alone ; that Mrs. Fraser did not come Mr. GiFFORD — Mrs. Adams. Lord Deas — That Mrs. Adams did not come; that, never- theless, she dressed herself in a dress which was described to you — part of it being a brown merino gown, a bonnet, which is not now forthcoming ; boots, which are not now forthcoming, and other articles of dress ; that she went out about ten o'clock at night, saying she was going to see the deceased ; that she was seen about half-way to Fleming's house, at the Gushet House, or a place of some such name, said to have been about ten minutes' walk from the one place and ten minutes' walk from the other. That she did not return that night at all ; that she did not come back until between eight and nine o'clock next morning ; and that in the meantime Mrs. Campbell, who occupied the i88 Lord Deas' Charge. other two apartments in the same house, had lifted her child Lord Deas about half-past five o'clock and given it its breakfast, and put it to bed again, the mother not being there, and that she, Mrs. Campbell, herself let the prisoner in between eight and nine o'clock. That when she returned she was not wearing the brown gown she left the house with, but that she was wearing another gown, which the Crown says is proved to belong to Jessie M'Pherson ; that then, in the course of that day she is found pawning the silver plate which was lying loose in Mr. Fleming's house. And then, the prisoner being in want of money before, sends to relieve a great many of the articles which she had in pawn. She pays her rent, and in short the wants she had before of a pecuniary kind are all relieved. Then, it is said that immediately after this she is found to be in possession not only of that dress of the deceased, with which she came back that morning, but substantially of all the dresses of which the deceased was possessed — and she sends some of them to be dyed and some of them to be altered. It is further said, on the part of the Crown, that when she is thus in possession of everything known to belong to the deceased, her own clothes, which she wore upon the Friday night when she went out, have all disappeared. Then it is said that, upon the Monday, she goes to Hamilton, where we do not find that she had ever been before — where it is not proved she had one acquaintance — and that at Hamilton she disposes of all the clothes which she had been wearing, or may be supposed to have been wearing, upon the Friday night at the time she left. It is said that she is seen and identified as the person who brought a box to a house in Hamilton, and that she afterwards went out of the house, where the box was left, with a bundle tied in a handkerchief; that she was seen to go first into one field, then into another field, and to pass a certain part of the road. At each of these three places there are portions of dress found, and said to have been identified as belonging to the prisoner. At one place is found a torn flannel petticoat ; at another a wincey petticoat, also torn ; and at another place there is found a merino gown torn into shreds. The Crown says it is proved that all these articles of dress were saturated with blood. It is said to be proved to be human blood, but I do not know if it is possible to prove that it is human blood. Dr. Penny says it is impossible in this case, after the lapse of time. Some people still doubt whether it is possible to say in any case whether it is human blood. But it is the same description of blood, which is all that generally can be proved in any case of murder. And you can say whether, connecting that with all the rest of the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to suppose anything else than that it is human blood. 1 89 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas Well, then, it is further said that when she is taken into custody — some ten days aftei"\vards, I think — having heard of the murder meantime — having had an opportunity of hear- ing all tliat had been talked about it in this city, and all that was said about it and published — having had that oppor- tunity, it is further said, upon the part of the Crown, that in that declaration before you, to which the Advocate-depute called your attention, she attempts to account for all or many of those things in a way which is said not to be credible. It is further said, upon the part of the Crown; that, coupled with all these circumstances, there were seen on the floor of the bedroom bloody mai'ks of naked feet, which had been made when the blood was wet, and which afterwards were seen when the blood was dry, which were compared and were found to correspond with the naked left foot of the prisoner ; and which, it is further said, do not correspond with the foot of the deceased or with the foot of any male person. And then, it is said, moreover, as another circumstance in the case — and no circumstance is to be kept out of view, for although they are small, yet when taken in connection with other and more important things, they become important — it is said to be remarkable that when the accused was apprehended there was found in the press of the house at Sandyford Place a bottle that corresponds in appearance with a bottle which Mrs. Campbell supposes the accused took out of her press on the Friday night. It is not disputed that the a.ccusetl took a bottle out of Mrs. Campbell's press, and it is in evidence that, before the bottle left Mrs. Campbell's house, or the prisoner's house, on the Friday night, there was rum in it, and it is said that this bottle that was found in the house where the murder was committed had the smell of rum. That is a small circumstance, and it would not be a very safe one to rely upon. It may be very import- ant in the question whether there had been a woman there £hat night with the deceased, or it might be very important in the question whether the murder was committed by a man ; but, standing by itself, it would not be sufficient evidence to proceed upon against the prisoner. But it may be very important vvhen taken in connection with the fact that the prisoner had all the dresses of the deceased ; going out in her own clothes and coming in with the dresses of the deceased, and going ten or twelve miles to dispose of her own clothing. Now, gentlemen, that being the sort of case which the Crown says is proved, it is for you to judge whetlier these facts are proved or not. But these being the sort of facts which the Crown says have been proved, you must look nest to how the prisoner proposes to explain these facts. She was examined on declaration, as every prisoner is in 190 Lord Deas' Charge. this country who is apprehended on a criminal charge. One Lord Deas great object of that is to allow the prisoner an opportunity, if the prisoner thinks proper, to make some explanation of the circumstances which may seem to weigh against him or her. The length of her declarations has been complained of, but you will judge whether the very eloquent and able speech you have heard on behalf of the prisoner was not founded a good deal on the explanations that were offered by the prisoner in these declarations, and of which otherwise we would have had no traces before us. A prisoner when so examined, may decline to answer all questions; but to an innocent person it may, and must be, a very valuable privilege to be allowed to give explanations, and to have the circumstances which look dark and suspicious against him or her cleared away. I rather think, gentlemen, if any of you were accused of a crime, you v/ould be very anxious to use that privilege. If the old gentleman who was in that box, and v.'ho is said to have been concerned in this matter, had not been allowed that opportunity, I do not know whether he would have been liberated. At the same time, the person examined has always the power to say, " It is safer for me to hold my tongue in place of explaining these circumstances. I think it would be safer to let them alone." But if the person chose to make an explanation and statement — after being told, as the prisoner was, '' You need not make them unless you like " — it is impossible to doubt, according to the law of this country, that these statements may be evidence which you are to look to and found upon along with other evidence against the prisoner. The statements made by the accused person are not, according to the laws of this country, evidence against the accused person further than the inquiry bears them out. But they are not, unless otherwise supported, evidence in favour of the party; still less are they evidence against any person else. It would be a very alarming state of matters if the statement of a person accused of a capital crime, it may be, was to be regarded as evidence against some third party, who had no opportunity of defending him- self or herself against that accusation. That is not the law. The statements of the prisoner, therefore, are of themselves no evidence against anybody else unless they are supported by evidence; and it would never do for you to come to the conclusion, because this person chooses to say that these crimes were committed by somebody else, that such was the case, unless it were satisfactorily proved to you by the evidence. To what extent that proof may be competent it is not for us now to inquire, because no obstacle in this case has been thrown in the way of preventing her from proving anything in her declarations or explanations 191 Mrs. M^Lachlan. Lord Deas which she ogives in doing away with the effect of that evidence which the Crown says rests against lier. It is for yoii to judge how far these explanations have or have not that effect. And nov/ for the case of the prosecution. If it be true that this prisoner was in want of money on that Friday ; that sho went on the Friday night to go to the house in Sandyford Place dressed in a particular manner; that she did not come back all night; that she chose to say, nevertheless, that she did come back early, and was in the house all that night; that this is said not to be true — if sho is out all night, leaving her child of three years old without anybody to attend it, so that Mrs. Campbell is obliged to attend it at half-past five in the morning, when the prisoner was not at home; if she does not come back till nine, and when she comes back she is dressed in a gown belonging to the deceased person who is murdered ; if she is in possession of all the articles belonging to Jessie M'Pherson, and in possession of silver plate stolen from the house of Mr. Fleming; if the dress which she wore upon that night when she went out is not to be found in her possession, but is traced as having been torn in pieces and destroyed; if her flannel petticoat has disappeared and is afterwards found stained with blood ; if the remains of her crinoline are likewise found stained with blood ; if the bonnet she wore that night is never seen again ; if her clothes when found are all covered with blood — you will judge, gentlemen, how far, if these things are true, it is any satisfactory explanation of her innocence to say that old Fleming gave her the plate and committed the murder. How are we to account for her coming back in deceased's gown? for her sudden possession of money? for her clothes covered with blood? How are we to account for her being out all night and returning home at nine o'clock next morning? It is for you to judge whether a person who came in, in the circumstances in which she did, is innocent of the murder. It was stated to you, quite correctly, that it won't make one person less guilty of murder becausa another person has acted with him in the commission of murder. Actor or art and part in the commission of murder is the same thing. But, even if there were more than one person connected with this murder, it is no reason for letting one of them escape because we cannot find them both. But, then, it is said by the Crown that there is no evidence of two persons being connected with the murder ; and it is said further that there is no evidence to uphold the allegation that old Fleming had anything to do with it. I have already told you the statement of the prisoner with regard to that; but, sitting here for the direct purpose of trying the guilty, it is your duty, and mine also, to take nothing against innocent persons, who may not be here to defend themselves. 192 Lord Deas' Charge. Now, what are the circumstances which are founded upon on Lcpd Deas the part of the prisoner in order to show that the old man Fleming was the guilty party? You heard him examined at great length. He seems to be a person of great age — eighty- seven, I think he himself says — and he must be of a considerable age, because a witness, aged fifty-eight, said he had known him from his youth upwards, and that old Mr. Fleming then had children older than him. His physical appearance indicated that he was not, so far as mere strength was concerned, unable to have committed this murder, if he had been so inclined. He is a vigorous man for that time of life. He employs himself, under his son, in collecting rents and transacting business — all of which he seems to do sufficiently well. There is certainly nothing about him which would incapacitate him from doing the deed. It cannot be contended on the part of the Crown that there was any incapacity on his part, or by the defence that there was any incapacity on the prisoner's part. Considering the instrument we have had here in Court, it is pretty evident that there was no incapacity on the part of the one nor on the part of the other to commit the murder if they had been so inclined. Now, you heard his examination, and you will judge whether there was anything unsatisfactory in it, or whether, on the contrary, it was not a clear and distinct and freely given statement. Now, then, as to the question whether he opened the door to the milkboy, and what time he opened it, you will consider how far it bears on the question of the murder. That is coupled on the part of the prisoner with what is more remarkable, namely, the length of time which elapsed before he took any notice of the disappearance of the servant from the house. But when you couple these two circumstances — the length of time he allowed to elapse without saying anything about the disappearance of the servant from the house, or doing anything to call assistance, and the confusion he undoubtedly got into in giving his testimony about the opening of the door that morning — ^you will consider whether there was anything in the whole of these statements which could even be said to be unsatisfactory; and you will fur- ther consider whether on all the rest of the evidence that was adduced, apart from what is said to be unsatisfactory in these circumstances, there is anything to inculpate him, or whether that part of the evidence was not quite consistent with and tending to establish his innocence. Now, if that be so — if there is not in the proof a single circumstance even of sus- picion against him, and if there is nothing in his own statement unsatisfactory, except that two or three days passed before he gave any alarm about the disappearance, and except his confusion regarding the milkboy in the morning — you will o 193 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas ask whether that throws any light on the question of the murder, or whether, if he had been at the bar, you would have hesitated one moment in giving a verdict in his favour. There is one circumstance in the evidence which undoubtedly is said to go against him, and which I mean to notice — that is, that a policeman was brought to say that on the Saturday night he saw two women come out of the front door of the house. And then there are the observations made as to the state of the floor, and the washing of it to a greater or lesser extent. These are some of the circumstances in the evidence which are said to tell against this old gentleman, apart from the observa- tions made as to what is unsatisfactory in his own statement. Now, if the statement of the policeman is to be relied on for any purpose at all, it must be relied on to show that the murder had not then been committed, for the insinuation seemed to be that the murder was not committed on the Friday night or Saturday morning, but later. And this, of course, will be a much more important circumstance. The policeman says that there was another man wdth him, and he said that the other man's recollection corresponded with his. Unfortunately, that other man was not brought here. Then the policeman says that the first time he ever thought about this matter was on Tuesday, when he heard of the murder. He never considered the matter before, and no wonder, as he was accustomed to go out every evening in the week at a certain hour, and no doubt saw many people. What made him think of this particular circumstance, however, w^as that he had written a particular letter on a certain night, and on making inquiry at his landlord regarding that letter, he was told, and afterwards recollected, that he had posted this letter to his father on Saturday night. Now, if anything is to be founded upon this letter, either against the prisoner or against the man referred to, it is very unfortu- nate that the letter was not brought here, in order that we might have seen the postmarks upon the letter. There was no difficulty in getting it. No pains seem to have been spared upon the part of the prisoner in getting up the defence. It is most satisfactory that it is so. It is most creditable to any gentlemen who may have assisted in that matter — who may have given their money or their professional assistance — that is most creditable to the persons, be they who they may. By whom that was done we do not know, but Ave know this, we have evidence that the prisoner's defence is very well and thoroughly attended to. And there has been brought for the defence counsel than whom no more able counsel could be found at the bar of this country; and the duty has been done in a very satisfactory manner. We see all that; and, seeing all that, we cannot but make the observation that it would have been 194 Lord Deas' Charge. satisfactory if that letter had been produced. The witness has Lord Deas stated what occurred to the best of his ability, I do not doubt ; but he may be under a misapprehension in regard to one or two things — in the first place, about the night. He was there both before and after that night, and I dare say saw the same sort of company every evening. But you likewise can account for it very easily by supposing that he mis- took the door. A policeman upon the street, which is a continuous row of houses, who had not had his attention drawn to it at all, and had no occasion to remark upon it, puts the question to himself several days afterwards — Out of what number did these two persons come? You will consider that it was easy for him to mistake the house. Any of yourselves might, on going home of a night, walk into the wrong door and find that it was not your own. Then, in considering that question, you will take along with you the facts that the prisoner states that she got the plate from the old man upon the Friday afternoon, and that it was upon Thursday or Friday — I forget which — that the deceased sent her all her dresses. And you will take along with you the circumstance that it was upon the Saturday about noon that she pawned all that plate; and you will take this question, whether the murder, which no one seems to dispute was com- mitted, was done for the purpose of theft, or whether the theft was committed first and the murder came next. And then you will connect it with all the other circumstances as they appear from the conduct of this woman. You will connect it with the fact of her going out on the Friday night in her own gown which has disappeared, and coming in next morning in the deceased's gown, and disposing of the clothing which she had worn that night. You will put all these things together, and ask this question, whether the murder was committed on the Friday night, or whether the murder was not committed until the night of Saturday, merely because one man thinks, from a recollection of three days afterwards, that there was another woman who is not here, connected with it, or that all these circumstances did not take place? Then, as regards this part of the case in reference to the old man, you will think whether there is not some misappre- hension about those persons being seen coming out of the house that night, and whether, as I have observed, the evidence as to them is at all satisfactory. With regard to the marks of blood seen in the old gentleman's room, the evidence is very inconclusive. In the course of the defence something came out as to an old clothes bag, which was found in his room, and said to have marks of blood upon it. But the blood was only the size of a shilling, and old and faded. Then there was a little bit of linen cloth stained with blood, which might be I9S Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas used by anybody who had a cut finger for wrapping round it, in regard to which all the witnesses swore that the marks were not new, but old and dry. It was stated that the blood was dry, and had no appearance of having been connected with anything recent at all. As to the bag which was said to have been found in old Fleming's room, I must make this observation, that if the prisoner was to found anything on the marks on the bag, it was incumbent on her, and not on the Crown, to get the bag produced — at all events, to call for its production. You will judge whether anything has been found in that house which can by any possibility have any bearing upon this part of the case. And you will take along with that what you have heard from the officers, who made a thorough search. Nothing is found in his bedroom or in the whole house, with the single exception of two spots of blood on the newly- dressed shirts, which the old man himself told you of. Not an article of clothing, or an article of any kind found, with the slightest stain of blood upon it, or the slightest trace found of anything which can connect him with this case; and you will judge from the nature of the wounds and the quantity of blood which must have flowed from them, and the state of the clothes of the prisoner, if they are the prisoner's clothes, which you have had before you, covered wdth blood ; you will judge whether, in these circumstances, if the old man had taken any part in the murder — I mean with his own hands — you would not expect to find some article of dress or of clothing to trace his connection with the murder and implicate him in it. It is not said that any article belonging to him has disappeared. If that had been so, I have no doubt it would have come out in evidence. The police took possession of the house upon the Monday, the moment that the case was brought up, so that after that he had no opportunity of doing anything or putting away anything. He might, no doubt — just as the prisoner did on the preceding day — put things away. The probability perhaps is that if he had done that they would have been traced and found, as the prisoner's have been. It is by no means a necessary conse- quence, when people commit crimes of that kind and put away things, that they are successful. Generally they are not successful. Very generally there are facts and circumstances at the time, as if it were a provision of Nature, which come out against people who are connected with crimes of this sort. It is for you to judge whether there is any proof of anything whatever belonging to him that has not been forthcoming, and whether it has or has not been proved that everything belonging to him was free from all stains of blood — whether there is anything to connect him with the murder, even art and part, and, still more, how far that will go in showing that the prisoner is not concerned in it. 196 Lord Deas' Charge. Then, as to his conduct, there is no doubt that it looks — at Lord I>eas •all events looks to us, on looking back on it — very remarkable. You will, of course, consider whether things of that kind, when one looks back upon them, knowing all that we do, may or may not look to us more remarkable than they really were. We cannot lay out of view that, although he is a man still in the possession of his faculties, as much as he could be, perhaps, at his age, and perhaps more so, he is a man of extreme age, and it is for you to judge how far his senses and his powers of observation had or had not got blunted at that very un- common time of life. He seems to have been a man of peculiar habits. According to his own account of himself, he was not dependent upon servants, and he was a person who had no pride to prevent him doing acts that were necessary for his own comfort. He told you himself that he would sometimes go into the kitchen to warm his feet — a very natural thing for him to do, seeing that at that time of the year there might be no fire in such a house except the one in the kitchen. He told us that he read the papers there, and said, I think, that he took tea along with the servants. Then, again, he told you that he could get his breakfast very easily, that he was not particular either about that or his dinner — he put on a gather- ing coal and left the fire burning; and you "^vill therefore consider whether there is anything so remarkable in his apathy at the absence of a servant whose absence personally he so little felt. It is said that there were marks of blood in the kitchen, on the door, and some in the passage, which he might have seen, and that there were traces of washing on the floor which he might have seen. It is for you to judge whether there is any r.eason to think that he did see them. If he did not see them, and if he had no suspicion, it would be very little for the purpose of this case that it founded on observation, that he had very little capacity, or was very stupid. The stupidity or strange conduct of any man in these circumstances is no reason in the world why we should throw overboard all proof of guilt against another party. And you will consider whether, though his conduct had been much more strange than it was, to what extent that goes — whether it goes to satisfy you that he committed this murder, and that the prisoner did not. Would it not leave all these facts and circumstances still un- explained ? And would it not be far more extraordinary than that this man of eighty-seven years of age waited till his son came home on the Monday, without saying anything about the servant, not being dependent on her services, or that he did not discover the traces of blood that were discovered by the sharp eyes of the police officers, or the marks of v.- ashing in the kitchen or in the passage, about which there is a great dispute even to this hour? The doctors were in the house 197 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas some time before they seem to have observed these marks. We are told by one of the witnesses that the marks were at the back of the kitchen door, that those which seemed to have been the most remarkable were not visible when the door was opened back upon the dresser. They were only seen when the door was shut. And you have it, I rather think, in evidence, that even the doctor, when he went there at first, did not see anything upon the floor, or passage either, which led him to think that anything remarkable had taken place there. Because Dr. Watson, who seemed to me to be a most intelli- gent witness, seemed at first to have been under the impression that there was no reason to doubt that there was a suicide. But if Dr. Watson, when he went downstairs, had looked over the house, and seen anything to indicate a struggle in the kitchen or in the passage, or anything of that sort, it would hardly have done to say that it was a suicide, and to stop Mr. Fleming from going to the neio^hbours and making any alarm. So that, looking to all that, you will just consider whether it is or is not more probable — much more probable — that this old gentleman did, stupidly it may be, very stupidly it may be, take for granted that the woman had merely gone out and gone away, and would come back again in a short time; whether that is very probable, or whether he saw traces so distinct before his eyes as to lead him to suppose that a murder had been committed, and yet gave no alarm, and made no investigation. I have stated to you generally what it is which the Crown says is proved. The only other thing in the conduct of the old gentleman which remains to be alluded to is that about the milkboy, who came on the Saturday morning. Now, you have heard the evidence, and you must have observed as well as I did that there was a confusion in his recollection about that, and that, as he was considerably deaf, he sometimes thought that questions put to him were not about what he did,, but about what happened in the house. He certainly did say at one time that he did not open the door to the milkboy that morning, and at another time he said he might have done it; and he repeatedly said, " I would just tell him I didn't want any milk that morning." Then, in reference to the screams which he heard in the night, it was said to be re- markable that he did not take any notice of these screams. That is for you to judge. He says he heard three screama about four o'clock in the morning. The first was loud, and the subsequent ones were faint. He got out of bed to listen, but all was immediately quiet, and he just went to bed again and slept as before. His own account of that was that he thought the screams proceeded from some loose people outside, at the back of the house; and that, as it was not. X98 Lord Deas' Charge. continued, there was no occasion for him to trouble Lord Deas himself more about it. Now, you will judge how far that is or is not probable. I do not know how it may be in that house, but I rather think in many houses when one is in bed it is not easy to distinguish sounds outside of your house from sounds that are inside, especially sleeping near the street, or where sounds are easily heard from the outside. Now, the first and only loud scream appears to have been the one that awoke him, which he might not hear so distinctly as to judge of where it came from. It was a natural enough thing that a man being awakened by a noise of that kind in the morning — he says expressly that it was all over again in a minute — it is not at all remarkable that he never thought of inquiring what was the cause of the noise. A stronger observa- tion made upon that was, how did it happen that he did not couple these screams with the disappearance of the servant? The question as to that depends entirely upon the state of this old man's mind; and considering that, considering his age and his habits, you will judge first in how far that is in itself strange, and then in how far it bears either upon his own guilt or innocence, and upon that of the prisoner at the bar. As to the milkboy, you will recollect that the old man said that after looking at his watch at four o'clock he fell asleep, and slept till six. He says that he did not get up till nine. He says that he slept till six. Well, according to that, if he did not get up, he was lying awake till the time that he rose. When he did get up he says that he gave some chapa at the servant's door, and, not receiving any answer, he thought that she had gone away and taken the key with her. Now, the whole question just depends on whether you think it is probable that there was some confusion in the old man's memory as to what he did that morning, and as to the order in which he did it. The time for the milk- boy to come was between eight and nine o'clock. He says he sometimes came later. Mr. Clare — It was twenty minutes before eight when the milkboy came. That was the statement of both the boy himself and his master. Lord Deas — We shall see that when we come to the evidence. It does not touch my present observation at all. My observa- tion was that the boy sometimes came sooner and sometimes later. The observation I was making was about the time the milkboy came. The old man says that he was awake at six o'clock, but he may have got up sooner than he thinks or than he now remembers. He says that he went downstairs and chapped at the servant's door, and then the milkboy came and he answered the door. The mere misapprehension about the time would account for the whole matter. He thinks that he did 199 Mrs. M^Lachlan. LoFd Deas not go down and chap at the servant's door till about nine o'clock, but in place of about nine, or between eight and nine, it was between seven and eight that he had gone, and then that he had answered the milkboy. It is a mere diflference of order, and any apparent discrepancy may be accounted for. It is said that the chain was on the door when the milkboy came. The old man said most positively that the chain was not on the door when he went to the door the first time that morning. He was quite sure about that, but he got confused afterwards as to whether the chain was on the door when the milkboy came. You will see at once that if he had been up before the milkboy came, and if, when he came downstairs he chapped at the servant's room door, and she did not answer him — if, I say, he then went to see whether the front door was fastened or not, and found that the door was not upon the chain or was not locked — in that case he might very naturally have put the chain upon the door before the milkljoy came, and have taken it off again when the milkboy arrived. You will judge how far that boy is likely to have taken notice, particularly of a matter so trivial as the undoing of a chain, which could have had no special interest for him, nor have fixed itself on his mind at the time for any particular reason. You will con- sider how far you would take notice yourselves of such things. I do not know whether you will yourselves remember ever having locked your own doors at night, and gone not very long after- wards to see whether you had locked it or not. I myself have known persons who have done so — persons who could not be sure half an hour afterwards whether they had secured the doors of their houses or not until they went to satisfy themselves. You will judge therefore whether the putting on of a door chain or the taking of it oflf is a thing that will linger in a man's memory, or whether it is strong enough proof to establish the guilt of the murder. Another remark I have to make is that, if you think it not improbable, he may have gone to the door earlier, or rapped at the servant's door earlier than he thinks ; if he had gone to the front door, and ascertained whether it was opened, and was thereby confirmed in the opinion that she had gone out by the state of the door, whether he may not have chained up the door and remembered nothing more about it. Then you will have to consider the question whether you can be quite satisfied that the chain was on the door. There is no evidence of that whatever, except the statement of the milkboy, who says he thought he heard him take the chain off the door. Now, though the milkboy may have been quite sincere in what he said, you would be disposed to inquire how far that could be relied on, and whether he was quite certain that what he heard was the taking of the chain off the door. The chain would not 200 Lord Deas' Charge. unnaturally be taken off the door before the old man came, Lord Deas and, though the boy thought what he heard was the movement of the chain inside the door, it is for you to judge whether he could be quite certain that the sound he heard was the taking off the chain, and not some other movement connected with the opening of the door; so that, taking the whole of the matter together, you will form an opinion whether — though it may have been a little strange, and not so satisfactorily ascertained as you would desire — there is anything in these facts to prove to you circumstances which are to lead you to the conclusion that the old man committed this murder, and the woman at the bar had nothing to do with it One thing muBt strike you. I don't see very well why the old man should have denied this occurrence had he really remembered it. Why should he have denied opening the door to the milkboy any more than the other people to whom he tells you that he did open? You will ask yourselves what object he could have had. Any suspicion that could have attached to him in consequence of the door being found fastened in the inside he could easily have done away with. Nothing could have been easier for him than to account for the door being fastened, if it was fastened, in the manner I have suggested, or in some other w^ay. He had no object to serve in the matter. In the absence of any object, you will ask yourselves w^Iiether the whole matter is not a mere confusion after all. The only object it could serve would be to show that, the house being all secured from within, the murder was committed by some one inside. If it does not lead to that, it leads to nothing. But will it account for the prisoner not sleeping in her own house that night — for her going out in one gown and coming home in another — for her possession of all those articles of clothing and plate early the next day? It is necessary for you to couple all that, upon the question of the old man's guilt, with attention to the worth of the statement w^hich the prisoner makes against him. Her state- ment is that he came to her house upon the Friday afternoon or Friday night and gave her all that plate. Did anybody see him there? Mrs. Campbell, who lives in the house, did not see him. She never saw him there at all. She never saw the man, she says, there in her life. The prisoner further says that the object for which he gave her the plate to pawn was to raise money to let him take a trip to the Highlands. He had plenty of money in the bank if he chose to go for it. It would be a very odd thing if, for the first time in his life, being ■eighty-seven years of age, and living in his son's house, he should all at once take it into his head, in order that he might get the means of going on a jaunt to the Highlands, vand to raise the necessary money, instead of drawing £2 or 201 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas £3, to steal his son's plate, and go to the prisoner's house, and tell her to get money on it, and that after she had got £& lOs. or £6 15s. upon it he should offer her £5 for her trouble, of which she says she accepted £i, leaving the balance to go to the Highlands with, an intention of which you have no trace, no evidence whatever, not even so much as a pro- bability of it. That would be very strange. Then you will con- sider whether it is not still more strange that that very same day, or the day before, I forget at this moment which, the woman whom he had murdered, without the prisoner having anything to do with the murder, had been sending away ail her good dresses. And how came it that the prisoner took possession of them and got some of them dyed, and how did it happen that she went out wearing one dress and came back wearing another, and how did she cut all her own clothing and tear it into tatters, and that it should afterwards be found saturated with blood? You will consider whether it is probable that these things should have come about. If you think, in place of that being true, it is a tissue of lies, if you think that the defence put in here — and the only defence put in here — that the murder was committed by the old man, was a lie, you will onsider how far that is consistent with the innocence of this woman. There is a trace of some party having been in the house, not the old gentleman at all, but some female whose footprint corresponds with the foot of the prisoner. Then the prisoner had rum on the Friday night in a bottle belonging to Mrs. Campbell, and a bottle like the bottle in which was the rum is found in the house at Sandyford Place, having a smell of rum. You will consider the circumstances as to this bottle of rmn, and the fact that Jessie MTherson, an admittedly sober, honest, steady woman, had been induced that night to partake of rum. As regards the question whether the mui'der was committed in the kitchen or in the bedroom, and how it was done, or whether the body was dragged from one apartment to another, you cannot get the particulars of that. It is a deed of dark- ness; and, if you are satisfied that a murder was committed that night, there is no materiality in what particular apartment it was done. It certainly appears that these screams came from one of the apartments, and the probability is that it was the kitchen or the other apartment, and, if so, you will consider whether the murder was not committed at four o'clock in the morning. You will judge whether that is a circumstance telling in favour of the prisoner. She was well acquainted with the deceased, and, if she had any reasonable excuse for remain- ing with her all night, I have no doubt she would remain with her all night; and whether she did go to bed with her and take advantage of her being asleep, and give her, while she •was in the bed, the first blow — whether that was so or not — 202 Lord Deas' Charge. ■whether the deceased, notwithstanding, rallied and got up and Lord Deas struggled to the kitchen, and the prisoner then gave her the number of blows which were necessary to produce death ; whether that was so or not, it is not material for us, for it does not affect the question of her guilt or innocence. The question that remains for you is, was it done some time in the house on that night, and was it done by this prisoner? Now, gentlemen, having made these observations to you, it is my duty, I think, in a case of this kind, to call your attention to some of the more important passages of the evidence adduced, to see whether the case which the Crown says has been proved against the prisoner has or has not been proved against her. I have said that there is a great deal of the evidence which I do not think it is necessary to trouble you with, although favourable to the Crown. For instance, the evidence of the railway clerks and porters, and so on, as to the passing to and fro of the one box, and the purchase of the other box. These do not appear to me to have any great bearing on this case, but you have heard it led, and I do not detain you with it. The reason that I say that this evidence is not of material importance in this case is this, that the object of it all can only be to prove two things. In the first place, to prove the clothing which is found covered with blood as having been disposed of or put away by the prisoner, and, in the next place, to prove that the dresses of the deceased were found in the possession of the prisoner. These are the only two purposes for which this evidence has been brought forward, and of this you can judge from other witnesses. You have a great deal of evidence on this point, apart altogether from the passage backwards and forwards of the boxes, to enable you to form your judgment. And then I must tell you that it is entirely competent for you to take the statements made by the prisoner herself in her declarations, where it is fully admitted that the dresses of the deceased were in her possession. We do not need railway clerks and porters to tell us of the sending of the box to Hamilton when the prisoner freely admits that she sent it in the way it is alleged. The material parts of the evidence are those which relate to what she did on the Friday, how she was dressed on the Friday night when she went out, and when she came in ; what she did on the Saturday, what were the articles she disposed of then, and how; what she did when she went to Hamilton on the Monday. These appear to me to be the most important circum- stances in the evidence, and I will read to you those portions which I consider necessary, so that you may have your memory refreshed after this long trial on those matters, in order to judge whether the allegations made on the part of the Crown be or be not correct. And it is on that evidence, and not oh 203 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Beas the observations which I have made, that you are to consider whether those allegations are true or no. My observations have merely been directed to what the Crown says has been proved, and what is the natural inference to be drawn in point of law and common sense if they are proved. My observations are to be taken merely for what they are worth. I have been stating what I consider the inferences that would appear to me to be not unreasonably drawn if the charges are established. If they are established, it is for you to judge from the evidence. I shall shortly call your attention, in the first place, as to what occurred on the Friday and the Friday night. The first witness you have upon that subject of any materiality is the witness Christina Fraser. She says that on Fi-idav night, the 4th of July, being on the north side of the Clyde, she called on Mrs. M'Lachlan, and the door being opened by Mrs. Campbell, she passed in to the bedroom of the prisoner, who was dressing herself to go out. She had on a grey cloak, and below it a dark dress of some sort. She said she was going to see the child of a Mrs. M'Gregor, and witness, after having a glass of rum with the prisoner, accompanied her to the top of Stobcross Street, where they parted, the prisoner going towards the Gushet House, Ander- ston. [His lordship then referred to the evidence of Mrs. Campbell, but before doing so called the attention of the jury to the fact that it was distinctly proved that the husband of Mrs. M'Lachlan was absent with his ship when all this took place, and that it was as plain as the sun that he knew nothing about it. The evidence of Mrs. Campbell showed that the prisoner went out at 10 p.m. on Friday, that she then had on a grey cloak and a brown merino gown, that Mrs. Campbell had a bottle resembling in size, shape, and material the bottle found in the press in the sunk flat of Mr. Fleming's house, that the prisoner had been out all Friday night till nest morn- ing, and that she came in wearing a different gown. His lord- ship then proceeded to call attention to discrepancies between Mrs. Campbell's evidence and the declaration of the prisoner as to the time she returned to the house. Before going into ^ other parts of this witness's evidence, he said he would now allude to the other evidence referring to the same period, but given by different witnesses. The first witness to whose evidence he referred was Mrs. Adams. In alluding to this witness having received from the prisoner a dressing glass to pledge, so that she might redeem a cloak, his lordship observed that they would consider how far the circumstance, that before she could get this 6s. in order to lift the grey cloak which she wanted to use, she had to send this woman with a dressing glass to raise the money, was or was not consistent with the i04 Lord Deas' Charge. allegation of her having plenty of money at that time. Refer- Lord Deas ring to the statement that the prisoner had told Mrs. Adams that Jessie M'Pherson told her to go round to Sandyford Place about nine o'clock, as the old man would be in bed by that time, his lordship said] — I may remark here, gentlemen, that it appeared at one time as if an attempt was to be made to prove that this old man was a man of bad character. You will judge how far that was proved or not. The Crown opened the way for that investigation by asking some witness whether he was always a man of respectable character, and that witness said he was ; and upon that, very naturally, the prisoner attempted to prove he was not. You will judge whether there is anything proved against him, except this, that the servant women, both of his own house and of the next, said that he looked too much after them. He did not like people coming to the house at night without knowing who they were ; and if the bell rang he would look to see who was there ; so that, consequently, even though Jessie seems to have been quite a respectable person, if she were in the habit of intro- ducing her female friends at night by the back door through the lane, she might, as she did, say he was an old devil. Some other witness used the expression that he was an old wretch. The reason for his being an old devil or an old wretch was that he was very inquisitive ; nobody could come to see them without his knowing of it ; they could not bi'ing in their friends without his knowing of it. I do not say how far that was proper or not ; but 3'ou will judge whether that does or does not go deep into a man's character in a charge like this. Mr. Clark — Then there was Mrs. Smith's evidence, in regard to the statement that the deceased made to her. Lord Deas — I say you will judge how far that goes to prove that the old man is likely to be a murderer. You saw the servants in the box. They were of various ages — some less, some of them more attractive. I do not know if it is very extraordinary that, as regards some of them, they should have admirers coming about them, and that the old man might look a little sharply after them; and you will judge whether there is a trace of any further dissatisfaction that this woman, Jessie M'Pherson, had with her service in that house except that. She evidently did not like it, no more than her next door neighbour ; and, as far as we see, the expressions which she used, or anybody else, had reference to that sort of habit, and accordingly she was just about that time introducing her female acquaintance — it may or may not have been this prisoner — by the back door. But the counsel for the prisoner suggests that there is another ground of suspicion against the old gentleman, which is, that Jessie aos Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas M'Pherson was supposed to have something which she meant to tell a friend that she met upon the street one night which she did not choose to tell in presence of her husband and the other people who seemed to be standing by. It is not for me to say to you that it is not proved that the thing that Jessie M'Pherson had to say was anything material against this old man's character, or whether this circumstance will raise a suspicion in your minds. It raises no suspicion in mine. This woman she met was an old acquaintance of hers, and it is quite a natural thing to suppose that, when she said she had something to tell her, what she might have to say was that she was going to emigrate. Suppose she had said that she was going to leave the country, and that she was not comfortable, because the old man tormented every- body in the house, and was so inquisitive that she could not live with him. Suppose that she had said all that, w^ould that have been anything against the character of Fleming? You will judge whether there is any ground of suspicion as to a man's character in anything that may be thought by servants in your house or in any person's house about you. Now, these observations were suggested by the answer of the witness, who said the prisoner said this was the time to go to the house, because the old man went to bed. Now, in connection with that it is right that I should read what Mrs. Smith said when Mr. Clark examined her for the defence. What Mrs. Smith said was — " I last saw Jessie M'Pherson on the 28th June last, in Sauchiehall Street, I had a conversa- tion with her there. I had not seen her for two years and two months, and said she was looking ill, whereupon deceased complained of the old man, saying he was just an ' auld deevil.' She seemed serious, and said she was not comfort- able. She said she would come on the Sunday fortnight, ■which was the Sunday that she was out. She said she had something to tell me, but did not appear desirous to tell me because my husband was present. I did not see her again, and so I did not hear how she was not comfortable." Mary M'Kinnon, who was also examined for the defence, said, " I called at Fleming's house, and said to the deceased, ' Why do you never come to see me? ' whereupon the deceased said, ' It is easy for you to speak. I had so much to do with the auld man ; he is so inquisitive that when the bell of the door rings he must know who it was that was coming in.' " The witness Martha M'Intyre said she saw a good deal of old Fleming ; that Fleming was very inquisitive ; that when the servants were out he made inquiries where they were ; and that he would even get out of bed to ascertain what it was when the door bell rung. It is for you to judge whether we have anything in the whole course of this case which reflects 206 Lord Deas' Charge. in the least degree on the old man. It was said by the Lord Deas prisoner's counsel that there was a quarrel between the old man and Jessie MTherson. You will judge whether there was any evidence of a quarrel between them, or whether there was any misunderstanding except what may have arisen from her not liking that inquisitive character or meddling disposition which these witnesses speak of. You will consider whether there is anything that would account for the supposition that the old man had any motive for murdering her. It is not sug- gested anywhere that there could be any motive on the part of the old man of another kind — I mean that it is not sug- gested that in place of a quarrel or feeling of revenge, there was anything improper between him and the deceased, or between him and the prisoner, or anybody else, whatever that might have led to. You cannot doubt that we have everything here that can be got on both sides bearing on this case. It is said by the counsel for the prisoner that a good deal has been published in the newspapers on the subject of this case, and you have been asked by him to lay all that out of your minds. I have do doubt you will do so. It is my duty on my oath of office, and it is your duty on the oath you have taken, to proceed here on the evidence you have heard, and on nothing else, and I feel quite sure you will proceed on that evidence and nothing else. It is the duty of my office, and it is your duty by the oaths you have taken, to proceed upon the evidence which has been led on both sides, and upon nothing but the evidence you have heard ; and it is a comfortable reflection that while it is my duty and your duty, that there is no risk of its leadinjr to any injustice, because you cannot have the least doubt that if anything that has been published has not been proved here, and if there is any difference between what has been published and what has heen proved here, that which has been published is not correct. Looking, then, to the evidence which has been led on both sides — on the side of the Crown and on the side of the prisoner — ^you will judge if the observation I make is correct, that there is certainly no trace in the whole case of anything between the old man and this woman of an improper character at any time, or anything that can be called a quarrel to lead to a desire of revenge on his part. If there are circumstances to throw suspicion upon the old man, you must ask yourselves the question, what possible motive could he have in the death of this woman? The only motive suggested is theft. Now, if he had wished to steal his son's plate, he had opportunities all the days of his life. One may easily think that if he wished to steal the plate he would have gone about it in a much easier manner than this. When the servant was away 207 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas from the house he might have taken it, and then said that a robbery had taken place. He might have said a thousand things thtlt would have accounted for the absence of the plate in a far better way than this. It is for you, then, to consider whether, in order to get possession of the plate, he became a murderer. You must also consider whether he had any purpose to serve by murdering the woman. What did he gain by it? If there was no desire for revenge, if nothing had passed between them that could have led to it, is it con- ceivable, is there any reason we can call up, even in imagination, to account for his murdering the servant, or being concerned in the murder? And if he had employed the prisoner to murder her, that would be even more extraordinary. He employed her to do it ! — a living witness who could tell all about it, and who, in that case, could have told you all the particulars of how she did it, and when she did it, and so on, and might have told you these particulars, if she had been in the box as a witness. In many cases it is of little consequence whether you ascertain the motive for the committal of the crime if it is clearly proved that a par- ticular individual committed the murder, but it is always satis- factory to know the motive which led to the crime. In a question like this, whether the old man or the prisoner was the murderer, it is impossible that he could have any purpose to serve, and that is of great importance, if there is any diffi- culty about it otherwise. Now, in coming back to that which happened upon the Saturday that the prisoner came in, the evidence I have been reading brings it up to the time when she came back, about nine o'clock, and what she did on coming in. Then you have the evidence as to what follows, and the first evidence upon the subject which was laid before you was a continuation of the evidence of Mrs. Campbell. After she has told what I have already read to you about the prisoner coming in, she tells us that she immediately went out, returning again at once, going out again in the forenoon, and returning once more, going out anew between two and three o'clock, carrying a black box, and coming back soon, leaving her house in the evening with the little boy. She had, if you remember, on one of the occasions she went out a grey cloak with tassels on, which were afterwards taken off in the dyer's shop. Wlien she comes back at night she shows Mrs. Campbell a bonnet she has bought for her little boy. Then Mrs. Adams said, when she was shown the dress labelled No. 27, that it was the gown which she was dressed in on the Saturday. She knew it to be the prisoner's, and that it had been pawned before. You will recollect that she came in on Saturday morning with a gown that belonged to the 208 Lord Deas' Charge. deceased. She changed the gown after she got her own out Lord Deas of the pawn. Mrs. Adams, in her evidence, went on to say that on that day the prisoner gave her pawn tickets and £2 to redeem a silver watch, dress coat, and two shirts of her husband's, and a ring of her own. The witness passed a joke on seeing the money, saying, " Whom did you rob? " Now the witness would not mean seriously that she had robbed any one. The importance of this remark lies in the surprise of the witness at the prisoner having money, coupled with the total want of it before. The prisoner said that this was the money her husband had left for the tailor, but that would have been available the day before. Then Sarah Adams, the daughter of Mrs. Adams, states that on the Saturday she went into the prisoner's house about half-past three or four o'clock, when the prisoner seemed to be waiting letters. The prisoner sent her to the railway with a trunk, and gave her a shilling to pay the carriage. You will afterwards see that the prisoner gives a different statement as to this, but it did not materially affect the evidence of the witness. [After reading the part of the girl Adams' evidence, where she mentions having been sent to the railway station by the prisoner with a box, and also where she states that some months before she was sent to the deceased to get a loan of £2 for the prisoner, which she got and brought to the prisoner, his lordship referred to the prisoner's declaration, where she said she was owing the deceased some £2 odds for grocery goods. He went on to say] — To another part of the testimony of this witness (the girl Adams) I now direct your attention. The witness told you that upon one occasion two years before, when she must have been very young, for she is only twelve years old now, she was examined in a case, where some parties desired her to tell what was not true. She did it, but upon being brought forward again she stated what was true. It is for you to consider wiiether you have any doubt about the accuracy of the witness. If you have no reason to doubt what she is saying it is not material — it is only if you have reason to doubt her statement that it is material. You will judge from the evidence we have got here whether what she says is not con- sistent with what has been said by other witnesses. She says — " My mother thrashed me, and made me go back and tell the truth." You will judge, therefore, whether all that is not favourable to the honesty and veracity of Mrs. Adams, the mother, and of Mrs. Campbell, and in every way corroborates the evidence of the little girl herself. [His lordship then read the evidence of Elizabeth M'Crone and Mrs. Rainny as to the prisoner giving a brown dress to be dyed black. He said] — The witness M'Crone cannot identify the prisoner as the woman who came to her to get the dress p 209 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas dyed, but she describes her dress as corresponding with what is now produced as her own, you have the circumstances of the tassels being taken off the grey cloak, which she had on immediately before she went to the dyer, and you have the testimony of Mrs. Rainny, who tells us positively that before she went to the dyer's she took off the brown merino gown which, belonged to the deceased, and put on another dress which be- longed to herself, and went away intending to go to the dyer's to get the dress she had taken off dyed black. It is for you to say whether you have any reasonable doubt that the woman who took the dress to the dyer's was the prisoner at the bar. You will remember that we have evidence afterwards of the identifica- tion of that dress — evidence of the fact that it belonged to the deceased of the strongest possible description. [His lordship then read other portions of Mrs. Rainny's evidence to prove its identification, and referred to the evidence of Elizabeth Steele, who spoke to the prisoner buying a bonnet, and the testimony of the pawnbroker, Mr. Lundie, who spoke to the prisoner wanting £6 10s. for silver plate. Referring to the statement of the pawnbroker, that it was between twelve and one o'clock when the prisoner got the money for the plate, his lordship said] — An observation was made upon that by the counsel for the prisoner, that the money paid for the rent could not have been the money raised upon the plate, because it was between twelve and one when the money was given for the plate, and it was not quite twelve when she paid the rent. You will judge how far that has any materiality. It seems very clear, so far as any one can dis- cover, that she was totally in want of money, and whether that was part of the money which she got on the plate, or how she got it, you will judge. You will judge whether that is very material; and you will also judge whether the mere circumstance of the pawnbroker saying that it was between twelve and one o'clock is correct or that it might not have been a little before twelve. The cashier says it was before twelve, because he paid the money into the bank, and the bank shuts at twelve. The pawnbrokers might not notice the exact time, as they had no suspicion of anything at that time. You will judge whether that has much materiality in this case one way or another. [After reading the evidence of the witness Miller, assistant to the pawnbroker in Brown Street, as corroborative of Mrs. Adams' testimony regarding the articles pawned and lifted, his lordship continued] — The next point of the case to which I will allude is the identification of the dresses of the deceased. The first material evidence we have as regards this is that of Margaret M'Lachlan, who was for some time a fellow-servant with the deceased in Mr. John Fleming's house. She identifies Lord Deas' Charge. the dresses found in the possession of the prisoner as having Lord Deas been the property of Jessie M'Pherson, and particularly the dress which had been dyed. This was the dress which the prisoner wore when she returned to her house on the Saturday morning. Mr. Clark seemed to be surprised that a female witness could look at an article and tell at once that it had been dyed ; but perhaps you have had occasion to observe how much skill a female shows in distinguishing that an article has been dyed. How they know I cannot tell; but I think that very few females accustomed to handle dresses would have much difficulty in saying if the article had been dyed. This witness says distinctly that the dress had been dyed since it came into the possession of the prisoner, and we have proof elsewhere that the article really was dyed. Then she identifies the cleaver as an instrument that was in Mr. Fleming's house, and on which, you will remember, there were distinct traces of blood, although the blade had been cleaned. Then, upon cross-examination, she explains that she knew the plaid to be Jessie M'Pherson's by its having a narrow border and by its general appearance, as well as by the narrow border. The next witness, Mary Downie, identified the two cloaks, two gowns, and a polka. She had been with Jessie M'Pherson when she purchased both the cloaks. She was shown the merino gown, which the prisoner is said to have been wearing when she came back to her house on the Saturday morning, and identified it as Jessie M'Pherson's property. It has since been dyed black, but she was quite sure that it was Jessie M'Pherson's. Now, gentlemen, that is the material part of the evidence — there is more evidence, but that is the material part of the evidence — as to the identity of these dresses. It is for you to judge whether you have or have not any reason to conclude that these dresses were dresses that belonged to the late Jessie M'Pherson ; and upon this there is no doubt — that these dresses are traced to the possession of the prisoner, that the prisoner has them all immediately after Jessie M'Pherson's death, and that she only accounts for that by saying that Jessie M'Pherson sent them to her by a little girl, of whom we have no trace, some time the day before. The prisoner admits in her declara- tions that they are Jessie M'Pherson's dresses, and she accounts for the possession of them by saying that they were sent to her by Jessie M'Pherson. The next material thing is to attend to the conduct of the prisoner on the occasion when she goes to Hamilton, and, after that, the identification of the articles found there as her own dresses. The first witness as to what took place in Hamilton is Mrs. Chassels. The prisoner was seen going out of Mrs. Chassels' house with a bundle. She had no bundle when she entered ; and that bundle could only be produced by taking the articles out Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas of the box. Then all Mrs. Chassels can say as to the handker- chief given by the prisoner to the boy on the Brandon Road is, that it resembled a handkerchief in which the bundle was wrapped. This witness also states that she saw portions of the gown with a flounce at the bottom. The prisoner was quite calm, and when she left was carrying nothing but a bundle. It is distinctly proved by more than one witness that the prisoner was not in strong health — that she had been in a delicate state of health ever since she had her child, three years ago. James Chassels slightly contradicts his mother as to the time the prisoner stayed in their house. He says that it was from half an hour to three-quarters. The mother says only about a quarter; but these two witnesses were equally honest, speaking to a length of time to which they paid no attention at the moment. Mirrilees Chassels said the prisoner came to his mother's, and afterwards, on the same day, he met her on the Brandon Road, about five minutes' walk from his mother's house. She said, "Boy, here's a handkerchief; I found it. If you like you can take it home and get it hemmed." The lad also remarked that he did not see both her hands. Then John Hamilton proved that the box had been brought to the saddler's shop at the time mentioned by James Chassels, where it remained till given up to the police. Elizabeth Gibson, who kept a public-house about a mile and a half beyond Hamilton, said the prisoner asked for a half-glass of whisky, but that she gave her a whole one, her signs of fatigue were so great. She saw her go in the direction of Meikle Earnock. She was carrying a bundle; but she did not notice what the bundle was wrapped in. This witness, however, recognised the dress and bonnet which the prisoner wore at that time. Then her husband saw the prisoner go from the house in the same direc- tion. Their daughter Margaret saw the prisoner on the road near her father's house along with Marion Fairley. She asked for a burn where she might get a drink, and was directed to a place beyond the Tommy Linn Park. She had the appearance of having a bundle below her arm. The witness says she did not see whether the prisoner went in the direction given, or only to the first oak tree. It is for you to judge what her object might be in asking for a burn, and whether she did not want some excuse for going off the road. That is matter of inference. Then, on the Sunday immediately after, this little girl says she was in the park and found clothing torn and bloody, at which she got frightened and ran home. Marion Fairley went back with her to the same place on Monday and saw the articles, but again they were not taken away till Stewart, the policeman, came. Then on the Wednesday they were again in the park, and on the road, at the foot of the hedge, they saw other articles of attire, also torn. These they recog- Lord Deas' Charge. nised on being shown in the witness-box. On the same day Lord Deas they found a piece of coburg in the Templeton Park, which Stewart, the police officer, afterwards took away. The little girl, Marion Fairley, corroborated this witness in almost every particular. Then there was the evidence of Stewart, Cooper, and Dewar, police officers, who spoke as to the finding of the articles where they were first discovered by the girls Fairley and Gibson, and that, I think, is the material evidence as to what the prisoner did at Hamilton, and as to what was found at Hamilton after she had been there. Now, the main thing I have to call your attention to is the identification of these articles, which are those said to have been thrown away by the prisoner at Hamilton, and found by the officers, as being parts of clothing belonging to the prisoner. The first fact about that was the evidence of Smith, the officer, as to the sleeve found in the prisoner's house, being the sleeve of the gown found in tatters at Hamilton. Then came the evidence of Mrs. Campbell with reference to the thirteen pieces of petticoat, as being very like portions of a petticoat the prisoner had. On one occasion, when it was washed, the witness remarked that it was very stout, and the prisoner said that it was made out of a blanket, and these pieces corresponded with that description. Then it would be observed that Mrs. Adams, another witness, recognised the pieces of flannel as being portions of a petticoat of the prisoner. She had washed the petticoat sometimes, but not very often; and she knew that it had been made out of a blanket. She knew about it at the time it was made. On being shown the coburg sleeve the same witness identified it as the sleeve of the gown found covered with blood. Then she gave evidence to the effect that she recollected the prisoner saying, " I must get money somewhere." In the cross-examination as to the dress, she said that it appeared to be dyed, and stated, in answer to repeated inquiries, that anybody could tell that the dress was dyed, and that she knew by the smell of it that it was so. She is asked to look at three pieces of cloth, labelled 20, and she says, " that is a flannel petticoat," and, when questioned how she knows it to be a petticoat, answers, "I know it must have been a petticoat." Again, when asked to look at the other flannel petticoat, labelled 24, she says, •' I have not seen that before except at the County Buildings." Then Mrs. Adams is shown the thirteen pieces of woollen cloth, labelled 20, and says, " I recognise them. They formed a petticoat belonging to the prisoner. I have seen her wearing such as this." Shown six pieces of wincey No. 21, she says, " I have seen the prisoner wearing a petticoat like this." Shown twenty pieces of coburg, and recognises them as belonging to the prisoner. Shown a portion of a sleeve, and replies it is the sleeve of the same 213 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas wrapper above referred to. Then, being shown the crinoUne wires, she says, " I got these from the prisoner for my little girl." It does not appear that the mother did actually give them to her daughter Sarah. Shown brown dress No. 30, she replies, " That is one of the deceased's dresses." Then you have the evidence of Jane M'Gregor, the dressmaker, who says, " I have made dresses for the prisoner." Shown the twenty pieces of coburg cloth, sho recognises them " as like the colour of a dress she made for the prisoner about three years ago." Then the sleeve is shown her, and is recog- nised as the sleeve of the dress, which the twenty pieces composed. Shown a black dress, she says, " I never saw that dress before." She is asked how she thinks the sleeve belongs to the same wrapper, and replies that " it has the appearance of being the sleeve of that dress." That is the evidence of the dressmaker. Her evidence only goes to this, that these pieces of coburg are like the dress she made for the prisoner three years ago, but she cannot positively swear that they are the same; and you will not be surprised that the dressmaker could not swear positively with regard to a dress she had made so long before. I think that the evidence of the dressmaker, coupled with the evidence of those who knew her dresses — the washerwoman and the people about the house — is material evidence of those dresses having belonged to the prisoner. And upon the whole of that evi- dence, and apart altogether from any admissions or statements that the prisoner may have made in her declarations, you will ask yourselves the question, whether that evidence does not go to establish the material facts which lay at the bottom of this part of the case, namely, that the prisoner left her house on Friday night, dressed in that same gown which was after- wards found torn to pieces and covered with blood at Hamilton, and that she came back wearing a dress which belonged to the deceased, that she then took it off and went to get it dyed black, that she then went to Hamilton, and went to those four different places where she distributed her own clothing, all torn to tatters, and which were afterwards found by the police, and found covered with blood, not only apparent to the common observer, but proved by Professor Penny, as matter of skill, to be the sort of blood which might be expected if it was human blood, or the blood of the deceased. It is for you to consider whether you can have any reason- able doubt that these facts and circumstances bring home the guilt of this offence to the prisoner. I need hardly say to you that you cannot expect in a case of this kind the testimony of eye-witnesses. Murders are not committed before people's eyes ; and if it were necessary to have direct evidence of murder, it would be very easy to murder anybody without 214 Lord Deas' Charge. detection, and we might have a murder committed every day. Lord Deas That is not the law ; and I do not think you will be of opinion that that should be the law. The law is, that if the facts and circumstances when all put together lead to the inference that the party accused is guilty of murder, that is quite sufficient. The counsel for the prisoner, with his usual judgment, did not say to you that you were not to go upon circumstantial evi- dence. He said that if you proceeded upon circumstantial evidence, you must have facts and circumstances which do not admit of reasonable doubt. There may be circumstances of suspicion which might be explained away. You will consider whether the circumstances of suspicion said to be directed against old Fleming in this case would or would not be unsafe to go upon. But you will also consider whether such circumstances as we have here are or are not safe to go upon when they are all put together. Mr. Clark in his address referred to a case where three parties were tried, and they were all convicted. It came out afterwards that one of them was innocent, and that shows the danger of con- victing people upon such evidence as we are now going upon. I presume we are not to infer from this that because one person was convicted who turned out to be innocent, nobody is ever to be convicted again. We are not come to that yet. I do not know that the person alluded to in that case was found to be innocent. Tlie party who was so convicted upon that occasion, and who got that sentence, had his sentence remitted. Whether he was innocent or not we cannot tell. The Crown must have thought that there was such doubt about the matter that it was right to set him at liberty ; but I am afraid that, if I know anything about that case, it is not a very good in.stance of what it is quoted to you for, viz., the injustice of going upon circumstantial evidence. I rather suspect that if a mistake did occur it is an instance of the danger of direct testimony rather than of circumstantial evidence. A witness might look on at a thing taking place, and think he saw a person when it was not that person at all. A man might state that he saw people come to a house at night when it was not that house at all ; and say that he saAv people come out of one house when he saw them come out of another. The mistake, then, if there was a mistake at all, was in thinking that the man was one of the men. It is one of the risks of direct evidence that the witness may be altogether in a mistake. There is always a risk when a witness says he saw a thing that he is not telling that which is true, or that he might be mistaken about the person, or about the whole matter. Circumstantial evidence, if sufficiently clear, is more safe sometimes than direct evidence. In some respects the evidence of direct testimony may be more satisfactory than circumstantial evi- 215 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas dence, but in many other respects it is often neither so safe nor so satisfactory. Circumstances cannot lie. There can be no combination — there can be no conspiracy in such a chain of circumstances as we have here. There can be no laying of heads together by so many different people to frame the various parts into one connected story. The only possible error is that we may draw a wrong inference from the facts. There is a possibility of error in everything human. We have no absolute certainty, in one sense, about anything. It is always possible that we may be in error. The possibility of error is only excluded in the Deity. But what you and I have to consider is whether, as reasonable men — with the reason that God has given us — looking to the whole chain of circumstances before us, we are led to one reasonable con- clusion. If there is any doubt in the case, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of it ; but it must be a reasonable doubt. It is not enough to say it is explainable, or that some- thing else might have happened. If you have no reasonable doubt, then your duty to your God and to your country is to give that conclusion effect, whatever it may be. But, gentlemen, I must call your attention to this before I conclude, that the evidence, whatever opinion you may form upon it, must be taken in connection with the declaration of the prisoner; and, on the one hand, whatever reasonable explanation it affords you will accept ; and, on the other hand, whatever evidence it contains which is to be taken as against the prisoner must be taken along with the whole of the other evidence in the case. Now, I shall not read this declaration to you at length, but I shall state to you what seems to be the substance of the declaration. I shall be corrected if I state anything wrong. I would have followed it out verbatim, but I am afraid the observations which I have already addressed to you may be more than you think is altogether necessary, and no doubt must be very fatiguing to you after the long time you have sat in that box. But the reason why I have read so much of the evidence, which in many cases I do not think necessary, is that I wish you not to judge of the evidence by any observations of mine, but to judge of the evidence by itself ; and in wishing you to judge of the evidence by itself, without reference to my observations, I thought it right, after so long a trial as this, to lay before you the substance of the evidence, and also of the prisoner's declarations. In the first declaration she says she was a fellow-servant of the deceased two years before September, 1857, when she was married. " Since then," she continues, " I have kept up an intimacy with her except for a period of eighteen months prior to January, 1861, during ■which time she was at service in Manchester." She says 216 Lord Deas' Charge. ehe was not in or near Mr. Fleming's house on the evening Lord Deas of Friday, the 4th, or morning of Saturday, the Otli of July. " On said Friday, the 4th July, I was in my own house the •whole day till about seven o'clock at night, when I went to see Mr. MTarlane, who had been factor for my house prior to Whitsunday, but he was not in then, and I returned home. 'I was not again out of my house till after ten o'clock, when I went out to convoy home Mrs. Fraser, a seaman's wife, who lives in Grace Street, Anderston. I intended to go to the house of James M'Gregor, a foreman clothier, who lives in Main Street, Anderston, and who is a friend of my husband, but I changed my mind. I reached home about a quarter- past eleven o'clock. I let myself in by means of a check-lock key, and which is in the house." You remember, gentlemen, that a search was made for that key ; every key in the house was tried, and no such key has been found. It would have been of very great importance if there had been such a key. She says she let herself in by means of it. Mrs. Campbell says they always let each other in. Then the prisoner goes on to say, "It is one of the keys of the press in the lobby in my house, and for which press there are two keys." They were all tried, and you will remember they did not fit. She says that she went in with John M'Donald, but Mrs. Campbell says she herself let him in. She says, " I went straight to bed w^ithout speaking to Mrs. Campbell." This declaration, you will remember, was not taken till 14th July, so that she had plenty of time to learn that John M'Donald had returned to the house that night. She adds, " I remained in bed till between seven and eight o'clock." Mrs. Campbell says she was not in bed at half -past five, when she found the child alone, and when she took it up and gave it breakfast. Then she says she went for some coals (that is to account for the bimdle she brought in), and that she got them from the man at the coal depot. She has not produced anybody to say who sold the coals to her. The prisoner further says that on Friday night the old man gave lier the plate in the parlour of her own house. But to this, again, Mrs. Campbell says that she never saw the old man in the prisoner's house. The prisoner says that the old man came back at a quarter to three on the Saturday afternoon; but, again, Mrs ■Campbell states that she never saw the old man at all. As to the question whether the prisoner was a person of improvident habits, it is not one with which we have to deal, nor the question what was it that the prisoner did with her husband's wages. As to the dress that was taken to Murray (the dyer) the difference between her statement and that of the witnesses is, that it was her own dress, while the "testimony of the witnesses was to the effect that it was the 217 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Lord Deas deceased's. She admits she took it, and she says that she gave her own name, but it has been stated in evidence that she gave the name of M'Donald. The prisoner stated in her declaration that she did not call upon Mary Adams to look after her child. But this statement was denied by Adams. Then as to the wires of the crinoline, Avhich the prisoner stated she gave to Mary Black or Adams, they were sent to Professor Penny, who found traces of blood upon them. The prisoner also said that the petticoat she wore when she was apprehended was the only one she had. It is for you to judge if that statement can be reconciled with the evidence of the witnesses, that the petticoat which was found in shreds belonged to her. Then she admits sending the box to Hamilton, but says that it was empty, and that she took the clothes with her in a black leather bag, and says that her object in so doing was to take lodgings there, with the intention of staying there, but you will judge whether that is a probable case under the circumstances. Then, she is asked about certain articles of clothing which belonged to Jessie M'Pherson, and she said she had not seen any of these articles lately, either in the deceased's possession or anywhere else. That is what she said before she was shown the articles, and her counsel complained of her being questioned before seeing these articles, but I need foimd no observations upon that. You will see what she afterwards said about them. On being shown several dresses she says she recognises these to be those of Jessie ^M'Plierson, and tells how M'Pherson had sent them to her by a girl about five o'clock on the said Friday, in order th;it she might take some of them, which she specifies, to the dyer's, some of them to be altered, and so on. You will consider whether the other evidence as to the identity of these dresses being Jessie M'Pherson's, taken in connection with the prisoner's statement that they were all Jessie M'Pherson's, does or does not leave any doubt as to their identity. Why Jessie MTherson sent all these articles to her by the little girl to be sent for the purposes stated, instead of sending them herself, the prisoner does not explain. Nor does she particularly explain how that long message was so carefully delivered by a little girl. She said they were wrapped up in a piece of green cotton cloth, but she had said a little before that she had never seen that cloth. She states further that she had heard of the murder on Tuesday night, and, having the clothes in her possession, she became alarmed, and got them sent to Ayr. Further, on being shown the articles of dress found at Hamilton, she declares that they never belonged to her, a statement which, however, is met by the evidence for the Crown. [Having gone over the other parts of the declaration* 2x8 The Verdict. his lordship said] — That is the substance of the declaration. Lord Deas Have you anything to suggest, Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark — No, my lord. Lord Deas — Anything that I have stated wrong, or omitted, I shall be happy to go back upon. Now, gentlemen, that is the declaration of the prisoner, which you are to take in connec- tion with the evidence I have brought before you, giving you the substance of that evidence in the very words the witnesses gave; and I have to ask you to form your opinion on that evidence, without reference to anything beyond it. I have further to ask you to form your own opinion on the declara- tion, taken in connection with the evidence, to consider these parts of it, which you think may go to confirm the testimony of the witnesses in the case for the Crown, along with those parts of it, or the whole of it, if you think proper it should be so, which go to explain the conduct of the prisoner ; and having considered the whole of the evidence, and the prisoner's declaration, you will make up your minds whether the substantial facts on which the Crown relies to bring home guilt to this prisoner are, or are not, proved to your satis- faction. And if, as reasonable men, there is no doubt left in your minds as to the guilt of the prisoner, I need not say what your duty is to yoiirselves, to your consciences, to God, and to your country. But if, notwithstanding all that evi- dence, you think there are reasonable gi'ounds for holding that the prisoner may be innocent, you also know the course you have to follow. The case has been most fully brought before you, and most ably treated on both sides. It has received from you as great attention as ever I saw paid by any jury, and I have no doubt you will perform your duty conscientiously, whatever that duty may be. At twenty-five minutes past two the jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned to Court at twenty minutes to three o'clock. The Verdict. The Clerk of Court— Gentlemen, what is your verdict? The Foreman — My lord, the jury are unanimously of opinion that the prisoner is guilty of both charges as libelled — guilty of murder and theft. Mr. GiFFORD — My lord, I move for sentence. [The breathless silence which had pervaded the Court-room during the announcement of the verdict was instantly broken by the buzz of conversation regarding the result at which the jury had arrived. Many keen glances were cast at the prisoner; but beyond a nervous twitching of the mouth, which she endeavoured to conceal by her handkerchief, her demeanour 2x9 Mrs. M'Lachlan. was as calm as ever. While the sentence was being written out by the Clerk of Court an earnest conversation was carried on between the prisoner and her counsel; and when Lord Deas put the usual question whether the prisoner had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against her,] Mr. Clark — My lord, I understand that the prisoner desires to make a statement before sentence is pronounced, either by her own lips or to be read by some one for her. Lord Deas — She is quite at liberty to do so in any way she prefers. The Prisoner [throwing her veil off her face and standing up in the dock, in a loud and distinct voice] — I desire to have it read, my lord ; I am as innocent as my child, who is only three years of age at this date. Mr. Ci^RK then read the following document: — Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement. (Made on 13th August, 1862.) On Friday night, the 4th July last, I went up to Fleming's to see Jessie M'Pherson. I had been up seeing her that night fortnight, and had promised to come up again that night. We generally arranged a Friday night for my coming, as she had then most time, none of the family but the old man being at home, and I usually went late to let the old man away to bed, because, being of a jealous and inquisitive turn, he prevented us from talking freely. The old man was always very glad to see me, and very civil any time he happened to be in the kitchen when I went to see Jessie. I had put my child to bed about half-past nine. I told Mary Black in the morning I was going up to see Jessie, and asked her to come and take charge of him till I returned, but she did not come. As I did not expect to be long out and he was sleep- ing, I did not give Mrs. Campbell any charge, but I knew she would attend to him if he wakened. I had put on my things to go out when Mrs. Fraser came in. Mrs. Campbell opened the door for her. Mrs. Fraser had her two children with her. I told her that my sister Ann intended to go to Australia, and I wanted her to write a certificate of character for her. She began to do so. I went into the kitchen to the press, and took Mrs. Campbell's bottle. Mrs. Campbell was in bed, but her clothes were not off. I took a little black basket with me, and Mrs. Fraser's boy, Tommy Fraser, and went up to Monteith's shop in Argyle Street and purchased a jrill and a half of i*um, and paid 7^d. for it. I meant to give Mrs. Fraser a dram, and have a dram for Jessie, and enough to taste with them. I 220 Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement. came down, and Mrs. Fraser opened the door and let me in. I gave Mrs. Fraser a glass out of the bottle, and took about half a glass myself. I also bought some biscuits when I was out and offered them to her. After that I put the bottle and biscuits into my basket. I told her I had been intending to go to James M'Gregor's to get the oertificate written, but she would do as well. She had stopped writing when I was out, as she could not please herself with it that night, and I said I would call on her next night and get the certificate written. I said M'Gx-egor's child had been ill, and that I had not been there for some time, and that I ought to have gone to see them before this. We also spofe about Mrs. Fraser' s husband being expected home. It was ringing ten as we went down our stair. I took the basket and bottle with me. We parted at the Gushet House about ten minutes past ten. I went up North Street to the house of Mr. Fleming in Sandyford Place. I went to the front door, and Jessie answered the door. She told me the old man was in the kitchen, but took me down- stairs. The old man was sitting in the big chair in the kitchen when I went in. He said, " Oh, is that you, Jessie; how are you? " There was bread and cheese and a tumbler and glass and two plates on the kitchen table. I sat down on a chair at the end of the table next the dcor. Soon after the old man, without saying anything, rose and went upstairs. I gave Jessie the bottle I had brought. She filled out a glass of rum for me, part of which I took, and then poured out a glassful for herself, and took it, and she put the bottle away into the press. Soon after the old man returned with a bottle and glass in his hands. He filled out scarcely a glass of spirits and gave it to me. I tasted it, and he told me to take it up ; but I did not, and he poured the rest back into the bottle. Jessie, in a displeased way, said to him that wasn't a way to treat any person — that he ought to put it round. He said, " You ken, Jess, we've had twa three since the afternoon " — that he wouldna mind, but that Mr. Fleming had said before when they were left in the house that they had done weel in drink, and spoke about their using so much, although the old man said it had been used by young John. He added, '' How- ever, if ye'll haud your ill tongue, I'll gi'e ye half a mutchkin, if ye'll eo (or Scn') for't." She said, " Aye, I've a tongue that would frighten somebody if it were breaking loose on them." The old man said something as if to himself, but I did not hear what. He poured the whisky into a tumbler on the table, and handed the bottle to me, and at the same time gave me Is. 2d., and bade me go out for a half mutchkin. The bottle was one with a long neck and round, flat bottom. Jessie gave me the key of the back door into the lane, and I went out by the kitchen back 22Z Mrs. M'Lachlan. door, leaving it open, and locked the lane door after me, and went down Elderslie Street, and along the first street that crosses it as you come out from the lane, and along to North Street, to a whisky shop in North Street, very near right across from the end of the first street where it leads into North Street. It is a shop near the top of North Street, on the right hand side coming up from St. Vincent Street, and not far from Mr. M'Gaw, the flesher's. It would be a minute or two after eleven o'clock when I got to the shop. It was shut, but I knocked twice or thrice, as there was a light inside visible at the top of the shutters, but I did not get admittance ; so I came back along Sauchiehall Street and down Elderslie Street, and round the corner into the lane behind Sandyford Place. I saw Mrs. Walker, the grocer's wife, standing at her own close mouth, with her bonnet and shawl on, and another person, whom I did not know, speaking with her. When I got to the back of No. 17 Sandyford Place I opened the lane door and went in, and locked the lane door behind me. I found the kitchen back door shut, which I had left open. I knocked, but received no answer. I then went to the kitchen window and looked in. The gas was burning, but I saw nobody in the kitchen. I rapped at the door with the lane door ke}', and after a little old Mr. Fleming opened the door. He told me he had shut the door on " them brutes o' cats." I went into the kitchen, and put the money and bottle on the table. The old man locked the door, and came in after me. I told him the place was shut, and I could get nothing; I then said, " Where's Jessie? It's time I was going away home." He went out of the kitchen, I supposed to look for her, and I went out with him. When in the passage, near the laundry door, I heard her moaning in the laundry, and turned and went in past the old man, who seemed at first inclined to stop me. I found Jessie lying on the floor, with her elbow below her, and her head down. The old man came in close after me. I went forward, saying, " God bless us, what is the matter? " She was stupid or insensible. She had a large wound across her brow and her nose was cut, and she was bleeding a great deal. There was a large quantity of blood on the floor. She was lying between her chest and the fireplace. I threw off my bonnet and cloak, and stooped down to raise her head, and asked the old man what he had done this to the crirl for. He said he had not intended to hurt her — it was an accident. I saw her hair all down, and she had nothing on but a polka and her shift. I took hold of her, and supported her head and shoulder, and I bade him fetch me some lukewarm water. He went out into the kitchen. I spoke to her, and said, " Jessie, Jessie, how did this happen? " and she said something I could not make out. 222 Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement. I thought he had been attempting something wrong with her, and that she had been cut by falhng. He did not appear to be in a passion; and I was not afraid of him. He came in again, bringing lukewarm water in a comer dish. I asked him for a handkerchief and some cold water, as the other was too hot. He brought them in from the kitchen, and I put back her hair and bathed away the blood from her face, and saw she was sore cut. I said to the old man, '" However did he do such a thing as that to the girl? " and he said he did not know, and seemed to be vexed and put about by what had happened. I asked him to go for a doctor, but he said she would be better soon, and he would go after we got her sorted. The old man then went ben the house again, and I supported her, kneeling on one knee beside her. In a little she began to open her eyes, and come to herself, but she was confused. She understood when I spoke to her, and gave me a word of answer now and then, but I could get no explana- tion of things from her, so I just continued bathing her head. I bathed it for a long time till she got out of that dazed state and could understand better. I asked her whether I would not go for a doctor, and she said, " No, stay here beside me." I said I would. I did not trouble her much with speaking to her at that time. While I was sorting at her head, the old man came into the room with a large tin basin and water and soap in it, and commenced washing up where the blood was all round about us, drying it up with a cloth and wringing it into a basin. I had raised Jessie to sit up, and was sitting on the floor beside her. As he was near us he went down on his elbow, and spilt the basin with a splash when he was lifting it. He spilled the water all over my feet and the lower part of my dress, and my boots were wet through. After Jessie had quite come to herself, I tied a handkerchief, which the old man brought me at my request, round the cut on the brow. I assisted her to rise off the floor, and took her over to a chair near the bedside. She was very weak and imsteady on her feet, and she asked me to put her into bed. I was not able to do it, and I asked the old man to help me, and we put her into bed just as she was. After she was put into bed I continued bathing away the blood from the nose, which continued bleeding a little. When put to bed I took a crochet night-cap, which was hanging on the looking glass, and put it on the top of the handkerchief. The old man was drying and redding up the blood and the water that had been spilt over where Jessie had been lying. When she was put to bed she appeared to be getting weaker, and lay with her eyes stut, and I said to the old man that the doctor should be got now. He came and looked at her, and said, " No, there was no fears, and that 223 Mrs. M'Lachlan. he would go for the doctor himself in the morning." I thought she was asleep, but she had heard what was said, and, turning her eyes to me, she said " No." I under- stood her to mean that she did not wish a doctor brought at present. She lay in bed till the morning was beginning to break, or till, as I supposed, it would be well on to three o'clock. She had been sleeping, and gradually came to her- self again, and I thought there was no danger. Latterly she spoke a good deal to me as I sat by the bedside when the old man was out. He sat a while by the bedside after redding up the floor, but he rose and went ben to the kitchen, and was going about both ben the house and upstairs. I heard him chapping up the fire and moving about; and when I went ben to get her a drink of water I observed he had put the teapot to the fire, I supposed for her. He was but and ben several times, but afterwards came and sat down at the bed- side, and remained there till she rose. I was twice in the kitchen during this period ; once when I went in for water to her, and once when I took ben my boots and stockings (which I took oflE after the water was spilt on them) to the kitchen fire to dry. She told me that on a Friday night some weeks before thei'e was a gentleman in the house, who had remained all Thursday night in it, and until the Friday afternoon, when he left, and that old Mr. Fleming convoyed him to the station. She said he was a brewer, and she mentioned his name ; but I can't remember it ; and that the old man left with him at four o'clock in the afternoon of the Friday she spoke of, and that he did not return till eleven o'clock, when he was gie 'en tipsy. He asked her to help him off with his coat, which she did, and then she went downstairs, and to bed. She said that between one and two in the morning he came down to her room, and in alongside her into the bed, and tried to use liberties with her ; that she made an outcry about it, and was angry then, and spoke to him next morning about it, and said she would tell his son, her master; that he begged her to say nothing about his having done so, or that he had come home the worse of drink ; that unless for the drink he would never have done it; that there had been words between them ever since; that the old man was in terror in case it would ever come out about what she had told me, and that he had offered her money, but that for her own character she never meant to tell Mr. Fleming upon him. But she said she was going to Australia at any rate, and that she was determined to make the old rascal pay well before she left, and she would make him pay for this too. She said that after I went out for the half-mutchkin they had a great quarrel, and he was very angry because he had thought when she said that about her tongue breaking loose she was hinting a threat to 224 Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement. tell me. She said they had words on the same subject during the day, and when it began again on my going out she left the kitchen to take oflf her stays, which weie uneasy, and that she took them o£E, and had her petticoats untied after that, when she was struck by him. She had given him some word on leaving the kitchen, and he was flyting and using bold language to her in the lobby after she was in the room, and she was giving him it back while loosing her stays; and that when he was there and going to take them off she went and shut the door to in his face, and that he came back immediately after and struck her in the face with something and felled her. What I have stated was told me by Jessie during the time I sat with her. It was not told me all at once, but it is the substance of what she said. We did not speak on any other subject. She also asked me if she was badly cut, and I said she was, and she said when the doctor came in the morning she would need to tell some story or other how she got it. I asked the old man once, when he came into the room, how he had ever allowed himself to be provoked to strike the girl after his own doings with her. He did not give me a direct answer, but just said it couldna be helped now, although he was very sorry, but he would make everything right to Jess, and make up for it as Jess very well knew, and if I would never mention what I had seen, he would not forget it to me. I said it was a great pity I had anything to do with it, and that I did not know what to do, as I had left my child without anybody in charge of it. Jessie said the lodger would take care of him ; that I could go away before the doctor came, but that if she must tell about this in the morning, or when Mr. Fleming came home, she was afraid she would just have to tell who did it and why. This was before the old man, who said, " No, no, Jess, ye'll no need to do that " ; and he begged me never to say anything about this matter, and he would put everything to rights. I said I had no occasion to speak of it, and I promised never to mention it, and Jessie and he could take their own way. He would not rest content till I would swear it, and he went upstairs and brought down the big Bible with a black cover on it, and in presence of Jessie he made me swear on the Bible, by the Almighty God, that I would never tell to man, woman, or child anything I had seen or heard that night between him and Jess, and he said he would swear never to forget it to either her or me. He said that ho would make her comfortable all her life. After this he sat at the bedside. About three o'clock, I would suppose it was, Jessie told him to go away ben the house. He said he was very weel where he was. She told me she wanted to rise and make water, and she got up in bed. I told the old man to go away for a little, which he did, and I helped her out and assisted her. She said after she rose Q 225 Mrs. M'Lachlan. that she felt very stiff and cold, and if she could get ben to the fire. I put a blanket round her, and I called to the old man, and he and I took her ben to the kitchen. She walked ben, assisted by us, but I think she could have gone herself. She sat down at the kitchen fire on the fioor, on a small piece of carpet. The old man, at my bidding, went ben to the bedroom and brought ben the pillow and bedclothes ; and I put the pillow under her head, and the blankets on her, and tucked them in below her. Some time after that she fell asleep for a while, but wakened, and complained that she was too near the fire, and moved herself, with our help, without rising from the floor to her feet, away from the front of the fire, and turned herself, so that she lay with her feet in towards the fire and her head further from it, and between the table and the press, or in that direction. She lay in this position for a good while. The old man was sometimes about the kitchen where I remained, and sometimes going about the house. He was ben in the bed- room more than once. After lying there in the kitchen a con- siderable time, Jessie got restless and uneasy, and complained of feeling worse. I thought she was getting sick, and I brought her water. In a very short time (I would suppose at this time it would be between four and five) she got worse very rapidly, and she said to me to go for a doctor. With that I drew on my boots, and went into the bedroom, and threw on the French merino dress which was hanging there over my own, as it was all wet and draggled, and I put on my cloak and bonnet. As I came out of the bedroom the old man was coming down the stairs, and I said to him that Jessie was very ill and I was going for a doctor ; where would I got to ? He said he didna ken where any doctor lived near, but wait a minute till I see how she is. I knew there was a doctor in the neighbourhood, and, without waiting for him, because I thought he did not want a doctor, and I wished one brought at once, I went upstairs to the front door, but found it locked, and the key was not in it. I went down into the kitchen again, and he was leaning over Jessie wdth his hands on his knees, looking at her. I went forward and asked him for the key, and saw that Jessie had become far worse than when I left her. I thought she was dying. She appeared to be insensible, but not dead, as she was moving. It was the first time I thought she was going to die, and I said the girl was dying, and I insisted on him lettinff me out for a doctor. He said he would not. He ■would do it in his own time. I went upstairs agam and into the parlour, and opened the shutters, and put up the back window to see if I could see any one stirring about the back of No. 16, or the other houses, but saw no one. I was leaving the parlour to go into the dining-room to look out in front, when I heard a noise in the kitchen, and I turned down- Mrs. M'Lachlan's Statement. «tairs as fast as I could, and as I came in sight of the kitchen ■door I saw the old man striking her with something which I saw afterwards was the meat chopper. She was lying on the floor with her head oflE the pillow, a good piece along the floor, and he was striking her on the side of the head. When I saw him I skirled out, and ran forward to the door, crying to him, and then I got afraid when he looked up, and I went back up the lobby and part of the stair, where I could not go further, as I got very ill with fright and palpitation of the heart, to which I am subject. My fright was caused by hearing him coming out of the kitchen, and I thought he meant to murder me, and I stopped and leaned or held to the wall on the stair without the power of moving, and began to cry, " Help, help." He came to the stair-foot, and cried to me to come down, he was not going to meddle me. I saw he had not the cleaver in his hands as he came; and I cried out, " Oh, let me away, let me go; for the love of God, let me go away! " He said he would do me no harm. I said the girl's killed, and what was I going to do, and entreated him to let me away. He came up and took me by the cloak, and said " I kent frae the first she cou'dna live; and if any doctor had come in he would have to answer for her death, for she would have told." I was crying, and said, " Oh, what am I to do, out of my house all night, and Jessie killed? " He said, " Don't be feart, only if you tell you know about her death you will be taken in for it as well as I; come down, and it can never be found out." I went down to the kitchen in great agitation. I did not know what to do. I was terrified, because I was in the house and saw the body lying there, and myself connected with her death. He said, " My life's in your power, and yours is in my power," but if both of us would keep the secret it never could be found out who did it, and that if I would inform on him he would deny it, and charge that I did it. He said it was as much as our lives were worth if either of us would say a word about it. So he bade me help him, and to 'wash up the blood from the floor, but I said I could not do it if I should never move. He took the body by the oxters and dragged it ben into the laundry, and took the sheet and wiped up the blood with it off the floor. The sheet and the blankets he had thrown up off the floor on to the end of the table ; and when he took off the sheet to wipe up the blood I saw the chopper all covered with blood lying beneath it, or else it rolled out of it on to the table. I beseeched and begged of him to let me go away, and I would swear never to reveal what I had seen, in case of being taken up for it myself as well as him. He said that the best way would be for him to say that he found the house robbed in the morning, and to leave the larder window open. He brought the dresses from Jessie's room into the kitchen, and said that if 227 Mrs. M'Lachlan. I would take them away, and buy a box, and take them by some railway out of the way to some place, or to send the box to some addx-ess by the railway to lie till called for, that it never could be found out what had become of the clothes. He said I knew very well that he liked Jess, but he was sure from the first that she was not able to recover from what he had done to her at first; and when I asked him what tempted him ever to strike her, he said I knew Jess had a most provoking tongue, and that she had been casting up things to him, and he was mad at her ; that he had no power of speaking whiles when she was at him, and that he had just struck her in a passion ; and that even on the Sunday night before he had been just on the brink of doing the same thing to her. He " dichted " up the floor and the lobby with a clout, and took ben the blankets and the sheet, and the' hacking knife, and the bit carpet into the bedroom. He came back and burned some things, I don't know what — clothes of the girl's. He got some water at the sink in a tin basin and washed him- self. He had taken off his coat, and was in his shirt sleeves since after the time he killed the girl. His shirt was all blood when he took it off to wash himself, so he put it into the fire. He put on a clean one off the screen, and "went ben to his own room and changed his trousers and vest, I think. He went down to the cellar for coals, brought them up, and put them on the fire. The bell rang; lie bade me open, but I said, *' No, I'll not go to the door; go you." It w^as the milkboy. The old man took no jug up with him. He was in his shirt sleeves when he went up, but in a coat when he came down again. He brought no milk with him. After that he brought the plate, and said I had better take this too, and take and pawn it in Lundie's pawn, in the name of Mary M'Donald or M'Kay, No. 5 St. Vincent Street, and nobody could trace it. He afterwards said I had better not pawn it, but put it away in some place with the dresses. He told me that I would get a tin box in any ironmongers for 5s., and to take the things through to Edinburgh, where I was not known, and find some water where they could be sunk and never heard of. He took out his purse and gave me £1 7s. I con- sented to take the things, and promised never to breathe a syllable of what had passed. He said if I did it would be my life as well as his, and that he would set me up in a shop, and never see me want. I went out from the house after eight o'clock, it might be half-past eight, taking the things in a bundle. He opened the back door for me, and came down and opened the lane door with the key. I went along the lane westward, and home down by Kelvingrove Street, along the Broomielaw, where I met the people coming from their ■work, and I went up Washington Street to avoid them, and 228 The Sentence. down James Watt Street again, and in by the back court into my own close by the court door, and up the stair, where Campbell let me in. I never had any quarrel with Jessie. On every occasion we were most affectionate and friendly. I was not pressed for money. I paid my rent on Saturday, 4th July, before I pawned the plate. I paid £4.1 Jbssib M'Lachlaji. [While Mr Clark was reading the above paper, which occupied about forty minutes, the utmost stillness prevailef us, one older and four younger than me. My mother and the four Mary Brown younger were in the house that morning when I left. Leaving Canal Street at twenty minutes past eight, I would be in Sandyford Place at a quarter to nine. I generally walk pretty quick ; I walked pretty quick that morning, for I had some work to do afterwards. I went straight to Sandyford Place, and it would not be later than a quarter to nine when I got there. I did not see anything unusual about the house. I am quite sure that this was upon the Saturday before old Mr. Fleming was taken up. I heard of the murder on the Tuesday, and on Wednesday I told this to my mother. My mother told me to hold my tongue, and not be blethering about things I had no right with. When she said that, I was telling it to the woman next door, who was in seeing my mother. I did not know Jessie M'Lachlan ; I do not remember meeting any woman carrying a bundle on my way to Sandyford Place on the Saturday morning. I am quite sure I was in Fleming's house before nine that morning, not later than a quarter to nine, and not earlier, but just at a quarter to nine. When I left there I went to ]Mrs. Napier's, a lady I used to work to in Elderslie Street. She is still there, and able to go about. She is a widow. I washed down her stair. When I left Mrs. Napier's I went straight home ; when I got home it was not more than half-past one. I had gone messages for Mrs. Napier. I forget the name of the woman next door, to whom I was telling this when my mother told me not to be blethering about it. She lives next door still. My mother is lying in a decline ; she has not been out of the house for the last two years. By Mr. Gemmel — The first person that I told this to after the trial was a girl named Bella Beveridge ; she told it to a policeman, and the policem.an told it to Captain Robb. I was taken to Captain Robb. I did not tell him that I had been washing down the sunk flat. I did not say that I had got water from a water-closet; I said it was a closet. He asked if it was a water-closet, and I said I could not be certain. He asked if I heard the water drawn, and I said no. {Before the Sheriff, 1 October 1862.) Colin Campbell, aged 22, a Witness examined at the Trial, says — c. Campbell I am a night constable in the western district of the Glasgow police. I have been in the Glasgow police force since 10th December last, and since about the 20th June my beat has been Sandyford Place and neighbourhood. In the summer when families go to the coast they report the fact at the police office, and their houses are put under charge of the constable on the beat. In the beginning of July last, No. 18 Sandyford Place was so circumstanced. Between half- past eight and a quarter to nine o'clock on the night of Saturday, 5th July, I was standing at the door of 18 Sandyford Place, with the handle of the door in my hand, trying it if secure, and at that time the door, No. 17, opened, and two women came out. I saw no 271 Mrs. M'Lachlan. C. Campbell man. One of the women pulled to the door, but did not shut it. They stood on the door step speaking, but I did not hear anything they said — not a word ; they were speaking low. They so spoke for about five minutes, and one of them went back to the house and shut the door, and the other went eastwards, along Sauchiehall Street. I followed the latter as far as the corner of Elderslie Street, where my beat stops ; she continued eastwards along Sauchiehall Street, and I paid no more attention to her, and can't say where she went. I do not know either of these women. I am sure Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan is not one of them. I did not know the deceased Jessie M'Pherson. The woman that went along Sauchie- hall Street was a low-set, stout woman, red, fat face, white straw bonnet with blue ribbons, dark grey cloak. I can't describe the gown, and she would be about twenty or twenty-two years of age, and had a decent, servant-like appearance, and seemed quite sober. The other woman had a white mutch on — no bonnet, a light-coloured gown, white apron, not very tall — a little taller than her companion ; thin, dark hair, about twenty-nine years of age, and also sober. I saw no more of these women. I was often back to 18 that night, but saw no person at No. 17, and everything seemed quiet within. I went off duty at six on the following morning. I heard of the murder about eight o'clock on the following Monday night, before going on duty, and I was taken before detectives and asked if I heard any noise about 17 Sandyford Place during the night of Friday or morning of Saturday. I had heard no noise, and had seen no person go in or come out of that house that night or morn- ing, and I said so. I did not at that time remember the circum- stance of the two women. I remembered it, however, between nine and ten that Monday night, when examining door No. 18, and I told Captain M'Call about it about eleven o'clock. I am able to fix Saturday as above, because I wrote a letter about five o'clock that afternoon in my lodgings, to my father, Donald Campbell, ploughman to a farmer, whose name I forget. I mind now, it is John M'Kenzie, at Keppoch, near Oban. After writing that letter I put it in my pocket to post when I should go on duty, and when at the corner of Elderslie Street, as before mentioned, I happened to put my hand in my pocket, and I found I had not posted my letter, and I turned and posted it at the Receiving House at Sandy- ford Toll, which is a short way beyond my beat. My beat ends at Kelvingrove Street, and Kelvingrove Street runs into Dumbarton Road, near Sandyford Toll. I wrote the letter on the kitchen table in my lodgings, and my landlady, Mrs. M'Kay, was going back and forwards all the time. A young man, Allan IM'Lean, was in my company previous to my going to examine No. 18. He stood on the pavement outside the railings, in front of No. 17, while I was at 18. I saw him standing there. He was not looking in my direction ; his back was to the rail- ings. I joined him, after my examination of 18 ; he accompanied me to the corner of Elderslie Street, and, I think, he waited about Sandyford Place till I posted the letter. I joined 272 Appendix III. him, after posting the letter, either in front of Sandyford Place c. Campbell or of Fitzroy Place, which is a continuation of Sandyford Place, and he walked with me round my beat till about ten o'clock, when we parted at Kelvingrove Street, he going in the direction of Kelvinhaugh, where he lives, and I did not see him again that night. I told him before posting my letter that I was going to do so, but I don't think I showed it to him, although I may have done so. There was a postage stamp on my letter when in my pocket ; I put it on in my lodgings. I did not know on said night that No. 17 was occupied by Mr. Fleming, and I did not know any of the Flemings. I have not written to my father about posting said letter. I belong to Argyllshire. I don't know Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan, or her friends. I never saw the former till I saw her during the trial. I am not aware of ever having seen either of said two women before said Saturday night. It was detectives Donald Campbell and Jeffrey that asked me on the Monday night if I heard any noise or saw any person about No. 17, on the Friday night or Saturday morning. On said Monday night, and, I think, after I told Captain M'CaU, as above, detective Audley Thomson asked me, iu front of Sandyford Place, if I saw any person or heard any noise on Friday night or Saturday morning ; and I said to him that I saw the above two women, but was not sure whether it was on the Friday night or the Saturday night that I saw them. In reality, I was not perfectly sure at that tim.e. It was about the following Wednesday when I became quite sure it was on the Saturday night, when I told Audley Thomson as above. I had no recollection of the posting of the letter. On the Tuesday morning I asked my landlady if she minded when I wrote last, and she said, as far a« she recollected, it was on the Saturday evening. This made me almost perfectly sure that I wrote the letter on Saturday ; but, before saying anything about it, I wanted to make inquiry and become positive, and on said Tuesday night I met the said Allan M'Lean in the police office, as I think, and I asked if he recol- lected whether it was Friday night or Saturday night he was up seeing me Icist; and he said it was Saturday night. I told him I was sure in my own mind it was Saturday, but wanted his opinion also. I am quite sure now it was the Saturday night. (Before Mr. Young.) I am night policeman in Sandyford Place. I know the lane door of Mr. Fleming's house. That door is always kept locked at night. I never saw it open. I try all the doors every night when I go on duty. I was on duty in Sandyford Place on the night of 4th July. My beat is a pretty extensive one. Sandyford Place and lane and the piece of vacant ground there will be about a third of my beat. I think the highest number of the houses in Sandyford Place is 26, but I am not quite sure. Immediately beyond the greens, behind the houses in Sandyford Place, there is a considerable tract of vacant T 273 Mrs. M'Lachlan. C. Campbell ground forward the whole way to Kent Road. I went on duty at eight o'clock at night, and left my beat at six in the morning. I have no stated hours or number of times for being in Sandyford Place. I do not take a regular round, but just go up and down any way I choose. Some nights I may be oftener and some seldomer at a par- ticular part of the beat. On Friday night, 4th July, I mind of being in Elderslie Street at between twenty and twenty-five minutes to eleven o'clock, and I passed down the back of Sandyford Place, between the wall of the greens and the vacant ground. I just walked slowly along the lane. I saw nothing, and heard nothing to attract my attention. I cannot say when I was there again, but I would be there within three-quarters of an hour or an hour after that. How often would you be along that lane in the course of the night? — I am " gey en " often there, because that vacant ground is very bother- some with women (prostitutes) going about it. All the spare time I have I am to be in that vacant ground between the lane and Kent Road, and round the streets at the back there. There is a street going down in the centre of the vacant ground, and there is a paling on both sides of that street; but there is none between the rest of the vacant ground and the lane ; that ground is a great resort of prostitutes. I would be taking a turn round the front of Sandyford Place every three-quarters of an hour or thereabouts ; sometimes oftener, and sometimes not so often as once an hour. I might be taken away once or twice to the police office during the night; I don't remember being at the police office on that Friday night ; but I might have been. I don't keep a record of going to the office with a drunk man or a prostitute ; I keep a note of anything serious occur- ring. In the course of that night, I have no recollection of having seen or heard anything extraordinary about Sandyford Place, either behind or in front. A light in an area window, or shining through the Venetian blinds of a dining-room at eleven, or at any hour of the night, would not be anything extraordinary, and would not have attracted my attention. In many of the houses thereabouts the gas is not put out all night. I wrote a fortnight ago to my father about the letter which I posted, but I have not got any answer; I am quite confident that it was on the Saturday night that I saw the women at 17 Sandyford Place ; I do not know any way of ascertaining who they could have been ; I saw them come out of the house and stand on the door step for about five minutes ; then they said good-bye, and the one came east along Sauchiehall Street, and the other went into the house and shut the door. It seemed to me like a servant girl showing a woman out. I had a " grip " of the handle of No. 18, examining the door ; they opened the door of No. 17, and when they saw me at No. 18 they stood for a minute ; then they began speaking, but I could not hear what they said. I went down, and was speaking to a "chap" outside the railings when they parted; the one that came along Sauchiehall Street was a very young girl, low set, and " geyen " stout made; the other was a taller girl, and " geyen " rather slender, and older ; the one that went along Sauchiehall Street had a bonnet on ; the other had no bonnet, but a white mutch, 274 Appendix III. ■with long white ties over her shoulders, a light gown, and a white c. Campbell apron. It would be about half-past eight, or twenty minutes to nine when I saw them; it was broad daylight. The woman who went along Sauchiehall Street had an umbrella in her hand ; I did not notice that she was carrying anything else. I heard of the murder on the Monday night. I am quite sure that it was not on the Friday night, or the Monday night that I saw the women ; it was on the Saturday. I did not know that the family in No. 17 were at the coast. There was nothing remarkable in seeing the women there, and it was only the circumstance of the murder occurring there which led me to think of it. It was on the Monday night, after I went to my beat, that I minded that the two came out on the Saturday night. I do not know Mrs. M'Lachlan; I never saw her till I saw her in the Circuit Court; I never heard of her before she was apprehended for the murder. By Mr. Gemmel — I cannot say how often I was at No. 18 Sandy- ford Place on the night in question. We have no regular hour for visiting shut-up houses, otherwise thieves would soon know it. Our instructions are quite general, to try the doors of these houses. {Before Mr. Young.) Alexander Cameron, examined. A. Camepon By Mr. Dixon — I am a day policeman in Sandyford Place. I know the lane door of No. 17 perfectly. I never saw that door open during the day unless some one was going out or in ; there is no knocker or bell on it. I was on that beat last June and July. I have seen the servant going out and in at that door several times ; I was in myself about a month before the murder. Some boys had broken a pane of glass in the washing-house, and they went over the wall for the ball. I knew that the door was always kept locked. It is our duty, if we see any of these doors insecure, to warn the parties to keep them locked. I was on duty there on Saturday, 5th July ; I went on duty at eight o'clock a.m. You know the road that a woman would naturally take who wanted to go the shortest and the quietest way from 17 Sandyford Place to the prisoner's house at the Broomielaw ; were you upon that route early that morning? — I was not at Sandyford Place that morning till after nine o'clock. It was my turn to stand at the head of North Street from eight till half-past nine o'clock, the time my neighbour was at his breakfast. The night watchmen go off duty at six o'clock. and one-half of the day force comes on month about at six, and they take two beats from six to eight, when the other half come out ; and those who came out at six go home to breakfast. Between eight and nine o'clock that morning I was the only policeman on that beat, and my station was at the head of North Street, at Charing Cross, whfre I remained till nine o'clock. Between eight and nine there was Tio policeman to see anybody leaving 17 Sandyford Place, either 275 Mrs. M'Lachlan. A, Cameron behind or in front, unless any of those who changed at eight o'clock were passing down that way to breakfast. There could be no more favourable hour for leaving the house unobserved by the police than between eight and nine in the morning, owing to that beat being one of the double beats. R. Jeffrey Robert Jeffret, Detective in Western Police Force, Glasgow (a Witness examined at the Trial). By Mr. Dixon — Will you describe the state of the bed in the room where the body was found? Was there much blood on the mattress? — Yes, a good deal, about half the breadth of the crown of my hat, on the edge of the bed ; and there was a piece more over where the bolsters had been lying ; it was like where a person's shoulder would lie, a small bit down from the pillow. That was all the blood upon the mattress ? — Yes ; only the front, so far as I saw. I found the sheet ; it was not on the bed ; it was rolled up on a shelf under the basin-stand, the blood all concealed in the inside of it, and only the white part of it seen. What was the state of it as regards blood? — It was all besmeared with blood from one end to another. Saturated with blood? — Yes. It was very bloody; but some of it was white, and it was so placed that the white was exhibited under the basin-stand. There had been blood on the blankets, but they had been washed. Do you think the sheet could have got so much blood on it while it was in the bed, looking at the state of the bed? — I did not spread out the sheet exactly to see it all. By Mr. Yotjng — I went to the house first at half-past five or twenty minutes to six on the Monday evening after the murder. Campbell, the detective, and I were the first policemen on the spot. I went downstairs with Dr. Watson and Mr. Fleming. Police constable Alex- ander Cameron was in the 'house when I went in. Campbell and I, and also Cameron, remained in the house for about two hours, search- ing for things with blood on them, and making observations. Then we removed what we had got to the police office, leaving Cameron in the house. Campbell and I were instantly satisfied that there had been a murder, and we thought on what would be the most probable occasion for the murder, whether it wa^ for plunder; and on looking into the servant's chest we saw some articles like neckties and wrappers, and things of that kind, and either I suggested to Campbell or Camp- bell suggested to me, that she must have had better clothes, and w& supposed there was something away, but we could not tell till Mr. Fleming told us. The chest was open, the lid down, but not fastened ; the lock appeared to have been broken prior to that time. My impression was that it was a chest which would not lock. It con- tained trimmings and bits of gowns and ribbons, all smeared with blood here and there, as if some bloody hand had been working among them. We took away the principal part of these things. 276 Appendix III. Did it not occur to you to ask if any of the plate in the house wafl R. Jeffrey missing ?— Mr. Fleming said he did not know. Did he say that in answer to a question by you? — In searching for this stuff we took no thought of silvei-plate being away till Mr. M'CaU came up, the second time we went up on the back of nine o'clock. Mr. M'Call then made full inquiry of Mr. Fleming. I asked Mr. John Fleming, senior, if there was anything amissing, and he said he could not tell. That was a good while after we went. There was a Mr. Clirystal there at the time, and another taU gentleman. Where did you ask him that? — I think it was in the back parlour. He showed us some silverplate lying in the sideboard in the dining- room. At that time? — I am not sure whether it was that night or next day. We were searching for the silverplate, to see if there was any missing, and I think Mr. Fleming said he could not say rightly till he saw how much was down the water, as he had the two houses. Did he tell you that any was amissing? — I think that night he said there was some silverplate missing that he had been using prior to going down the water on the Friday. I think it v/as to Mr. M'CaU that he said that. When he showed you into the sideboard, did he show you a silver t«a-set that had been left there? — Yes, there was a good deal of valu- able stuff lying there. I did not take it out to see, but there was a great deal of silverplate there. He just opened the door and said, " They might have gotten away that if they had been wanting plunder." I think that was on the Monday night. He just opened the wing of the sideboard. This was after he had told us that the spoons which were in use in the house had been taken away. Was there anything to account for a thief taking the spoons and leaving the other silver which you saw? — That was the mystery that we could not see to the bottom of ; I have not seen to the bottom of it yet. Was it the subject of conversation among you in the house that night ? — Yes. Who all joined in it? — Campbell and I, John Fleming, senior, and John Fleming, junior ; Mr. Chrystal spoke to us about it, and another tail, grey-whiskered gentleman. We also spoke about it to Dr. Fleming. The conclusion that Campbell and I came to was that an old thief, a regular thief, would have taken away more than was taken. One not practised in thieving might leave something behind. Did you not tell about that other plate to the Sheriff when you v/ere precognosced by him? — No, I never was asked. The Fiscal was there himself, and the Sheriff was there, and I suppose they saw it. But the fact is, you did not communicate it to the Sheriff or the Procurator-fiscal? — No. The superintendent of the criminal depart- ment was also there. Did you see any other portable articles of value about the house which you would have expected a thief to take? — There was the frame of a cruet stand below the table in the bedroom where the body was found. I think it was a plated article. Leaving a plated article 277 Mrs. M'Lachlan. R. Jeffrey behind is like an old thief, or a person who knew the value of it. I eaw the cloths and the stuff for cleaning silver in a drawer in the kitchen. I supposed the frame of the cruet stand had been cleaned in the kitchen and carried ben to the bedroom. It seemed to have been recently cleaned ; it was very pure. It was on a small bit of carpet, under the table in the bedroom. Did you make any inquii'ies that night as to when the spoons had been missed ? — They were not missed till we asked about them ; they had left them when they took their meals on the Friday. IVIr. Fleming did not look to see if anything was missing till we asked him to do it. We looked round, and all we found in the house was one small silver teaspoon in the kitchen ; there were two pewter spoons on the table in the kitchen, I think. The silver teaspoon was on the shelf, in a teacup or saucer. We did not observe it till next day. I think the two pewter spoons were ordinary kitchen tablespoons. They were washed, but not rubbed up ; they had been cleaned since they were used ; they were on the dresser. Had they the appearance of being put away, to be ready for use, or were they just thrown down? — Just thrown down, apparently. I think they were lying very far back. There was a teapot in the kitchen ; old Mr. Fleming made tea in it at the kitchen fire when I was there ; there was a good number of knives and forks in the kitchen. S. Adams Sarah Adams (a Witness examined at the Trial). By Mr. Dixon — I was with Mrs. M'Laclilan for two years and ten months. I was in the habit of pawning a good many articles for her. Everything was pawned in the name of Frazer. My mother or I always went to the pawn. Mrs. IM'Lachlan had sailors, who boarded with her when they came home from a voyage. They pretty often went away without paying her, and left clothes and other articles with her. Alick Kennedy, her cousin, left things behind ; and George Monro and John Frazer. They left the things with her to keep them till they came back; not to pawn. They were left as a kind of pledge for what they had been unable to pay. She raised money on them by pawning them. She did not give them the pawn tickets. She lifted the articles before they came home. She had some things which belonged to her brother. He never knew that his things went to the pawn. He was in debt to her. She was ill for a long time while I was with her. She was very delicate. The doctor was pretty constant in his attendance. She required a person to come about the house to assist her. When her fiister Anne was not there she had m,y mother always to assist her. The doctor was often attending her. She was very weak — not able to be out of her bed sometimes. She was in very poor health most of the time I was there. She got medicine pretty often from the doctor. She never spoke to me of the expense of the doctor. When the doctor ordered medicine she sent me for it, and I got it from the doctor 278 Appendix III. and paid for it. She gave me the money. She sometimes pawned S. Adams things to get money to pay for her medicine. Her bad health kept her very poor. I left her five or six weeks before she was appre- hended. She was not confined to bed shortly before I left. A while before I left she was three days in bed. She was not very strong when I left. At her best she was in feeble health. The doctor always came to her when she was ill — not when she kept her bed for a day or half a day, but when she was very iU. She was frequently BO ill as to keep her bed for a day without the doctor being sent for. I could not say how long before I left the doctor was there last, but I mind of him being there. It was Dr. Buchanan, at the head of Oswald Street. Wajs she a good-tempered woman? — Yes. Was she kind to you? — Yes; she never struck me; but she has " fly ted " on me; she " fly ted " on me more than anybody else in the house. When I went a message, and did not get back quick, I used to get a " fly ting." But she was not a cross, ill-natured woman, was she? — No; some- times she was. But she never lifted her hand? — No, not to me. I cannot say she was very good-tempered. Mart Black or Adams (a Witness examined at the Trial). M. Adams By Mr. Strachan — I attended on Mrs. M'Lachlan when she was confuaed to bed, when her sister was not there. She paid me 7s. a week, and sometimes more, as her income afforded it. Sometimes I have got 8s. a week. I attended her night and day several times for a week and a fortnight at a time. I never attended her at the Broomielaw. Her sister was with her part of the time that she lived at the Broomielaw. Was she a bad-tempered woman? — She had no reason to try her temper with me. I was in the habit of doing all her washing for her. She was not able to do that. She might be able to wash a few things for herself, but not a day's washing. I have got Is. a day, and sometimes Is. 6d. a day from her. I never was a night with her while she was in the Broomielaw, but I have done washing and cleaning for her during the day. She was a wealdy woman, and had often trouble. She complained to me often while in Elliot Street and Stobcross Street of the expense of the doctor and medicine. She was not extravagant in any other thing, unless she might be in dress, but not for a time back. In living she was very moderate. She was a very temperate woman. She did not drink, unless by the doctor's orders. She would take one glass of spirits, but she would take no more. She could not have lived more economically than she did. She had sometimes sailors boarding with her — two or three at a time, and I have heard her say that they had gone away without paying her. She has been compelled to pawn the clothes which they had left with her. 1 very often pawned them for her when the little girl was not at home, but it was generally the little girl. When I 279 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. Adams did so I knew her necessities. She has had to pawn them different times in order to pay me. They were never pawned to raise money for intemperance or extravagance, but to pay for medicine, or the doctor, or me, or for what the house needed. Her income was not very great. I did not live near her at the Broomielaw. I lived at Holm Street. I never saw old Mr. Fleming in my life till I saw him in the County Buildings. I have heard Mrs. M'Lachlan occasionally speak of having been a servant in his family. A. M'Intosh Anne M'Intosh (Sister of the prisoner), examined by I\Ir. Young. I am twenty-four years of age. My sister was twenty-six last July. I lived with her eight months in her house at the Broomielaw. She was in very bad health during that time. She never had been well since her child was born. I left her poorly in November last when I went to Edinburgh, and she lay at that time for six weeks. She has been always troubled with palpitation. She has been in bed for months before that. I could not lift her, and she had to sit up so that one side of the bed could be made at a time. Dr. Buchanan told me about a year ago that if I did not come and attend to her she would drop some day suddenly on the floor. During the eight months I lived with her I was always in the house. Old Mr. Fleming called twice on her at the Broomielaw in the eight months I was there. I went to Edinburgh to service on the 10th November last, and the eight months I was there were eight months immediately before that. On one occasion Jessie M'Pherson had been down, and invited Mr. and Mrs. M'Lachlan up. They went, and old Mr. Fleming was in the kitchen. They had some whisky and porter there, and my brother-in-law and my sister invited old Mr. Fleming down to tea on a Friday in August of last year. It would be about six o'clock when Mr. Fleming came. My brother-in-law was at home. My sister took him (Mr. F.) up to the parlour, and told me to get the tea there. He said Jessie could not come, and he had not time to wait, but they would come some other time. My sister gave him a dram, and he stayed about an hour at the window, speaking about a house his son had bought. He came again about a week before the Glasgow preachings in October. My sister was not in, and I took him into the kitchen. I said, " My sister is not in." He said, " Never mind, you are from the Highlands, and I just called in passing. Don't I look well? " he said. I said " Yes." Then he said, " Tell Jessie John is coming up with the family, and I cannot get out so often now, but I will give her a look in soon again." I let him out. I did not tell him to sit down, as my sister was not in. Jessie M'Pherson was not from Inverness. The first time I saw her was when my sister was a servant to Mr. Fleming. She was at my sister's house almost every second Sunday; and before she opened the shop she lived with my sister a month as a friend. It will be three years last May since she opened the shop. I was not living in the house at the time, but I was a servant in Glasgow at the time, and often saw her there. She got out every second Sunday, and she 280 Appendix III. would come through the week when she was out. I met her on the A. Mintosh 9th November last. I was going past Sandyford Place, and she called after me. I told her I was thinking of going to a situation, and she said I was foolish, as my sister was not strong. I asked why she did not come down last Sabbath, and she said the old man had got up in a rage when she was coming out, and told her if she was to go out she must go in the forenoon, and not in the afternoon. She said, " The old devil ! — my heart is near broken with him." She told me that before he would let her out to the greengrocer's for a stock of cabbage he went himself, and she pointed to the shop where he bought the cabbage, at the corner of the street. That was last November. I have seen old Mr. Fleming six times in my sister's house. Some- times he used to sit more than an hour, and sometimes two hours. I have seen him three times in one week. He came the first time to get me to go as housemaid to his son, but I would not go. Mrs. Matheson, the washerwoman, saw him there. He came on a Sunday evening with Jessie M-Pberson, and got tea and a dram. My oldest sister was here from Inverness at the time, and waited in that night at tea. Her name is Mrs. Jack. She is alive. She put that in the papers when my sister was first apprehended. Her husband is a sea captain. Sarah Adams also saw Mr. Fleming in my sister's house. Saeah Adams (recalled), examined by Mr. Young. S. Adams I saw old Mr. Fleming at Mrs. M'Lachlan's once, shortly after she went to the house at the Broomielaw. It is full two years since she went there ; it was in the forenoon that I saw him there. I could not say what time of the year it was. He came in, and asked if they were all well. She asked him if he would have any drink, and he said no ; he had not time to wait. She did not give him anything, and he did not sit down. He just came between the out- side door and the kitchen door. I heard all that was said. I had the baby in my arms. The old man did not speak to it. He asked if they were all well; and she said, " Yes, pretty well." She asked if he would go ben to the big room ; he said, " No, he had no time, for the boat was going away, and he was going with it." He then went away. Mrs. M'Lachlan called him " grandpa " ; they seemed c[uite intimate and friendly, like familiar acquaintances. When he went out she said, " That is grandpa." I said, " Who is grandpa? " and she said, " Old Mr. Fleming." When he came in first she said to him, " Here is a fine day, grandpa." She said nothing about seeing him again when he came back. The conversation took place in the lobby ; she was at the kitchen door, and he was in the lobby. I was over at the kitchen table, taking care of the child ; I did not notice whether they shook hands or not. By Mr. Gemmel — That was the only occasion, during all the time that I was in ]\Irs. M'Lachlan's service, that I saw the old man. By Mr. Young — She was in the habit of going to his house to see Jessie. I understood that from herself ; she went just any day that she liked, generally at night. She went sometimes when the family 281 Mrs. M'Lachlan. S. Adams were at the coast, and occasionally when they were in their beds. Her common time of going was nine o'clock and half-past nine ; I never knew her go later than half-past nine. She generally returned about a quarter-past ten, sometimes a quarter to eleven, but never after eleven. It was from herself I heard that she had been there. Her going there was very common ; I understood it was just to see Jessie ; they were great friends. Jessie came often to her house j she was there every Sabbath that it was her day out, and stayed a good part of the day ; she had dinner there, and tea before she went away, often. I was not in the house when she lived with Mrs. M'Lachlan. £. Halliday Elizabeth Hallidat. By Mr. Strachan — I was a servant in Mr. Fleming's house for eighteen months. I left two years ago. Jessie M'Pherson was also a servant there part of the time, for about four, or, at the most, six months. I went at Martinmas. She was there then, and she left shortly before the following Whitsunday on account of bad health. I heard at the time that she had gone to live with INIrs. ISI'Lachlan a month at any rate before the Whitsunday term. During the time I was a servant in Mr. Fleming's house, old Mr. Fleming went a good deal about the kitchen, especially when the family were not at home. They generally went down the water on the Fridays and came up on the Mondays. The old man generally remained in town. He was very inquisitive ; looking after the servants, asking what we were doing, and what we were going to do with whatever he would see us doing ; and if the door bell rang he would always inquire who was there. If any person came in, he would inquire who it was that had come in to see the servants. He would come down to see, or inquire afterwards who it was. He was mostly in the kitchen when the family were not at home. There was a rule for the servants that no followers were allowed, unless it was a particular friend. The family were in Sandyford Place when I was in their service. I could not state the name of the party who supplied the milk. I could not say if it was Paton. It was people who kept a very large dairy up about the canal somewhere. It was brought in a cart morning and afternoon. In the morning it generally came about half-past seven, or between that and eight o'clock. It was not regular. It was sometimes a little after eight. Commonly it came about twenty minutes or a quarter to eight. When it was before that it was early ; and when it was after that it was late. The old man generally got his porridge in the morning about eight o'clock, as soon as the milk came. They were generally ready by the time the mUk came, and they were taken up when it came. I have seen him take the porridge without milk when the mUk was late, and he had to go away early on a Monday morning, but not at any other time. He got the new milk which came in the morning. His porridge was taken to him in bed, unless he happened to be up. He generally rose about half- 282 Appendix III. past eight, or between that and nine, just after he got hia porridge. E. Halliday He did not get tea when he rose ; he went out after getting his porridge, and came back generally about mid-day and had lunch ; sometimes coffee. The porridge was all the breakfast he had. I have been alone with him in the house from Friday to Monday three or four times. On these occasions he generally took his meals in the kitchen, and then he just used the spoons that were downstairs — pewter spoons. He did not object to use them. He generally went to bed about nine o'clock, I think. When I had visitors in, he never spoke to them further than to see who they were. When I was alone he sat and chatted familiarly. Three weeks before Jessie M'Pherson left prior to Whitsunday three years ago, she was down the water, and I went down ; she and I slept together there. She spoke of the old man to me. She said he was a nasty body, or a dirty body. That was the only thing I ever heard her say of him. I thought that meant something that had happened that I did not hear or see. I thought it meant that ho had been behaving indecently to her. I did not ask what she meant, and she did not tell me. She did not say anything about his having done anything to her. She did not Bay that he came to her room or wanted to marry her. She was irritated at the tim.e she spoke of him ; she was a sort of angry at him. I could not say what irritated her. He was down at Dunoon at the time. He had been sitting in the kitchen, and she said he was always in the way, and that he was a nasty old body, or something like that. She passed the remark two or three times. I did not ask anything more about it. There is nothing that I am ashamed to tell ; I have nothing more to tell. Did she give you to understand that he had made any improper attempts upon her virtue? — Well, she did not say so. Did she give you to understand that? — Well, I thought that. What made you think that? — The way she spoke about it. Did she give you to understand that it was a recent occurrence? — Yes. At Dunoon, or Glasgow? — It would be at Dunoon; she lived at Dunoon ; and he was just down occasionally. There was nobody but herself down when I went; I cannot say if he had been living in the house alone with her shortly before ; sometimes he went down and stayed a day or two in the end of the week, when the rest of the family were not down, and when she was the only servant in the house. I don't think he had been down for a fortnight before that. I under- stood that she was referring to some occurrence that had taken place at Dunoon, when he and she were in the house alone together. 1 did not ask her more about it. Did you understand that he had come to bed to her? — No; I did not know. She could use pretty irritating language ; she was plainly disgusted with his attentions at these times. I know that she went back to service there. That surprised me after the way she spoke of the old man. I did not see her after she went back. I never saw the old man in a passion. I never saw anything happen to provoke him. He was not to say a strong man, 283 Mrs. M'Lachlan. E. Halliday but he was very active for his age. He could walk very quick. He « saw well. He used spectacles occasionally. I have seen him read with them on, and I have seen him just as often without them. I never saw him paying attentions to Jessie or to any other servant. I never saw him do anything improper. I never heard him vise indecent language. The CoMMissiONEE — It was not indecent language that you under- stood Jessie to be referring to, but impropriety of conduct towards herself? — Yes, I imderstood that. I know that all the winter the gar- dener lived at the house at Dunoon ; he got his meals in the hous«, but he slept about the stables outside. Mfs. M. ^Irs. IVIaet M'Pherson or M'Kinnon, residing in Greenock. M'Kinnon By Mr. Dixon — I am foster sister of Jessie M'Pherson. I was brought up along with her. I know Mrs. M'Lachlan too. They were always on good terms. I never heard a word between them. I saw Jessie four weeks before her death. On that occasion she spoke about old Mr. Fleming being so inquisitive that no person could call on her, and the door bell could not ring but he bood to know and see who it was. She said her heart was broken with him ; she styled him just an old " deevil," and said if she had that six months put in she would not put in another. She said that if her master was going down the water and telling her to get anything in, he would say, " Weel, Jess, what's that he's saying to you now? " and the like of that. She said she was perfectly tormented with him. She dis- liked the old man, but she gave no other reasons than his inquii-ing as to who came about the house. I understood from her that he had a custom of going a great deal about the kitchen. The last time I saw her she did not name that, but I knew it was his custom. From the first time she went to the house he was always about the kitchen. She did not like that, but she knew it was a custom of his, and being the master's father, she did not check him. Last time I saw her she said Mrs. M'Lachlan and her husband called one night on her, and not to give him satisfaction who it was, she took them into her own room; but he came in, and said, " ! Jessie, is this you? " And ehe said, " Yes, who did you think it was? " and he sat them out on that occasion. I knew that he was in the habit of going about the shop that Jessie had. I have met him there twice myself. I was going in one day as he was going out, and she said she did not know what that old wretch was trailing down there about. I looked upon it as friendship, but I did not get much of her mind. I was not much beside her. By Mr. Gemmel — Last time I saw her she said she hadna* spent her wages, and that she was going to buy a filled plaid. She asked when I was going home. I said, " On Saturday," and she said she would ask out on the Friday night to spend her wages, but it was so dreadful wet that she never came. I was to meet her in Mrs. Hamilton's fish shop. Her wages, I think, were £7 in the half-year, but I am not quite sure. 284 Appendix III. By Mr. Dixon — I believe she had incurred debts in connection with Mrs. M. the shop. She had trusted customers £75 in eleven months; the debts M'Kinnon were sold to a writer, who was to pay himself and the debts. She said he was to get £10 and to draw in the money. By Mr. Young — The servants' term is 15th May, and she might not get her wages for eight days or a fortnight, but she told me four weeks before the murder that she had her wages, and she gave my little girl half a sovereign, but that was not off her wages, for she had kept it for me about three months, and she had it rolled in a bit of paper very carefully. Her father is alive, and I think he lives about Stirling. He was pointed out to me ten years ago as her father. My mother nursed her ; she was about the house two or three years before I was born. She had no sister or half-sister, but she had a half-brother. I saw that old Mr. Fleming, in his evidence at the trial, said, " I thought she had got somebody in to stay with her. There was a woman she ca'd a sister o' hers. She bood to be in her room." I took that as meaning me. I did not know any other person that it could refer to. I never in my life stayed all night with Jessie at Sandyford Place. Jeannie Darnley, from Falkirk, did, but that was in summer, in May or some of these months. She waited eight days, and Miss Fleming and the whole of them saw her. The old man had no reason in the world to say that I ever stayed all night with her. She called me her sister ; and I am the only person she called her sister. I have sisters, but there have been none of them near her for years, and they never were in Sandyford Place. Jessie M'Pherson was a natural child, and my mother got her to nurse. It was Jessie that nursed me, and since I got married my house was her home. I was two or three times in Sandyford Place house. I have not seen old Mr. Fleming there since before she took up the shop. ,The last time she was in service there I did not see him, but the first time I did ; upon one occasion. I cannot say whether he knew that she called me her sister, but Miss Fleming and the whole of them knew it. My house in Greenock was her home, and she stayed a month with me when she came from England. Mr. Fleming knew that she came to see me one Sunday, for he said. " If you lose the boat at night, mind, Jess, there's nae train." He had no reason in the world to suppose that I was sleeping with her on the night she was murdered. It is very strange that he should say so. He knows that I am married, and live in Greenock. He had no reason at all to suppose that I was with her that night, and he never saw me there except once. James M'Lachlan, Husband of the prisoner. J. M'Laehten Examined by Mr. Young — I boarded myself on board the steamer in which I was employed. I provided my own board. It was sent me by my wife when she was in good health, and when she was not the money was given to me, and I ordered my own things, and they were sent down to the boat to me. I was allowed 10s. a week to provide my food ; I kept that for my own food, and I generally took 2s. for 285 Mrs. M'Lachlan. J. M'Lachlan pocket-money. My wife got the balance, viz., 18s. a week, out of which ehe had to keep up the house, and to pay all my clothes, and everything else. She was very delicate. Ever sinc« the birth of her child it has been only at intervals that she could do her own turn. For a long period after the child was born she could do nothing at all about the house. We often consulted about her sick- ness, and she said the doctors and medicine were very expensive. I paid several accounts for doctors myself off my wages before giving them to her. I had no saved money. I had the utmost confidence in her. I never saw anything to give me reason to doubt her. We were married about four years ago. She had a child scarcely a year after our marriage, and she has never had another. She lay for about three months after the birth of the child with inflammation in both breasts. I generally spent two days and three nights a week in my own house. The others I was at sea. That is giving an average, for I have seen us come in on a Friday and not sail before Tuesday ; and I have seen us come in one day and sail next morning. I went to sea on the Thursday before the murder, and did not return till after midnight of the Wednesday or Thursday following. I then went home. Mrs. M. Smith IMrs. Mary FtrLLEKTON or Smith (a Witness examined at the Trial). By Mr. Wilson — ^I knew Mrs. M'Lachlan perfectly well. I knew Jessie M'Pherson too. I was never a day out of her shop for a twelvemonth, and I saw Mrs. IM'Lachlan very often there. She was a sister to her almost, they were that intimate. They were very affectionate, and I have seen her give Mrs. IM'Lachlan things that she required to buy again immediately for herself. When my husband wanted her to summons Mrs. IM'Lachlan for money she was due her, she said never to heed, as she had been at great expense on account of illness, and that she would pay when she got better. I knew that she was very ill after the birth of her child. Jessie M'Pherson has told me that some of Mrs. M'Lachlan's seafaring lodgers went to sea without paying her; that was the reason why Jessie M'Pherson took pity on her, and would not summon her. My husband made up her books in the shop. I saw Jessie M'Pherson on 28th June, and she was to come to my house on 6th July. When I met her on 28th June I was with my husband. She was looking very ill ; I never saw her looking so melancholy. I said, " Jess, what's wrong? " She said, " I'm no' weel." I was angry at her for not coming to call on me. but she said, " You don't know how I am situated ; I have a miserable life of it." I had seen old Fleming twenty times in her shop, and wheji I asked her what he was doing there, she said she was tormented with him, and could not get quit of him ; that he made excuses to come down with newspapers to her to make up the sugar and tea, but that she could not be bothered with him. When I met her on 28th June she was going to the dyer's with a piece of silk, and when I asked what was wrong with her, she said, "I live a miserable life; he is just an old wretch and an old deevil." She said that with 286 Appendix III. emphasis before my husband. I said, " Tell me the right way of the Mrs. M. Smith story; what is it he has done to you? " She said, " I have some- thing to tell you, but I cannot tell you just now before your husband " ; she said she would come and tell me on the next Sabbath day, 6th July, but she was dead before then. I had not seen her for two years and two months, since she went to Gray Street. Jessie M'Pherson was a tall, wiry woman? — I saw her once put down a policeman in fun. He said, " I think I will have a kiss," and she said, " Try me, Sam," and I saw her put him down on the floor. She was gey strong when she could manage him. She was very strong. He was the policeman on that beat. She was a very stout-boned woman. Did she tell you, while in Gray Street, that old Fleming wanted to marry her? — I have heard her say that many a time, but we laughed ■at it. She was not serious, but we understood that he was serious. It was not a joke his wanting to marry her, but I made a joke of it that he was courting her. It did not surprise me when she told me that he wanted to marry her, because I had seen him so often there I thought his conduct in going about the shop was not unlike that ; she seemed to feel disgusted towards him ; that was her expression, both in the shop and when I met her that day. I thought there was something decidedly wrong, from the way she spoke that day, in such a serious kind of tone. I wanted to know what made her so miserable then by what she was before. She made the remark that she was well enough when the family were at home, and that her misery began when she was alone with him. She said he would allow nobody to come in or go out of the house, and that he could not bide to see her out of his sight. She said she had so much work that she would be glad of a hand from me. I could not say if she had ever anybody in at night to sleep with her. I understood she ^lept in the house alone. I never heard anything else. By Mr. Gemmel — I know that she had a child at one time ; she told me so; and she said her lad was in Australia. I could not say her age. She told me she was bom in the parish of Liberton, near Edinburgh. Mrs. Helen Vance or Mitchell, examined. Mrs. H. MitsheU By Mr. Gemmel — On the Monday after the murder old Mr. Fleming called on me for the rent I owed him ; I owed him £3. I had not exactly been put out of the house by him, but I had sub-let the house, and the people who had it were owing the money to me ; he said I could not get the house again. When he called on the Monday I said the people had not paid me; he said he would be up again that night or on Tuesday morning. This was before the murder had come out. He did not call till Wednesday, at half-past ten. On the Monday he was very raised like. After he had gone out I said, " Mr. Fleming is very raised like to-day, and has on his best clothes." He just walked into the house and stood with his hands stretched oat, and his hat raised a little from his forehead. 287 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mrs. H. He did not appear drunk ; there was nothing drunk-like about him. IHitchell gg (jjjj j^Q^ gjj^ down ; it was a hurried visit. He was not in his usual state ; he came in hurriedly and went away hurriedly. Was this raised appearance before or after you had told him you had no rent to give him? — It was just when he came in at the door. Was he worse or better when you said you had no rent to give him? — He said nothing but that he would come back that night or Tuesday morning. Mr. Young — Do you think it would ever have struck you at all that there was anything peculiar about him if you had not after- wards heard of the murder? — I thought he was very much agitated; I thought something must have occurred to agitate him. Mrs. E. Mrs. Elizabeth Nabnoni or Mabshall, wife of and residing with Marshall Richard Marshall, Bottler, 217 Elliot Street, examined. By Mr. Wilson — I was a neighbour of Mrs. M'Lachlan when she lived in Elliot Street. I was on friendly terms with her ; I nursed her child when she was confined to bed. When she was well, seldom a week passed without my seeing her. She was a very mild, gentle- tempered, and kind woman ; she was delicate. I never saw any signs of thriftlessness or dissipation about her ; she was not given to drink. It must have been her bad health that threw her behind in the world. I have been in her house in the Broomielaw three or four times ; she was in bad health there, and in Stobcross Street, too, I believe, and I went occasionally to see how she was. She had some seafaring lodgers in her house at the Broomielaw ; she told me about tv/o of them who were due her money ; that was before last May. Mrs. E. ^''fj^- Emily Gumming or Clotwohthy, wife of Thomas Clotworthy, Clotworthy 182 Broomielaw, examined. By Mr. Wilson — I have lived for eighteen months in the same land as Mrs. M'Lachlan, in the Broomielaw ; she and I were in the habit of speaking on the stair as neighbours. I considered her an exceedingly quiet, gentle woman, and very delicate. As far as I could see, she was a woman of very orderly habits ; my children and she had more acquaintance than I had with her. It was her speaking to my children that drew me towards her; she spoke kindly to them. Passing up or down, I would ask her servant how her health was. I thought she was in a decline ; that was what made me feel so much for her. I heard that she kept seafaring lodgers. I did not know that from hearing any noise in her house, but my children told me that she kept lodgers ; she was kind to the children. On one occasion they had got on a swing, and she said to them not to do it, and to tell me that I should not allow them to do it. I had had a severe iUness, and so retiring was she that she did not come herself, but sent the servant to inquire for me. One day a melancholy accident happened to on,e of my children from falling into a sawpit, and all the neigh- Appendix III. bours flocked into my house, except her, but she sent up to inquire Mrs. E. constantly. She was evidently a woman who took a kindly interest Clotwopthy in children. She seemed a feeling, kind woman, and she was par- ticularly quiet, contrasting favourably with the other neighbours, for they were anything but quiet. I did not associate with them at all ; I saw less of her during the last twelve months, when I took ill, but I met her frequently on the stair. My husband is a mattress manufacturer. I formed an extremely favourable opinion of Mrs. M'Lachlan. Daniel Paton, Clothes Dealer, 92 Bridgegate. D. Paton Mr. Young — Did you buy a brown coat from old Mr. Fleming? — Not a browa coat; it was more of a grey. I bought it a fortnight before I heard of the murder; the Saturday fortnight. I have bought different coats from him, but none since. I bought a pair of trousers from him at the same time. Have you bought anything from him since? — No; I never saw him from the Monday that we heard of the murder. He was round that day lifting his rents. It was the Saturday fortnight before that that I last bought a coat from him. Mr. Wilson — Was that coat brown? — It was grey, but it might be brownish. It was more of a grey. There might be brown spots on it? — The coat might change from age or the weather. From the size of the coat and tix>users, could you judge whether they were old Mr. Fleming's or his son's? — I suspected the clothes to be John's ; not the old man's. Tliey were too large for the old man. I have bought things from him different times that were not his own. He was in the habit of selling his son's clothes. [Witness's former precognition read, see p. 310.] By Mr. Gemmel — I saw him on Monday, 7th July, collecting rents. On that day he was wearing a black coat — a darkish coat. I cannot say if it was the black coat that he usually went about with. Mr. Young — Did you remark it to be a new coat? — I saw nothing particular about the coat. By Mr. Gemmel — If he had had on a new coat I think I would have noticed it. I saw nothing unusual about his manner. I saw nothing raised about him. By Mr. Young — He sold me a brownish-coloured coat, a kind of top coat; it might be two years ago, or a good while ago, at any rate. [That portion of old Mr. Fleming's evidence, as to brown coat sold to witness read (see p. 36 of Report of Trial).] It would be a long time before that he sold me a brown coat. I mind of buying one from him, but it will be two or three years ago. It was a morning coat, with side pockets. The last coat he was wearing was a big, heavy, blue beaver coat, with pockets in it. That was the coat he was wearing about the time of the murder ; it was made longer than a shooting jacket, and had big pockets at the sides. I D 289 Mrs. M'Lachlan. D. Paton am quite sure it was blue. I remarked that it was a good coat. I might see it on a week or bo before the murder. I could not say he had it on upon the Monday after the murder ; but he wore it about that time, and sometimes he wore a black, long-tailed dress on other days. I could not say what kind of waistcoat he wore ; his trousers were sometimes a kind of steel-grey and at other times black. By Mr. Wilson — Old Mr. Fleming's statement about the brown coat is not true; I said it was not true when I read it, immediately after the trial. By Mr. Young — I am very sore he was not wearing a brown coat about the time that the murder was committed. E. Mitchell Elizabeth Mitchell, living with her mother at 10 Albion Street, and between 17 and 18 years old, examined. By ilr. Wilson — On the ^Monday after the murder I was at home with my mother ; between ten and eleven o'clock in the forenoon old Mr. Fleming called for payment of bygone rent. Did his appearance at the time excite any remark? — Yes, he seemed very anxious to get it; he had on his good black clothes, not the clothes he wore for ordinary ; his usual clothes were black, but very brown with the wear. After he went away my mother remarked to me that he had his best clothes on, and she wondered what would be up. I said I did not know j she said nothing about his raised state ; she just said that perhaps there would be something wrong. He was very agitated, looking very flushed, more flushed than he was for ordinary, and his eyes were staring ; they were fixed, not restless ; he never sat down, but stood with his back to the dresser, quite agitated-like ; my mother did not excite him by any remark ehe made. By Mr. Gemmel — He has sometimes a staring eye, but not so much as he had that day. My mother was put out of the house which she had taken by the old man, at last term ; she was not living in the house ; she had sub-let it, but as she could not pay the rent he said ehe could not be longer tenant ; my mother did not want to give it up, but he refused to let her stay. By Mr. Wilson — There was no bad feeling between my mother and him. By Mr. Gemmel — He usually wore a black coat, very brown with the wear; a long-tailed coat; it was glazed and greasy-looking about the sleeves. {Before the Sheriff, 30 September 1862.) A. Dykes Agnes Dykes, aged 35, eays — I am a greengrocer, and I reside at 145 Elderslie Street, Glasgow. I have a shop in Elderslie Street, and my house is at the back of the shop, and there is an entrance to the house from the close, No. 143, which close leads to the house occupied by Mrs. Walker. The tenement in which we live is at the corner of the lane, leading 290 Appendix III. •to the back of the houses in Sandyford Place ; and the close referred A. Dykes to is about 4 or 5 yards from the corner of the lane. I remember on the evening of Friday, the 4th of July, standing for some time on the pavement in front of the tenement, and a little way between the close mouth and the lane. Mrs. Walker was along with me, and it was at her request that I came out of my house and stood with her. It would be about half-past ten when we went out, and we continued standing in the same place till about a quarter-past eleven. Mrs. Walker said she did not feel very well, and she wanted to get the air. While so standing there, and looking down the street towards the corner of the lane, I heard like the " sklifBng " of feet behind me, and on turning round I saw a woman step from the cause- way on to the pavement, just opposite our close mouth, and she passed by !Mrs. Walker and me, and turned into the lane. I saw the side of her face as she passed. I said to Mrs. Walker, " Whose servant is that going into the lane at this time of the night? " and Mrs. Walker replied that it was no servant at all, and, pointing to a man on the opposite side of the street, said, " You see that man, he and she will meet in the park," meaning the park adjoining the lane. The man, however, did not join her, but proceeded down the opposite side of the street. I saw said woman go a step or two down the lane, but I did not watch her farther. The woman whom I so saw was dressed in a dark bonnet, a darkish brown dress, but I did not observe whether it was flounced or plain ; and I think she had a shawl over her shoulders, but I cannot be positive whether it was a shawl or a cloak. She appeared to be carrying something on her left arm, and which was concealed by her shawl or cloak. It farther appeared to me from the " skliffing " above referred to that the woman had bad shoes, or very light ones. I heard of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson upon Monday, the 7th of July, being the Monday following ; and inquiry was made at me by the police as to whether I observed any person going into the said lane on the preceding Friday night. I said " No," as I did not then remember the cir- cumstance, and it was not brought to my recollection until the begin- ning of the week immediately before that on which the trial of Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan took place. It was then brought to my recollection by Mrs. Walker sending for me to come to her house, and asking me if I remembered of having seen a woman pass into the lane on said Friday night when I was standing along with her, and on her mentioning the remarks that had been made at the time, the circumstance was brought to my recollection. She then told me that that woman was Mrs. M'Lachlan, and that she had been out for a Tjottle of whisky, and was on her way back to Fleming's house when she passed us. She said her husband had informed her of this, and that he had got the information from Mrs. M'Laclilan's agents. Upon the Saturday preceding the trial I was, by the instructions of the Fiscal, taken to the North Prison of Glasgow, and there shown Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan. I then thought, and still think, that she is the woman referred to, but I would not like to swear that she is. I recognised her by her figure, and the look I got of the side 291 Mrs. M'Lachlan. A. Dykes of her face. It wa£ after eleven o'clock when said woman passed us, and I think it would be about five minutes or a little more past that hour. I did not see that or any other woman come out of the lane that night, and I am positive that I could not have missed seeing any woman come out of the lane while we were standing there, if such had occurred. Declares further, Jessie M'Intosh or M'Lachlan is an entire stranger to me. I knew the deceased Jessie M'Pherson well, and she was in the habit of making purchases in my shop while in Mr. Fleming's service. The last time I saw her was on the evening of the Friday referred to, and she was in my shop between six and seven o'clock that night. She then purchased some washing powder. She was then in perfect health, to all appearance. I did not observe the smell of liquor upon her. I never saw her the worse of liquor, nor did I ever smell liquor on her when in my shop. I remember about a month before said Friday of Jessie M'Pherson coming to my shop, jusfc as a person was leaving it who had been asking me for the loan of some money, and I remarked to Jessie that some people thought I was made of money. Upon this Jessie remarked that it was a bad thing to lend money, for she had lent money to two different people, and could not get it back. I remarked that it was strange that when Mr. Fleming was a writer, she could not get him to get her money for her, and she said she was afraid to speak to Mr. Fleming, as on a former occasion he had kept out of a servant's wages the money which she had lent her, and had reproved her for lending money to servants. She further told me that one of the persons who was owing her money was an old servant of Mr. Fleming's, who had been married out of the house, and that she had lent her £4, and when she had asked it back she had got the height of abuse, but she was going to ask it again, " come what would." She did not tell me the name of this servant, nor say anything about her, further than that she was a servant to Mr. Fleming, and had been married out of the house. Jessie M'Pherson never said anything to me about old Mr. Fleming, but I have heard her speak with respect of his son, John. She never said she was unhappy in the house, and she did not look like that. G. Paton {Before the Sheriff, 1 October 1862.) George Paton says — I am in the employment of Robert Harvey, dairyman, at Port Dundas, and I reside at 3 Barnside Buildings, in or near Glasgow ; aged 25 years. For upwards of a year I have been in the haliit of supplying the people residing in Sandyfoi-d Place and the vicinity with milk. I visited them twice every lawful day, and once on Sunday. The first visit was between half-past seven and eight o'clock in the morn- ing, and the second visit between half-past two and three o'clock 292 Appendix III. afternoon. On Sunday I only made one visit, and this was in the G. Paton morning, at the hour I have mentioned. I took charge of the horse and cart, and four boys, who went with me, went to the doors of customers, and rang the bell to warn the persons that I was at the door with milk. I remember of Saturday morning the 5th July. I called at Mr. Fleming's house about a quarter to eight o'clock that morning. Donald M'Quarrie, one of the boys who was along with me, rang the door bell, and I saw that the door was opened from the inside, but I do not know who opened it. M'Quarrie came and told me that they wanted no milk. I asked M'Quarrie who had opened the door, and he said it was old Fleming. I called again on Saturday afternoon, and on Sunday morning, and on Monday morning, but no milk was taken by Mr. Fleming on any of these occasions. It was one of my boys who called at the door, and I never saw who opened the door, but I was told on every occasion that old Fleming had answered it, and I thought this sitrange. On Monday afternoon I called at Mr. Fleming's house, and old Mr. Fleming came out to the door-steps and paid me Is. 5gd. for milk that had been received during the previous week. Mr. Fleming did not say anything to me about Jessie M'Pherson, and I asked him no question. He did not appear to be excited in any way. He did not give me any reason for not having taken milk since the Friday previous, and I did not ask him if I would call with any more milk. The last time that I supplied milk to Fleming was on Friday morning, before Jessie's death. I did not see who opened the door that morning. I cannot say what boy rang the door bell on that morning. I supplied milk regularly at Mr. Fleming's house twice every day up till the Friday morning referred to. I do not know the prisoner, Jessie M'Lachlan. The deceased Jessie IM'Pherson never made any statement to me regarding old Mr. Fleming. (Before Mr. Young.) Monday, October 20. James Thomson, aged 23, Hotel Keeper, Argyle Hotel, Dunoon, examined. J. Thomson By Mr. Dixon — I was gardener and coachman to Mr. Fleming at Dunoon for five years up to 15th ilay last. Jessie M'Pherson and Jessie M'Intosh (Mrs. M'Lachlan) were there as servants when I went. Jessie M'Pherson remained three years after that, and Mrs. M'Lachlan two summers ; she stopped in Glasgow in winter, and went to Dunoon in summer. I used to hear the deceased and Mrs. M'Lachlan often talking of the old gentleman (Mr. Fleming) proposing to marry the deceased, and laughing and joking about it. One day deceased told me that he was very anxious to marry her, and would give her all he had if she would do it. By Mr. Young — I don't think she told me that in presence of Mrs. M'Lachlan, but I used to hear them often speaking about it. Mrs. 293 Mrs. M'Lachlan. J. Thomson M'Lachlan u£ed to joke her about it, and so did I. When she told me that lie was anxious to marry her I believed she was serious, and I believe so still. By IMr. Dixon — I never saw anything in the old man's conduct to lead me to believe it. She told me that when INIrs. M'Lachlan was in the service ; both Jessie M'Pherson and Mrs. M'Lachlan were good-tempered as far as I ever saw ; very loving together, and very good friends always ; in fact, more like two sisters than anything €lse. They were both in the serxice for the first two years that I was there ; then Mrs. M'Lachlan left to get married. By JNIr. Gemmel — I never saw anything improper in the old man's conduct towards the servants. Dp. Fleming Dr. Fleming (a Witness examined at the Trial). Mr. Young [after reading to witness passages from Statement of prisoner regarding the death of Jessie M'Pherson and the behaviour of herself and old Fleming on that occasion (pp. 222-227 of Report of Trial)] — Is there anything in all that which, according to your opinion as a medical man, is conti'adicted by all or any of the appearances presented by the body, or the premises, as you saw them? — There is one point with reference to the wounds on the face. The only wounds on the face were the one across the forehead, and the two across the nose. These, I think, could not have been inflicted on a person standing ; she must have been lying on her back, I think, at the time she received them. The nature of the wounds indicates that distinctly. I don't think any one of these strokes could have been given by a party coming in and striking her on the face while she was on her feet. The wound across the forehead must, in your opinion, have been inflicted when the deceased was lying with her face up? — Quite so. And therefore the appearance presented by that wound is, in your opinion, inconsistent with the account which the prisoner says Jessie gave her, as to how she had been struck at first? — Yes. I suppose whaA you proceed upon is the direction of the wound? — Clearly. What was the peculiarity in the direction of the wound which leads you to the opinion that it must have been inflicted when the deceased was lying with her face up? — The wound was right across, at right angles to the nose, just as if she had been lying on her back, and struck by a party standing at one side of her. Had the blow been given while she was on her feet it would have been a diagonal wound. The three wounds on the face were probably given at the same time, or nearly at the same time, because they are all in the same direction. Does the direction of these wounds lead you to the conclusion that it was impossible, or merely improbable, that they should have been inflicted when the deceased was in any other position? — It is not impossible, but it is highly improbable. For instance, she might get a stroke across in this way (showing). That is a possible case^. but I think it is highly improbable. 294 Appendix III. I suppose the improbability would be diminished if she was sitting Dr. Fleminar at the time? — Yes. Is there anything else in the prisoner's statement which occurs to you as being inconsistent with the appearances presented by the body or the premises? — No. Is everything else in that statement entirely consistent with the appearances which you observed upon the body, and upon the premises? — So far as I can judge, it is. Were the marks of blood upon the bed such in their character, and in the extent of them, as you would have expected, assuming that the deceased was lying there when these cuts were inflicted? — Yes, distinctly. But I also understand you to say that the prisoner's statement about putting her to bed, after finding her there, would also accoimt for the marks of blood upon the bed? — Of course, she would be bleeding, and the marks would be on the bed. Such marks as you saw, and in the position in which you saw them? — Clearly. r^ What are your reasons for thinking that there was a struggle? — W^e founded our opinion on that point upon the appearances on the floor. The floor had a peculiarly scratched appearance, as if from the shuffling of the feet of parties who had been struggling. Then, behind the kitchen door, and low down upon it, there was a large patch of blood ; on the back of the kitchen door similar streaks of blood were across the back of one of the kitchen door-posts, and at the end of the jawbox, or sink, there were distinct marks of bloody fingers. Then the hand of the deceased was very much mangled, as if it had been held up for the purpose of warding off the blows aimed at the head. From all these appearances we inferred that there had been a struggle. By a struggle do you mean that the deceased and her murderer had been in grips? — Yes, exactly. Would the cuts on the hand indicate whether a struggle had taken place. Might they not have been the same though the deceased's hands had never touched the murderer? — Clearly. Then you can draw no inference about a struggle from the cuts on the hand? — It was taken in connection with the other appearances. The report was drawn up by my colleague, and he put in that phrase. The mark of blood on the kitchen door — how would that indicate a struggle? — It was the peculiar appearance of the mark. What was peculiar in the appearance of the mark which made it indicate a struggle? — The first part of it commenced in the centre of the door, and it was perfectly evident, from the appearance of it, that either the head or the dress of the person must have been drawn across at that point, and the finger marks at the end of the jawbox indicated that a person had been falling down at that place. But I understand you to say that the account given by the prisoner would equally account for all the appearances from which you inferred that there had been a struggle? — Oh, yes; I think so. The prisoner says nothing about a struggle. Her account is in- consistent with a struggle ; and yet, I understand you to say that 295 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Op. Fleming the account which she gives would explain all the appearances from which you inferred that there had been a struggle? — Yes. Therefore, these appearances cannot lead you even probably to the opinion that there was a struggle? — We just came to the conclusion from what I have stated. On consideration and reflection, are you now of opinion that the appearances which you saw don't enable you to form an opinion wheither there was a struggle or not? — Well, I cannot go that length. Our opinion was formed from what I have already stated ; and I think these appearances would hardly have been there unless there had been some struggle, or unless some shuffling had taken place. Tell me any of the appearances which could not have occurred unless there had been a struggle? — ^The peculiar appearance on the floor, as if from the shuffling of feet. Then the appearance of the floor is not consistent with thjB prisoner's account?— I should like to hear again her statement as to that. She and the old man together assisted the deceased into the kitchen. She moved abouit the place herself, and they were beside her in the kitchen. The old man, according to her account, committed the bloody deed when she was lying on the kitchen floor, and then dragged the body from the kitchen into the laundry. That is her account of it. Will it account for the appearances equally as the notion of a struggle ? — Yes. Therefore, these appearances are not inconsistent with there having been no struggle at all. Was there any appearance which indicated that there must have been a struggle? — They don't indicate that there must have been a struggle, but there may have been. The probability is that there was a struggle, taking everything into account. If all the appearances are equally explained by the prisoner's account as by the conjecture that there was a struggle, how is it more probable that there was a struggle than that there was not? — The finger marks on the end of the jawbpx, I think^ would indicate that during the supposed struggle the party had been in the act of falling, after the supposed shuffling of the feet, and in falling had laid hold of the end of the jawbox. Any bloody hand on the edge of the jawbox would have made the mark, though the owner had not been falling? — I admit that, but still there is that peculiar mark. It is consistent with your conjecture? — Yes. But not inconsistent with the other view? — No. It is equally consistent with either view? — Yes. Then if a mark is equally consistent with either view, it does not indicate that the one is more probable than the other? — No. Is there anything else which, as a medical man, you can give further light upon ?— Nothing occurs to me. Now, to avoid mistakes, observe what I understand you to have said. The conjecture which you formed as to the way in which the murder was probably committed involved the notion of a struggle, and the appearances which you found were consistent with that notion ; but the appearances which you thought indicated a struggle are equally 296 Appendix III. accounted for by the prisoner's statement (whether that is true or Dr. Fleming false is another question) ; and that statement excludes the notion of there having been a struggle ; in short, there were no appearances, -either upon the body or on the premises, which are not entirely con- sistent with the prisoner's statement, except only the three wounds upon the head and face which you have mentioned? — Yes. That is the result of the whole matter? — Yes. As matter of evidence, it stands as I have stated, so far as your judgment and observation go?— Quite so. Dr. Watson (a Witness examined at the Trial). Dp. Watson Mr. Dixon — You examined the wounds on the head of the deceased. Do you consider it possible that the wound across the bridge of the nose could be inflicted while the assailant and the victim were both in a standing position? — Yes, quite possible. It depends upon the height of the person inflicting the wound. If the person inflicting the wound was high enough to strike a blow parallel with the wound with his extended arm ; then it is pos-sible both may have been standing. Might not the wound have been received while the woman was sitting? — That is perfectly possible. Then it is not necessary that the deceased should have been lying on her back with her face up in order to get these wounds? — By no means. These wounds would probably stun or fell the woman? — Yes, very probablj'. By Mr. Young — Any one of them? — Any one of them; either of the wounds on the nose or the wound on the forehead might and probably did stun the woman. Do you mean would knock her down? — Yes. In all probability the blow which caused the first cut would fell the deceased and stun her? — I think that is probable; it is probable that any one of the wounds would completely stun her and fell her. Mr. Dixon — Then, if you suppose that the nose wounds were the first inflicted, there is nothing in the position of the transverse wound across the forehead to make it necessary to conclude that the woman ■was attacked in a recumbent position ?— Nothing. Is there any necessary connection between the nose wounds and the transverse wound across the forehead to indicate that they were inflicted almost simultaneously by a repetition of the blows as fast as they could follow? — No. There may have been an interval and a change of position? — There may. By Mr. Young — Are you speaking of extreme possibilities or of reasonable possibilities? — Of reasonable possibilities. By Mr. Dixon — Suppose the deceased had been drinking water, and rose and made water about two or three o'clock, and was mur- dered between four and five, is it an impossible thing that the urinary bladder should have been half full, or that there should have been ■^ considerable quantity of urine in it? — No ; I think it is not at 297 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dr. Watson all impossible that there should have been some quantity of urine in it. I saw nothing in the appearance of the body or the premises to indicate that a severe struggle had taken place in the kitchen. I saw not one bloody footmark on the kitchen floor. I saw not the least trace of scratching on the flagstones. By Mr. Gemmel — I did not make a particular examination of the house. I looked at the kitchen floor, and I am sure if there had been bloody footmarks on it I would not have missed them. I did not examine the bedroom. I examined the kitchen while waiting the arrival of the police surgeon. When he arrived I restricted my attention to the state of the body. By Mr. Young — I made no examination of the premises with a view to draw inferences as a medical man. I walked through the kitchen and remained in it a few minutes with Mr. Fleming before Doctor Fleming arrived, and I think if there had been bloody foot- mai-ks on it I would have noticed them, because I noticed other bloody marks there on the jawbox and on the door. Bloody footmarks would not indicate a struggle. I have read the prisoner's statement. It is quite consistent with the appearances on the kitchen floor. Is it quite consistent with all the appearances which you saw? — Well, I have no distinct fact to oppose to the statement, but I have a little doubt upon one or two points of it; the wounds on the wrist are not explained, and I have doubts as to the mode of dragging in the body ; the wounds on the wrist indicate a struggle, and that struggle is not mentioned in the prisoner's statement ; the wounds on the wrist were very peculiar wounds, and my opinion is that they were made with a lighter and sharper instrument than the cleaver, for surgical reasons. I think they could not have been made with the cleaver ; they are more likely to have been with a light knife, a pocket knife, or a table knife. Had they been made with the cleaver they would have been torn and lacerated, and the structures beneath would have been hurt; they were cleaner cuts than the cleaver would have made ; they were simply through the skin, leaving the tendons quite uninjured. My opinion is that these wounds were made during life ; they were gaping wounds, but there is a possibility of their having been made just immediately after decease ; it must have been immediately after decease ; it is more probable that they were made during life. As to the prisoner's statement that " he took the body by the oxters and dragged it ben into the laundry," my doubt arises from the position of the body ; the head was towards the door of the laundry, and the feet towards the window ; and the table and the bed were placed so as to almost permit the body alone to lie between them, leading me to the conclusion that the body was rather dragged by the feet, and face down. I thought that the person must have gone between the legs of the deceased, as between the handles of a barrow, and dragged the body behind him, head downwards, otherwise they must have gone the circuit of the room ; that it was pushed before them is very unlikely. Then, again, to lift a dead body by the arm- pits would require a very powerful person, and to drag it in, in such an unlikely position, would require a very great effort ; and, again, 298 Appendix III. the clothes of the deceased were all dragged up about the arm-pits. Dp. Watson I think the body must have been dragged in by the feet. If the word " feet " had been substituted for " oxters " in the prisoner's statement, it would have removed the difficulty. The body was un- touched when I saw it ; there is more appearance of blood under it on the plan than there really was ; the face was not lying in a pool of blood — there was nothing like a pool of blood. The shift and all the clothes on the body had been dragged up upon the head, and these were bloody ; the face was lying upon bloody clothes. The dragging up of the clothes and the position of the arms, which were up at the side of the head, confirmed my notion that the body was dragged in by the feet. By Mr. Dixon — In aU other respects my knowledge of the case coincides with the woman's statement. Dr. MACLEOD (a Witness examined at the Trial). Dr. Maeleod [Letter written by witness to Mr. Gemmel, and forwarded to the Lord Advocate, read.]! By Mj'. Young — The supposition as to the marks of bloody fingers on the closet door is purely conjectural? — It was very difficult to make out whether they were finger marks or the mark of a cloth ; several of us examined it, and wa were not agreed as to how it was produced. On the whole, that conjecture is one which I am not disposed to take any account of ; I have every reason to think that the wound on the forehead and the two wounds on the nose were inflicted at once ; they present the appearances of the same age, and they are absolutely in the same direction, quite parallel the one to the other. The two nose wounds cleft the nose down to the base, through the bones and soft tissues, but did not extend to the face on either side ; they were clean cuts through the nose, of even depth. Do you think it impossible or only highly improbable that any one of these wounds could be inflicted upon the deceased while she was in an erect position? — Supposing two persons of equal height con- fronting each other, I don't think it possible, witliout raising the elbow into a most unnatural attitude, to cause these three wounds to be directly transverse. But take any one of the wounds? — I cannot say it was impossible, but I think it very highly improbable, from its direction. It was as directly transverse as could be. There was not the least obliquity in it. The one on the forehead waa the longest, and thus gave a better idea of the position in which they stood to one another. Suppose one of these blows upon the deceased when erect, that, according to your opinion, would stun her and fell her, she would then be in a sufficiently horizontal position, and there would be no difficulty in accounting for the other two? — No. Now, is that not possible ? — It is perfectly possible ; the improba- bility arising chiefly from this, that the three wounds were so per- 1 Production of this letter was refused by tlie Home Secretary in the House of Commons on 4th June, 1863.— Ed. 299 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dr. Macleod fectly parallel that they point to the nnirderer having stood toward."? his victim in the same position during the infliction of the three. Of course, it is perfectly possible that whoever committed the murder might have got into such a position as to have inflicted the other two afterwards in the same line ; but it is very improbable. You assume that her head was quite erect. Would any inclination of her head affect the direction of the wound? — Yes. And a wound which would have been oblique had the head been straight would, just in proportion to the inclination of the head, be off the oblique aJid on the horizontal? — Yes; but it would require a very fine adjustment of the inclination of the head to bring it exactly to that inclination which would correct the obliquity of the blow. It would be a curious fact that the two should correspond. But to the extent to which there happened to be an inclination of the head when the blow was inflicted, that would remove the diflB- culty? — Yes. I was not present when the body was found; but it was, I believe, in the same position as it was found in, when I saw it. Dr. Watson has stated that, in hi_s opinion, the body was probably dragged in by the feet, the murderer getting between the legs and pulling the body like a wheelbarrow behind him ; and one of his reasons for thinking so is that the clothes upon it, which were bloody, were pulled up over the face, and that the face was found lying on these bloody clothes. Assuming it to have been so, would that not render it difficult for you to tell whether the face had been washed or not after the first injuries were inflicted? — Merely confining the remark to the face, and not speaking of the chest? Yes — I think not. I could give a very sufficient reason for supposing that the explanation of the way in which the body was drawn into the bedroom is wrong. In my original report I state that the limbs of the deceased were dirtied and abraded upon their anterior aspect. Both feet were extended to their full extent upon the leg, and the abrasion and the dirtying of the limb, evidently from coming in contact with the ground, was only from the knee to the foot, and on the anterior surface of the limb. There was no other mark of abrasion or scraping, such as there would have been if the dragging had been on any other part of the body. It was in exactly the position which I would have expected it to assume if it had been dragged in before the rigor mortis had been fully established. That, in your opinion, conclusively shows that the body had been drawn by the head with the face downwards, the legs, between the knees and the toes, being dragged upon the ground? — Yes. The dragging had been from the knee downwards. There was the ruflBing of the skin, which I am accustomed enough to see from bodies being drawn in like manner. If the body had been drawn by the legs, with the face down, the skin of it would not only have been rufl9ed, but the blood would probably have been removed from it, which it was not, for all the streaks were entire. How would you account, on that supposition, for the head being towards the door? — I cannot account for that. That has always puzzled me from the first. 300 Appendix III. Were you aware before of the clothes being in the position which Dr. MaeleOd I have mentioned? — I was not. If the clothes were in that position, dragged over the head, and the face lying upon them, that would be attended with the same difficulty as the position of the head? — I think so. The face being drawn with the clothes between it and the ground would have removed the rough parts of the blood from the face, but these were not removed when I saw the body. Every stripe of blood on the face was entire when I saw the body ; there was no rubbing on any part of the face. I suppose blood may have run down the face after the body was taken into the bedroom? — That depends on whether the body was dead when it was taken there ; if it was perfectly dead the bleeding would stop. Will blood not flow for a moment after death? — Oh, yes; it would flow for some short time, not in jets, but so as to make streaks of blood. Such streaks as you saw? — They were apparently red, arterial blood. Suppose your theory to be quite right, that the body was taken into the bedroom in that way immediately after death, or immediately after she was supposed to be dead, might not these streaks have come down then? — The blood must have escaped very shortly after death, because it was coagulated on the face. The blood was not dead, in our language ; its vitality remained. Dead blood does not coagulate ; it remains liquid. [After reading from prisoner's statement — " About three o'clock, I suppose it was, Jessie told him to go away ben the house. He said he was very weel where he was. She told me she wanted to rise and make water, and she got up in bed. I told the old man to go away for a little, which he did, and I helped her out and assisted her. She said after she rose that she felt very stiff and cold, and if she could get ben to the fire."] Now, if on 5th July the woman made water when the morning was beginning to break, and afterwards had water to drink, and was killed outright between four and five o'clock, might not the bladder be half full then?— It is a very difficult question, as to which I should be sorry to dogmatise or give a strong opinion. The urine is secreted with great rapidity ; but we have the fact here that she had lost a great deal of blood, which would to a very considerable extent diminish the secretion of the urine. The bladder being half full implies a large quantity of urine. Still I think it possible. Your attention being called to the circumstances to which I have now referred, do you think it would be safe to attach any importance whatever to the fact of the bladder being half full, as a contradiction of the statement in itself? — I think if the woman made water about two o'clock, and took a drink after that, and was killed outright between four and five, living for two and a half hours, I think it is quite possible that the urine might be there. Your attention being called to those parts of the statement, do you think that it would be at all safe to attach any importance to the fact that the bladder was half full?— No. 301 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dr. Maeleod You were of opinion that there had been a struggle, from the appear- ances on the body and on the premises? — Yes. Are there any of the appearances from which you originally inferred a struggle which might not be accounted for by the prisoner's state- ment? — I have not seen anything in the statement that would account for the footmarks on the kitchen floor. There were a number of marks of bare feet on the kitchen floor, round the circumference of the part that is washed — what I referred to in my evidence at the trial. And in what consists the evidence? — The evidence was that the kitchen floor had been partially washed. Upon the washed portions of the floor there were considerable stains, which I carefully examined by going down on my knees and getting the light to fall on these stains. It was quite apparent to me that those stains were the marks of blood ; they were greasy, and had the reddish look of imperfectly effaced blood. Around the circumference of the part of the floor which had been washed there were impressions on the floor which I was then convinced, and am now convinced, had been footmarks — confused footmarks. If I might be allowed to explain what I mean by footmarks, they were the marks of a sort of twist or turn of the heels on the floor, and the ball of a foot had also left its marks upon the stones. Is there anything else? — No; the only other point which I cannot explain by the prisoner's statement is the marks of a bloody hand, which I referred to in the next sentence of my evidence^ " There were also marks of blood found," &c. But do these marks contradict the statement, and show that it is not true? — No; except that I cannot see by her statement how they could have come there. Might they not have come there from anybody in the house with blood on their fingers? — In that view I cannot say that her etate- ment is contradicted. Then, do you say that what you have referred to as the impressions of footmarks on the kitchen floor contradict her statement? — So far, that I don't see how these could have been produced unless there had been people engaged in a struggle, or in whirling round on the same spot. But, according to her statement, both old Fleming and herself were working a good deal about the deceased in the kitchen? — But they were too concentrated marks for that. The turns in the heel are not such as a person produces when walking about, and they were not on the part of the floor where they would have been beside the woman. She is represented as laid down by the fire, but a number of these footmarks were away up towards the press (shows on plan). They were on thLs space which had not been washed. Do you think that these marks on the floor are important as a con- tradiction of the statement? — I think so, decidedly ; I think they are such marks as could not have been produced except by two people wrestling together in the kitchen. The marks were quite evident when I saw them. If old Mr. Fleming was in the kitchen and cooked his meals, and had his meals there on the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, he must 302 Appendix III. Iiave seen something odd about the floor, one would suppose? — They Dr. Macleod were not such els would attract a person's attention, unless examined carefully, from the nature of the floor itself. They were marks of a bare foot, not of a shoe carrying earth or lime with it. And it must have been a severe struggle? — That was my impression. But although the marks were such as you fhould not be surprised at a man frequenting the kitchen for three days never observing at all, you nevertheless think it safe to draw an inference from them at variance with the prisoner's statement? — I think so, considering the man. Do you think a woman who had received the wounds on the fore- head and the nose would be capable of engaging in a severe struggle? — She might. Although the first of the blows was such as must have stunned her, and felled her, and there were three of them? — They would stun her temporarily. You think that she could thereafter engage in a severe struggle? — Yes. By severe I mean that there was a good deal of it, not perhaps that she was able to make any very strong resistance ; I mean that it was prolonged. You think the three wounds were inflicted at once? — Yes. And after she had sustained these three wounds, you think the deceased could have gone herself from the laundry into the kitchen, and engaged in such a struggle as would leave marks, from which you could say, three days afterwards, that there had been a struggle? — I have no doubt of it. Do you go the length then of saying that these appearances are absolutely inconsistent with the prisoner's statement, so as to enable you, with satisfaction to yourself, to pronounce that statement to be false? — You mean merely the marks on the kitchen floor? Yes ? — To my mind it is so ; the position in which the marks were found, not being by the fire, and their character. To my mind that is quite conclusive. That the statement must be false? — So I conclude. And although there was nothing else you would, upon these marks on the floor alone, arrive at that conclusion with satisfaction to your own mind ? — Yes. I think you said there was nothing else in the appearance of the body or the premises inconsistent with the statement? — There was another point which I foimd very considerable difficulty in explaining by her statement, viz., what is mentioned in my original report, i.e., when the neck of the deceased was washed. According to the state- ment the washing took place previous to the infliction of the wounds on the neck. She says she had bathed the woman's face in the interval between the time that the wounds on the forehead and nose had been inflicted, and those on the neck, by which the woman was finally murdered. She says the first injuries were inflicted when she was out, and she speaks as to these from the information of the deceased? — All the wounds on the neck were not only precisely parallel, but had all the 303 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Dr. Hacleod appearance of having been inflicted from the same position at one time. Had the body the appearance of having been vsrashed there after the wounds had been inflicted? — Yes, upon the neck. Have you any theory to account for the washing at all? — None; I cannot account for it. It is inexplicable, apparently ?— Quite. I never could account for it. That would hardly contradict the statement, because it seems equally inexplicable whether that statement be true or false? — Except that it militates against her statement that she laved the face after the wounds on the face ; but afterwards, when the woman had been mur- dered by the blows on the neck, which were the fatal injuries, the body seems to have been dragged iDto the room, and we find the neck washed. But nobody can tell why that was done, or when it was done? — Except that it was subsequent to the wounds. Some time between Friday and Monday? — Yes. And at whatever part of that period it was done, the inexplicability is precisely the same. You cannot explain it? — No. You see no reason for it? — No, I never could. Then, probably, you would not rely much upon that inexplicable thing as being any contradiction of her statement? — The impression I derived from the statement was that the deceased had received certain wounds upon the face, and that after that she had washed her face with water to revive her, and that subsecfuently, at another period of the contest, she had been murdered by certain blows upon the neck, and that then the body had been dragged into the bedroom. Whether the neck was washed or not she does not say? — From that I would suppose that we would find on the face traces of washing, but that we would not find them on the neck, unless it was done at some subsequent period by another person ; whereas, on the contrary, we find the face not washed, and the neck washed. The time she says she bathed the face was between eleven and twelve at night? — The face was engrained with dirt and blood in a way I don't think it would have been if it had been washed. By Mr. Dixon— Had she been lying with her face on the kitchen floor, her jaw fractured in three or four places, and cuts on the top of the head, could that have happened without a considerable quantity of blood and soiling on her face? — It would have been equally on the neck. All the wounds on the neck must have been inflicted at the same time. By Mr. Young — There is nothing else which I desire to add. By Mr. Gemmel — There were no marks on the back of the head at all. By Mr. Yottng — I cannot say that she had not fallen, but only that there is no proof of her having fallen ; nothing either way. By Mr. Dixon — A portion of the chest was washed, as well as the - front of the neck. 304 Appendix III. Dr. Mathie Hamilton. Dp. Hamilton By INIr. Dixon — I practised as a physician in South America between 1825 and 1848, and I am the author of a number of medical works. I believe there are very few men north of the Tweed who have seen as many cases of murder and assassination as I have. I saw the skull of Jessie M'Pherson in the Philosophical Institution on the Monday after the trial. The soft parts were all off the skull ; it was in a etate of maceration. I saw the incision across the bridge of the nose. Did it strike you that it was impossible that that wound could have been inflicted while the deceased was standing? — Impossible ! most undoubtedly not. To talk of anything of that kind being impossible is an absurdity ; for this reason, that the blow might have been given horizontally, or by what we call a back blow ; and the form of the wound would depend on the instrument with which it was inflicted. I am not warranted to form the conclusion that it was inflicted by either one instrument or another, not even by a sharp- edged instrument. There was nothing in the appearance of the incision in the bone to indicate that to you? — Certainly not. I would not like to speak dog- matically, but to talk of the blow having been impossible is, I consider, an absurdity. Is it improbable that that wound was inflicted while the woman was standing or sitting? — I don't think I am warranted to answer that question. Maetha M'Intyee, aged 21, a Witness examined at the Trial. M. M'Intyre By INIr. Dixon — I entered Mr. Fleming's service on 11th November last, and left it on the first Saturday of January. Jessie M'Pherson was in the house with me all the time. She was the only other servant. Old Mr. Fleming came very much about the kitchen; he passed more of his time there than upstairs when the family were away. They were frequently away for a few days when I was there. By Mr. Young — The family consisted of the old man, his daughter, Margaret Fleming, his son, John Fleming, young John Fleming, Miss Annie and Miss Catherine Fleming, two daughters of John Fleming. When I speak of the family going away, I speak of all except the old man and his daughter Margaret. The others were often away at Dunoon ; from Friday to Monday occasionally. By Mr. Dison — Jessie often objected to his coming to the kitchen. He just sat down by the fire and cracked with the girls. Sometimes he would sit for an hour or two in the evening ; he generally sat all the evening from tea time tiU he went to bed. He came in about two o'clock in the afternoon, and generally sat for an hour or so in the kitchen, and got some lunch. He liked to know all that was going on ; he was very inquisitive about everything. If he heard any one come in he always asked who they were, and what they wanted ; I mean any one coming to see the servants in the kitchen. He got up sometimes between eight and nine, but he never came out of his bedroom tiU about ten o'clock for his breakfast. He used to go about X 305 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. M'lntyre in the morning before he dressed for breakfast ; he would go about between his o^vn room and the room downstairs, where he kept some of his clothes ; he used to go a good deal up and down there. He would be half-dressed, without his coat. He generally went to bed about nine o'clock, or between nine and ten ; he had no particular hour for going to bed, but it was generally about that time. Did he ever talk to Jessie and you in the kitchen about his being determined to get married now? — He used to talk about that, but I understood it to be in a joking way. He used to say often that he would like to get married ; that he had more need of a wife now than when he was a young man, to take care of him. He used to come over that pretty often. By Mr. Young — I understood it to be joking, and, as far as I know, Jessie did so to. By Mr. Dixon — There was in the house a bottle, in which they kept spirits upstairs, with a round neck and round flat bottom. I have seen him with that bottle in the kitchen, with drink in it. I have seen him frequently come down to the kitchen and make toddy at night, if the family were from home. He gave Jessie and me a share. He took his toddy in the kitchen pretty regularly when the fajnily were from home. I have seen him with whisky in one bottle and rum in another. By Mr. Young — I never saw Mrs. M'Lachlan at the house but once, and then she did not come in ; she called at the door and asked for Jessie M'Pherson. I went down and told Jessie that there was a person wanting her, and it was after Jessie came down that she told me it was Mrs. M'Lachlan. The milk generally came about haK- past seven or twenty minutes to eight, or a quai'ter to eight in the morning. Old Mr. Fleming got his porridge in the morning imme- diately after the milk came. The porridge was always ready, waiting for the milk coming. He knew very well when the milk came ; he sometimes asked if it had not come, as he was wearying for his porridge. He was fond of milk to his porridge, and always got a breakfast cup nearly full of the new milk every morning. Paton was the name of the man who came with the cart. On New Year's Day he treated Jessie and me, and my brother, who had come to see me, and he took some himself. That was the only occasion on which he treated any of our friends who came in ; at the other times when we had toddy together there were no strangers present. By Mr. Gemmel — I have seen him that he would talk a great deal from taking drink, but I never saw him very much the worse of it. J. Brown Jane Pollock or Brown, examined. By Mr. Young — My little girl Mary was in the habit of washing down the stairs of Mr. Fleming's house for Jessie M'Pherson. She always left my house about half nine o'clock in the morning — half-past eight — never mostly before that. There is a bell that rings near the house, and she runs away when it rings. I remember her going out about that hour on Saturday, 5th July last; 306 Appendix III. ■she left about her usual time, half-past eight. I did not know that J, Bpowd she was going to Mr. Fleming's that morning any more than any other morning, but I knew she always went there. She did not say that night that she had been there any more than any other night. She was not in the habit of doing that, but she gave me her earnings. When did she first speak of having been at Mr. Fleming's that day? — One night shortly after the murder was published in the news- papers, and people were speaking about it, she came in after being out all day. I was lying at the time very bad, and she was sitting at the fireside, and making the wonder of her being in the house and the like occurring. I said, " ]\Iary, it was strange in you to go in when you didna' see the girl." She said, " Mother, it was all one to me when the man asked me to oome in." I said, " Never let me hear you open your mouth about it, for fear you may get into some hobble about it." She said she washed a small bit of the lobby foment a door, and she said there was something like stains on it, and it was like rubbed over with black soot, and the water was quite black, as if something had been spilled on it, and something black rubbed over it. She said she had a great rubbing to rub it off ; and that the old man gave her a piece of white flannel like as if it had been torn off a semmet, and also a bucket with, an iron handle full of water, and he said, " Scrub it well, my girl." That is what she told me sitting at the fireside. It was about the end of the week after the thing was published in the newspapers, she said it was old Mr. Fleming that opened the door, and that she knew him well, for many was the time she had seen him, and ran to hide from him ; when she was going in to see Jessie she was feared to let him see her go in, in case he might object to it. That is all I recollect her saying ; ■she did not say whether she noticed anything particular about his dress; she did not say anything about meeting Mrs. M'Lachlan on her way there ; she never named her. Is she quite an intelligent girl ? — Oh yes ; she is very sm^art. Maex Brown, recalled. M. Brown By Mr. YotTNG — I thought the place that I cleaned looked as if a bare foot had been put on the waxcloth, and soot had been put on it, so as not to let it be noticed. I saw the mark of the foot. I couldna' be right sure that it was a woman's foot. I only noticed one foot- mark. It was in the direction as if the person had been stepping into the bedroom from the head of the stair. It was close to the bedroom door. The bedroom door was a good little bit open. I washed into the bedroom as far as the waxcloth was in. The mark of the foot was like from the head of the stair into the bedroom. I thought soot had been put over it to hide it. The stain that the soot had been put over was liker blood than anything else. Why did you not tell me that before? — I never had a bit mind of it till my mother told me to-day. She had kept mind of it. I remember it distinctly now. It was not very easy to get out. I had no scrubbing brush, just the piece of flannel, and I had to give it a good rubbing. 307 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. Brown Was there any red on the cloth? — I would not see it because of th& soot. The old man stood at the side of me all the time. Did he say anything? — He spoke only once, when I was going away. He catched a grip of me by the hand, and put his hand on my waist, and said I was a nice girl. Then he gave me sixpence. I said, " Was that all? " and he said " Yes." Did he tell you to wash it well? — Yes, he said, " Wash it well." That was when I was working at it. He did not put the dirty water out of the bucket into the closet when I was there. When I was going downstairs with it he said, " Leave it there." jNIr. Gemmel — Did you .smell soot? — Ye.s, I smelt liker soot than anything else. I know the smell of soot ; I smelt soot when I was washing it. By Mr. Young — I know soot when I see it. It was soot put on to hide the stain. Did it seem to have been very lately put on? — No. It was as if they had taken a dirty cloth and wet it, and rubbed it over it, and then it had dried. The soot was put wet on, and then it had dried ; it was hard on. (3) Witnesses who were Examined by the PROctrRATOR-FiscAL BEFORE THE SHERIFF, AND THEIR STATEMENTS FURNISHED TO Mr. Young, although they were not re-examined by him. Alloa, 30 September 1862. A. Blaip Alexander Blair, aged 42, says — I am a brewer, and I reside at Millgrove, Alloa, in the parish of Alloa and county of Clackmannan. I know old Mr. Fleming and his son, John Fleming. On Monday, the 16th day of June last I went to Dunoon and spent a few days with John Fleming, at his cottage there. I left Dunoon to go home to Alloa on a day in the end of the same week. I cannojb positively say that it was Thursday, but it must either have been Thursday or Friday. John Fleming accompanied me to Glasgow. We arrived in Glasgow early in the forenoon. I slept in Mr. Fleming's house in Sandyford Place that night, Mr. Fleming being also in the house; my intention being to go home next day. Old Mr. Fleming called me next morning at about eleven o'clock ; he rapped at the bedroom door, and I admitted him. I dressed, and had breakfast in the house. Old Mr. Fleming and I left the house about one o'clock afternoon, and drove to the Cathedral. We then drove to the George Hotel, in George Square, where we had some brandy and soda water ; we had two glasses of brandy and soda water each. Mr. Dron, the landlord of the hotel, was present, and had some seltzer water. Old IMr. Fleming left the hotel in a cab for Sandyford Place about four o'clock afternoon. As I was giving IMr. Fleming a drive, I paid the driver the cab fare, and told him to drive to 17 Sandyford Place. Old Mr. Fleming was not tipsy ; he was hearty, and in good spirits. The 308 Appendix III. 'driver drove off right across the square in the direction of Sandyford a. BlaJp Place. It was Dron who was requested to get the cab, and one of the waiters procured it. I left the hotel at six afternoon, and went home by the quarter past six train. I did not return to Sandyford Place after leaving the house at one o'clock. I gave Jessie M'Pherson a gratuity of, I think, half a crown before leaving the house. Glasgow, 2 October 1862. James M'Ginn says — J. M'Glnn I am a cab driver in the employment of James Gilligan, carriage hirer, 55 Hanover Street, and I reside at 10 Dempster Street, Glasgow. Aged about 42 years. I stand in George Square with my cab. On the afternoon of a day in the month of June or July last, as I think (but the date more par- ticularly I cannot fix), I recollect of being called to the George Hotel, and I went there with my cab. I saw Mr. Dron, the proprietor of the hotel, and other two gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Dron said, was a Mr. Fleming ; and the other gentleman asked me to drive Mr. Fleming to 17 Sandyford Place, and the gentleman paid me the cab liire, which was Is. 6d. I drove Mr. Fleming to the address above mentioned, and the door was opened by a middle-aged female of rather dark complexion, and I saw Fleming enter the house. I think this was about five or six o'clock. The cab was open, and Mr. Fleming, I observed, sat forward, with his head hanging down, and appeared to be in a drowsy state ; he was under the influence of liquor, but was able to go into the cab without assistance. On coming out of the cab, Tiowever, at the door of the house at Sandyford Place he stumbled, and I laid hold of his arm and assisted him up the steps to the front door, and then I was satisfied he had got drink. I have not seen Mr. Fleming, to my knowledge, since the day referred to, and I do not think I would know him again. I did not ascertain the name of the gentleman who was along with Mr. Fleming, and who paid me the cab fare ; he appeared to be sober. I do not recollect the day of the week on which this occurred, nor the day of the month, and I have no means of finding out the date. Mr. Dron was at the ■door of his hotel when I went away with ]\Ir. Fleming. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. Beenabd M'Laughxin says — B. M'Laughlin I am a Sheriff's officer in Glasgow I was out at 17 Sandyford Place on Saturday the 12th of July last, -when Strathern and the Fiscals were there, making a further examina- tion of the house and outhouses, with a view to the discovery of any- thing tending to throw light upon the murder. Among other places, I searched the ashes under the kitchen grate to see if I could find any remains of burnt clothing. There was a great 309 Mrs. M'Lachlan. B. H'Laughlln quantity of ashes, and I searched them very carefully. I found no pieces of cloth, or anything like the remains of burnt clothing ; bat I found a shirt button, which must have been in the fire, and burnt. The button, when I found it, was entire, but it was so much burnt that I could not discover the pattern. I preserved the button, and showed it to the Sheriff and Fiscals. I proceeded to roll the button in paper, so as to preserve it, and in doing so it split through the middle. I wrapped the pieces in paper, and sealed the paper, and still retain it. I am satisfied there was not another button among the ashes in the kitchen. On the same day I took possession of an iron hammer, on which there were marks of blood on the side of the head of it. It was found on the kitchen dresser. It was duly labelled, and is now before me in the same state in which it was when taken possession of. I also took possession of a pair of men's socks, which I foimd in the servants' bedroom, between the head of the bed and the window. These were also duly labelled, and are now before me. I examined them most minutely, but could find no mark or trace of blood whatever upon them. The said socks are old and very much worn. I do not know to whom they belong. John Anderson was present when the button was found and hammer and stockings taken possession of. I know that Mr. Fleming's house was in the possession of the police from the time of the discovery of the murder till the date of my said search, and that the fire was kept burning during that time. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. D. Paton Daniel Paton, aged 46, says — I am a dealer in old furniture, old clothes, &c., and I reside Id (No. 92) Bridgegate Street, Glasgow. I have lived in the same house in Bridgegate for about twelve years. Mr. John Fleming is the factor for the property, and his father has been in the habit of collecting the rents and looking after the property during the whole time, up till Monday the 7th July last. I saw Mr. Fleming at my own door on said Monday morning, about ten o'clock, and I then paid him a month's rent. I did not see him on the Satur- day preceding this, nor did I see him on the preceding Friday. I have not seen him since the said Monday morning. He did not sell me, nor offer to sell me, any clothes on said Monday, and no clothes were left by him at my house either on the Friday or Saturday pre- ceding. A fortnight before the murder, however, old Mr. Fleming sold me a coat and a pair of trousers, for which I paid him 6s. or 7s. It was a short coat, but I cannot exactly remember the colour of it ; I think it was between a dark grey and a brown. The trousers were of a brownish colour. I resold said coat and trousers. I cannot say that I ever saw him wear said coat. I do not know whether it was his own coat or a coat of his son's or grandson's. They were sold to me in his son's house at Sandyford Place, and I went there to get them at his request. I have been in the habit of buying old clothes from him for seven or eight years back. Immediately after the murder 310 Appendix III. was made public I was called to the Fiscal's office, and examined by D. Paton him with reference to my purchases of old clothes from Mr. Fleming ; and I then told him what I have above stated, and distinctly recol- lected that it was a fortnight before the murder when I made the last purchase. I further stated that I thought I could then get back the coat from the person to whom I sold it, and, at the Fisq^l's request, I tried to do so, but failed. I never saw, on any clothes which I purchased from Mr. Fleming, any marks of blood, or anything the least like blood. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. Maegaeet M'Lean, aged 24, says — **• M'Lean I am a cloakmaker, and I reside in Renfrew Street (No. 86), Glasgow. I was at the marriage of my brother James at Partick on Friday the 4th July. The marriage was celebrated in the house of the bride's father, IVIr. Hadden, at the east end of Partick. My sisters Peterina, Jessie, and I remained at the house with the marriage party until half-past three o'clock on Saturday morning, when we left and returned home ; it was then good daylight. We came along Sauchiehall Road on our way to town ; and in passing Sandyford Place our attention was attracted by the whistling of birds amongst the trees in front of the houses there. This was exactly opposite the house No. 17 Sandyford Place, and I know that because I knew the house long before as the house of Mr. Fleming ; I was told this by my sister Agnes. We stopped to listen to the birds, and I then observed a light in the room to the west of the door No. 17, on the street flat. I only saw light from one of the windows. I am sure of this. The shutters were not shut, but the Venetian blind of the window from which the light proceeded was drawn down. Three of the spaces of the blind in the centre of the window were standing open, and it was through these spaces that I saw the light. I saw the gasalier in the centre of the room quite distinctly, and I saw that only one of the burners of the gasalier was lit ; it was turned fully on. It was the window immediately to the west of the door No. 17 from which the light proceeded. I think the gasalier was a bright yellow one, a hand- some gasalier, with four lights, I think. When I observed the light I said to my sisters, " I wondered what they were doing with a light at this house." I saw No. 17 on the door, and have no doubt of this. I did not say that that was Fleming's house, although I knew very well that it was his. I saw no one in the room where the light wafi. I heard of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson at 17 Sandyford Place on Tuesday morning following ; it was my brother-in-law, William Tumbull, who told me ; I then told him about having seen the birds and the light at that number in Sandyford Place on the pre- ceding Saturday. I did not think it worth while to tell the authorities what I had seen, as we had seen no one inside of the house. There's a good deal of shrubbery in front of Sandyford Place and a number of tall trees ; the shrubbery and trees were in full bloom at this time. I first saw the number on the door by looking through the shrubbery^ 311 Mrs. M'Lachlan. M. M'Lean and when we came to the last entrance to Sandyford Place from Sauchiehall Road we stood there, and from that point I again saw the number on the door. What made me so particular about looking at the number on the door was the fact of having seen the birds and the light. I would have known said house was Mr. Fleming's although I had not seen the number 17. I am quite sure that Mr. Fleming's bouse is the second door in Sandyford Place from the last entrance. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. J. H'Lean Jessie M'Leam, aged 21, says — I am a domestic servant to William Sim, granite merchant, and reside with him at No. 18 Walmer Crescent, Paisley Road, Glasgow. I was at my brother James's marriage on a Friday night in July last, but the day of the month I cannot tell. I remained with the marriage party till about a quarter-past three on Saturday morning, and then I left, accompanied by my two sisters, Margaret and Peterinak In coming along Sauchiehall Road my sister Margaret directed our attention to the singing of birds on the trees in front of Sandyford Place. We stopped to listen to the music, and then my said sister directed our attention to a light in a room of one of the houses in Sandyford Place, and wondered why the gas was burning at that time of the morning. It was then good daylight. I saw the light pointed out by my sister, and it was in the window of a room in the street fiat, and immediately to the west of the door of the house. I only saw the light inside of one window. When the light was pointed out, my sisters and I were standing on the south footpath of Sauchiehall Road, and outside of the railing and shrubbery in front of Sandyford Place. We were standing in front of the house in which the light was. The shutters of the room in which the light was were open, but the Venetian blind was drawn down ; there were three of the spaces, however, about the centre of the blind which were open, and through these open spaces I saw distinctly a gasalier in the centre of the room. I think there were two of the lights of the gasalier burning, but I cannot be positive as to this. The shrubbery was pretty thick and in full bloom at the time, but still I could dis- tinctly see the light while standing outside of the shrubbery. I saw the number " 17 " on the door immediately to the east of the window from which the light proceeded. I have no doubt of this, neither have I any doubt that it was Sandyford Place, as we were near Elderslie Street at the time. I do not remember whether the street lamps were lit at this time or not. There are no lamps inside of the shrubbei-y at Sandyford Place, nor between the shrubbery and the houses. There is, however, a lamp on the footpath in the Sauchiehall Road immediately opposite No. 17. I cannot say whether that lamp was then lighted. I did not at that time know that No. 17 Sandy- ford Place was the house of Mr. Fleming. My sister Margaret did not tell me that she knew the house, nor did she say that she knew the people who lived in it. I heard of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson 312 Appendix III. on Tuesday or Wednesday following, and it was my brother-in-law, j, M'Lean William Turnbull, who told me of it. I then told my brother-in-law that our attention had been directed to said house on the immediately preceding Saturday morning, by the birds and a light in the window. When I heard of the murder I had then a distinct recollection of the house in which the window was through which the light was seen being 17 Sandyford Place. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. Peterina M'Lean, aged 19, says — P« M'Lean I am a domestic servant to William Morier, brush manufacturer, and I reside with him in Lansdowne Crescent (No. 4), Great Western Road, in or near Glasgow. I was at the marriage of my brother, James M'Lean, at Partick, on the evening of Friday, the 4th July last. The marriage party <:ontinu€d all Friday night, and till Saturday morning. I, along with my two sisters, Margaret and Jessie M'Lean, who vv-ere also at said marriage, left the party at about twenty minutes to four o'clock on Saturday morning, 5th July, before it broke up. I left before the others present at the party, as I required to go down to Dunoon (where my master's family had gone on the preceding Thursday) on the Saturday morning. On leaving my said brother's house, my sisters and I proceeded along the Partick Road till we came to Finnieston Street, as I think, though I am not sure. We turned up this street, -and thence into Sauchiehall Road, along which we went. In going along this road we had to pass along Sandyford Place, which I am aware forms part of said road, and is situated on the south side of it. When we were passing Sandyford Place our attention was attracted by a great many small birds that had gathered in a tree which grew opposite the houses there ; and it being a beautiful morn- ing, still and calm, one of my sisters made the remark, how pleasant it was to hear the birds whistling on such a lovely morning, when everything else was quiet. As this remark was made, my eldest sister, Margaret, drew our attention to the fact that there was a light in two of the windows of the house, near to the tree I have men- tioned ; and in reference to the light she observed, "Isn't it very curious to have light in a window at this time of the morning? " I said, " Perhaps they may have sickness in the house, or there may have been a late party." We stood opposite the house for a minute or two, and noticed particularly which house it was, and I observed on the door of the house the number 17. I am quite positive as to ■seeing this number. The windows where the light was were situated on a level with the front door on which I saw the number 17, and were immediately next the door to the west of it. I saw that the light came from the one window more distinctly than from the other ; ajid I account for this from the fact that the Venetian blinds on one of the windows were quite close, and in the other some of the Venetians in the blind were a little open, so that the light could be more plainly seen. I could see through the blind which was a little open that 313 Mrs. M'Lachlan. p. M'Lean the light was proceeding from a gasalier hung in the centre of the- room, but that only one of the lights of the gasalier was burning, and that that light was, so far as I could see, burning with full brightness. The shutters on said windows were not shut. We were walking on the south side of Sauchiehall Road, and outside of the railing and shrubbery in front of Sandyford Place. The shrubbery is pretty thick, and the trees were then in full bloom ; but by looking through between the openings in the shrubbery I could distinctly see the number of the house in which the light was. It was becauise of seeing the light in said window at such a time in the morning that I looked particularly to the number of the house. It would be about four o'clock when we passed Sandyford Place ; and I know this from seeing St. Tslatthew's Church clock in Newton Street, when we passed along, and it was then ten minutes past four. There was no one along with me on said morning, excepting my two sisters. I had only half a glass of wine at the marriage, and no spirits nor any other liquor. I heard of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson, at 17 Sandyford Place, on the Tuesday following. I was then in Glasgow, and Mr. Morier and his son were resident there. I did not mention the circumstance of having seen the light in 17 Sandyford Place on said Saturday morning either to my master or his son ; nor did I mention it to any person until the Saturday following, when I went to Dunoon, and I then and there told what I had seen to my neighbour servant, Elizabeth, then kitchen-maid to Mr. Morier ; I think I also told it to jMiss Morier. Elizabeth has now left Mr. INIorier's service, but she has a sister in the service of Mrs. Houston, No. 190 Regent Terrace. I remained at Dunoon with my master's family until the end of August, when I returned to town. After my return I made no secret of said circum- stance, but told it to a great many people ; I never thought of giving any information to the authorities, because I thought it was of no consequence. I cannot tell whether there are one or two divisions of Sauchiehall Street called Sandyford Place. In coming along Sauchie- hall Road I saw the name Sandyford Place at the west end of the range of houses, of which No. 17 forms one. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. A. Turnbull Agnes M'Lean or Tuenbull, aged 22, says — I am wife of and reside with William Turnbull, an engineer, at No. 86 Renfrew Street, Glasgow. I have known, for about a year past, that No. 17 Sandyford Place is the house of Mr. Fleming, and I know this from having been told so by some one whom I cannot now remember. I was never in the house. I remember some time ago, probably two or three months since, of passing along Sauchiehall Road in company with my sister Margaret, and of telling her that No. 17 Sandyford Place was Mr. Fleming's house. I had no object in telling her this. I was not present at my brother James's marriage, but I know that he was married on the 4th July. I remember my sisters Margaret, JessiCj 314 Appendix III. and Peterina coming home from my said brother's marriage. I cannot a, Turnbull remember whether I was told by any of my said sisters on their return home that morning that they had seen a light at 17 Sandyford Place, but I remember of hearing them saying so when the murder of Jessie M'Pherson first appeared in the newspapers, and often afterwards. It was on the Tuesday after the marriage that I first heard of the murder, and on that forenoon I passed along Sauchiehal! Road, in front of Sandyford Place, in company with my sister Llargaret. In 60 passing along I pointed out ]Mr. Fleming's house to Margaret, and she said that was the house where she had seen the light on the Saturday morning preceding. Glasgow, 30 September 1862. William Turnbull, aged 24, says — W. TurnbuK I am an engine-fitter, and I reside in Renfrew Street (No. 86), Glasgow. My brother-in-law, James M'Lean, was married on Friday the 4th July, being the Friday immediately before the Monday on which the murder at 17 Sandyford Place was discovered. I learned of the murder on the Tuesday morning, and on my way home to breakfast I bought a newspaper containing an account of the discovery. I read the account of it to my wife and her sisters, Margaret and Jessie. I cannot charge my memory whether, when I had finished reading the account of the murder, any of my sisters-in-law mentioned the circumstance of having seen a light in the house, 17 Sandyford Place, when they were returning from their brother's marriage on the preceding Saturday morning ; but I know that I was made aware of that circumstance shortly afterwards. Glasgow, 1 October 1852. Is.\BELLA M'RiVEN Or M'Kat, aged 60, says — I. M'Kay I am wife of and reside with George M'Kay, labourerj No. 9 Carrick Street, Glasgow. Colin Campbell lodges with me, and has done so for about the last ten months. I sometimes see him virriting letters. I think the Sandy- ford murder was found out on a Monday morning, and I heard of it on the Tuesday. I mind of Colin writing a letter before then ; I think he wrote it on the Saturday previous. I have no means of fixing Saturday as the day, except this — that on the Tuesday when I heard of the murder Colin asked me if I minded when he last wrote to his father, and I said it was the previous Saturday. I still believe he wrote it on the Saturday. I saw him write it in the kitchen, and, I think, on the table. I can't say I saw the date on the letter. After writing the letter he took it with him to post, as he said ; and he left the house about seven o'clock, his usual time. He did not, on his return, tell me he posted the letter ; he did not refer to it till said Tuesday. I was not aware, when he wrote the letter, to whom 315 Mrs. M'Lachlan. I. M'Kay it was going; and he did not tell me for whom it was until the Tuesday. After inquiring at me when he wrote the letter he said there was " a case " on his beat; a murder in Sandyford Place; and that, on the previous Saturday night, he saw two women at the door of the house where it was committed. I don't think Colin wrote any other letters about that time. He wrote very seldom, so far as I saw. Glasgow, 1 October 1862. A. M'Lean Allan M'Lean, aged 20, says — I am a blacksmith, and reside at No. 8 Dock Street, Kelvinhaugh, in or near Glasgow, with Hector Currie, labourer. I know Colin Campbell, and have known him since April last. On Saturday night, 5th July, about half-past eight or quarter to nine o'clock, when going westwards along Sauchiehall Street on my way home, I met Campbell about the corner of Sandyford Place and Elderslie Street. We went down Elderslie Street and round by the back of Sandyford Place and Fitzroy Place, into Kelvingrove Street. I parted with Campbell at the upper corner of Kelvingrove Street. I left him standing at the corner, and I went down the street into Kelvinhaugh Street and home, and I did not see him again that night. When we were going along by the back of Sandyford Place Campbell took a letter out of his pocket and said he was going some place with it. I don't know that he said the post office ; but he said he was going some place with it, and he told me to wait, that he would not be two or three minutes; and he turned back into Elderslie Street, and I waited where I was. I don't recollect which way Campbell turned when he got into Elderslie Street; I did not notice. About three or five m.inutes he returned, and we w^alked along by the back of Sandyford Place and Fitzroy Place into Kelvingrove Street, as above. I did not handle the letter, nor see the address, nor did Campbell tell me the address. I did not notice whether there was a postage stamp on it. I have no recollection of standing with my back against the railings in front of Sandyford Place that night. I have no recollection of passing along the front of Sandyford Place at all that night; I am sure I did not do so. I did not see Campbell examine any of the front doors of Sandyford Place ; and I did not see two women, or any woman, standing at any of the front doors in Sandyford Place ; and I did not pass any woman about the corner of Elderslie Street; at least, I don't remember passing any. On the Tuesday or W^ednesday after I met Campbell in the Anderston police office, and he there asked me if it was the Friday night or the Saturday night that I was with him. He said that he was not quite sure, but thought it was Saturday. I remembered quite well that it was Saturday night, and I said so to him; and he said, " I was just thinking that, but was not quite sure." W^hat makes me sure it was Saturday night is that I dropped work early that day, about a quarter-past two; and I left home about five 316 Appendix III. o'clock, and went into the Gallowgate to a shoemaker's shop (Paterson a. M'Lean by name), after which I went into a spirit shop with a fellow- workman, James M'Innes, where we had some ale. It was after coming out of that shop, and when on my way home, that I met Campbell. I think the spirit shop is in Argyle Street. Sauchiehall Street was not my nearest way home, but I went that way purposely to see Campbell in order to ask when I could .see him next day (Sabbath) to have a walk. I have no mind of asking him when I could so see him; there was no appointment made between us for next day, and I did not see him next day. Campbell could not have gone to Sandyford Toll and posted his letter within the time he was away from me, as above. Glasgow, 6 October 1862. Elizabeth MtrEBAT, aged 55, says — E« Muppay I presently reside with John Murray, a foreman shoemaker in Buchanan's Institution, in James Street (No. 23), off Greenhead Street, Glasgow. For two years immediately preceding Martinmas, 1861, I was cook to Mr. John Fleming, accountant, residing in Sandyford Place, Glas- gow. During the first six months of my service I was in the house at Sandyford Place, and the remaining eighteen months I was at the house at Dunoon, and during the winter months of that period I was there alone. During the six months I was in Sandyford Place old Mr. Fleming lived there ; and occasionally, during the summer months, when I was at Dunoon, he would come down and remain for a day or two at a time. He never came to Dunoon during the spring or winter months, when I was there alone. During the whole course of my service old Mr. Fleming never used nor attempted to use any improper liberties with me, and he never made any approaches to me. My neighbour servants were Elizabeth Halliday, Katy (Boye?), and Janet Kay. I never saw him use any liberties with any of these servants, and they never made any complaint to me of his having done so. He always behaved himself in a correct and gentle- manly manner towards the servants. I have seen him coming to the kitchen to warm himself, but he did not go a great deal about the kitchen while I was there. He never said much, and his language was always becoming. So far as I saw, he was a very temperate- living man, and I never saw him the worse of liquor. Declares further — I never heard any servant who had been in Mr. Fleming's service complain of the old man having made improper advances to them. Hamilton, 7 October 1862. Janet Kay, aged 39, examined. Janet Kay I am servant to and reside with William Gebbie, writer, residing at Netherfield, in the parish of Avondale, and county of Lanark. About ten months ago, Martinmas, 1861, I was in the service of Mr. John 317 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Janet Kay Fleming in Sandyford Place, Glasgow. I was in his service from Martinmas, 1860, till ]\lartinnias, 1851. During the first six months of that time I resided with the family in Sandyford Place, and during the last six months I was with them at the coast. During all the time I was with thera ]Mr. Fleming's father, James Fleming, stayed with them. He stayed mostly in the town house while we were at the coast, but occasionally came down and stayed for a few days. Mr. James Fleming and I were always on good terms, but he never, on any occasion, used any freedom with me. He never lised any improper liberties or language towards me. I never heard him use any such to any of the other servants. I never even heard any report of his doing so. He was, so far as ever I saw, a well-conducted man. I never was alone with him in the house. The family were always there when I was. Jessie M'Pherson came to the town house when we went to the coast. I never spoke to her. We were away to the coast before she came, but I heard her spoken of frequently. During the time we were at the coast ^Ir. James Fleming came down three or four times and stayed for a few days at each of these times. During all these visits INIr. James Fleming was continually talking about Jessie M'Pherson ; " Jess, Jess," was never out of his mouth. He praised her greatly for being a good servant, and for taking great care of everything. I never heard him talk so much about any one as he did about her. I never heard him say that he liked her or anything to that effect, but he was always praising her. At the end of these visits to the coast he always took away with him some flowers or gooseberries or other fruit, saying that " this was for Jess." We then stayed at a cottage about half-way between Innellan and Dunoon. My neighbour servant there was Eliza Murray. I do not know where she is now. Old Mir. Fleming was of a remarkably inquisitive disposition. Nothing could go on in the house without his inquiring about it. For instance, if the door bell was rung in the morning before he was up he would rise and " peep " out at his bedroom door to see what or who it was. He often did this, and things like this. If anything the least unusual took place in the house he was " awfu' " inquisitive and anxious about it. Old Mr. Fleming was very fond of coming into the kitchen, but the cook who was with the Fleming's when I was there did not like him to come there, and discouraged his doing so. He seldom used to come at night, however, excepting once or twice when he came down on the Saturday nights to wash his feet. The cook was Barbara Kerr, now in Mr. Jack's Temperance Hotel, Bridge of Allan. Glasgow, 6 October 1862. Ann Ross Ann Ross, aged 46, says — I am a domestic servant to Ann Cowan, and I reside with her at No. 62 Bath Street, Glasgow. About six years ago I was in the service of Mr. John Fleming, 318 Appendix III. •at 17 Sandyford Place, for eix months during the winter season. Jessie Ann Ross Miller was my neighbour servant. Mr. Fleming's father was then resident in the house. He came very little about the kitchen. He never used liberties of any kind with me, nor attempted to do so, and I never saw him behave in an improper manner towards Jessie Miller. His language was always proper and becoming. He was always very kind and civU. I know none of Fleming's servants excepting Jessie Miller. I never heard of any servant towards whom old Fleming is said to have used improper liberties. I never saw the old man the worse for liquor. Glasgow, 7 October 1862. Jessie Miller, aged 29, says — J, Miller I am servant to and reside with Thomas Wingate, boat-builder, Whiteinch, near Partick. For two years and a half prior to June, 1856, I was servant to Mr. John Fleming, and during the whole of that time in the house in 17 Sandyford Place, and during the last six months old INIr. Fleming lived in the house. During that time old Mr. Fleming's conduct, so far as I saw, was correct; his conversation and demeanour were such as a master would show to a servant; especially he neither used nor attempted to use liberties with me, or with the other servant (Ann Ross) in my presence, nor did Ann Ross ever complain to me of any such. I had very little conversation with him, and the only remark I passed upon his conduct or habits was that when the door bell rang he was always anxious to know who it was. He very seldom came into the kitchen. I never saw him tipsy. I was never in the house alone. I can't say whether he was of a kindly disposition. He never entered into familiar talk or joked with me, or with Ann Ross, so far as I saw. Glasgow, 7 October 1862. Mrs. Jessie Walker, wife of James Walker, Grocer and Provision Mrs. Walker Merchant in Elderslie Street, Glasgow, says — About 5 p.m. on Monday the 7th July I was looking over the window of our house in Elderslie Street when I saw a police constable running into my husband's shop, a few doors above the house. I thought that perhaps some of my children had been about some mischief, and I immediately left the house and ran down to the shop. By the time I got there the policeman had left, and I learned from the shopman that he was wanting a candle, as Fleming's servant had "been got dead in a cellar, or some other place, the door of which had been locked. I asked the shopman if he had given the constable lucifer m.atches, and on his replying in the negative. I got a box of matches and ran round to Sandyford Place. I found IMr. John Fleming at the front door as if in the act of shutting it. 319 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mrs. Walker WTien he saw me he opened the door, and I found standing in the lobby old ]\Ir. Fleming, Mr. John Fleming, and John Fleming, junior; Mr. Chrystal, the grocer, and a gentleman whom I did not know. Mr. John Fleming said to me this was a fearful thing. I asked the par- ticulars, and he told me the servant had been got dead in the room or laundry, with the door locked ; that he had got the key of the pantry door, and with it he opened the room door, and, strange to say, that when he put the pantry key into the lock of the room door the key of the room door had fallen out inside of the room. I heard the old man say that the last time he had seen the servant Jess was on the Friday night, about half-past nine o'clock, and that he found her door locked on the Saturday morning. I asked him, seeing she had stopped so long away, if he had never thought of looking after the girl. He said " No." I then asked if he had not thought of getting the door opened and looking whether her chest was away, or whether the house had been robbed. The old man did not answer (whether from not hearing me I cannot tell), and his son said to him, " Mrs. Walker is asking you so, so," repeating my question ; on which the old man replied, " No, I never thought." I asked if he had heard any noise, and he answered, " Ay, I heard some moans." I then asked when, and he replied, " It would be about four o'clock on Saturday morning." I said, " Did you no' rise when you heard the moans," and he answered, "No; I rose on my elbow and looked my watch, and it was just four." I said when he was upon his elbow could he no' have got up and cried down what was the matter. The old man did not answer this question, and his son then said, " I\Irs. Walker is asking, did you no' think of crying down to see what was wrong," and the old man answered " No, I didna think." His son then asked him if he was sure this was on Saturday morning at four o'clock, and he answered, " Yes." I said would it no' be Sabbath morning; on which the old man said, " No, no; I was twic» at the kirk on Sabbath." Well, I said, I thought I saw her on Saturday night between six and seven o'clock, at our shop door; on which the old man said, " Na, it would be Friday night, Mrs. Walker, it could na be Saturday, for I didna see her that day." I said, " Well, if it was not Saturday, it could not be Friday, but it might be Thursday " ; and my reason for saying it could not be Friday was that I had been at the coast that day, and had not returned to Glasgow till long after our shop was shut. The above is as nearly as I can state what took place in Mr. Fleming's- house on the afternoon of IMonday the 7th July, and the statement I have already made to the Fiscal in my previous precognition, as to the state in which the house was that afternoon, is correct. I have to-day read the letter signed "J. N.," which appeared in the Fret Press of Saturday last. I do not know who wrote that letter, and I never saw it until to-day. The following statements therein are untrue, and I never made such statements to any one : — " On their telling me that the body of Jessie M'Pherson had been found below, I remarked that I had seen her on Saturday afternoon ;• 320 Appendix III. on which old Fleming observed, ' Na, Mrs. Walker, it maun have been Mrs. Walker Friday afternoon.' ' But, Mr. Fleming,' I said, ' Why Friday afternoon? ' He made no reply, but he gave a look which flashed conviction on my mind that he knew too well that neither I nor any one else had seen her alive on Saturday, a conviction which every succeeding day has served to strengthen. "We then went downstairs; the floor was quit-e damp, and bore evident marks of recent washing. " I afterwards learned that in two hours later it was quite dry, but I did not see it dry, having left the house a few minutes after." Neither is it true that I told the Fiscals the foregoing particulars of what occurred in Fleming's house on the Monday afternoon. When they called upon me on the Saturday before the trial, all that I was asked and told them was about seeing a woman passing Miss Dykes and me in Elderslie Street about eleven o'clock on the Friday before the murder, and going into Sandyford Lane. On the day they called I was confined to bed, having recently been delivered of a child, and after I had told them about said woman I eaid I hoped they would not trouble me, for I was not able to rise out of my bed, and far less to go to any Court. 4 October 1862. William Gilchrist, aged 52 years, Grain Merchant, in Hope Street, w. Gilchpist Glasgow, and residing at No. 379 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, says — I have all my lifetime been connected with Anderston United Presbyterian Church, and have been an elder of the church for about twenty-four years. Mr. James Fleming has been connected with said church as far back as I can remember, and he is in full com- munion with the church. In the year 1852 the now deceased William Jamieson was elder of the district in which Mr. Fleming was then resident. At the meeting of session held on the 2nd April, 1852, the minute of which I now see, I was present, and remember Mr. Jamieson mentioning that Mr. Fleming had called upon him in a very distressed state of mind and told that a woman had had a child to him, and that he was anxious to submit to the discipline of the church for the sin of which he had been guilty. Accordingly at said meeting, as the minutes bear, a committee was appointed to deal with Mr. Fleming. I was one of the committee, the only other member being the said now deceased, Mr. Jamieson, and we met Mr. Fleming in Mr. Jamieson's office some days afterwards ; he confessed his guilt and seemed to be painfully conscious of the sin he had committed ; he could scarcely speak to us, and expressed very great sorrow and repentance. I have a vivid recollection of the interview, and must say that I never, in the whole course of my experience, have witnessed such apparently genuine sorrow. The committee were so satisfied on the point that on their reporting to the session, it was considered un- necessary to do anything more than rebuke and admonish him. I see from the minutes that he is named " William " Fleming, but Y 321 Mrs. M'Lachlan. W. Gilchrist the name William is a clerical error ; there is no doubt of that fact ; but for his own information it is very likely the session would never have become aware of the fact, as previous to that he had ma.de provision for the support of the child. With the exception of the circumstance above mentioned, I know nothing whatever affecting his moral character, and consider him an upright and consistent member of the church. Excerpts from Session Minute-book, Anderston United Presbyterian Church. 2 April 1852. The session met and was constituted with prayer by Moderator — Present with him, INIessrs. INI'Ewan, Jamieson, Govan, Scott, Napier, M'Gregor, Kerr, Nelson, and Himter. Inter Alia. Williaml Fleming's case was stated by Mr. Jamieson. Messrs. Jamieson and Gilchrist were appointed a committee and to report. Gavin Stetjthers, Moderator. 8 April 1852. The session met in church between sermons, this being Sacramental Feast; constituted with prayer by Moderator, and present with him Messrs. Gilchrist, Jamieson, Brown, Kerr, Napier, M'Ewan, Ewing, Scott, M'Kinnon, Gumming, M'Gregor, Govan, and Nelson. Inter Alia. Compeared Williaml Fleming, who having confessed the sin of forni- cation with Janet Dunsmore, showed becoming contrition, and having been rebuked by Moderator was restored to the fellowship of the church. Gavin Struthers, Moderator. The foregoing are certified by me, as true and correct extracts from the session minute-book of the Anderston United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow. J. Logan Airman, Moderator. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. Rev. John Logan Aikman, Minister of the Anderston United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow, says — Rev. J. L. Aikman j have been minister of said church since February 1856 ; my pre- decessor being the late Dr. Gavin Struthers. Mr. James Fleming ia iSee evidence of William Gilchrist Sispm.— Ed. 322 Appendix III. a member of said church, and in full communion, both now and at the Rev. J. L. date of the murder of Jessie M'Pherson. Mr. Robert Nelson is the Aikman session clerk ; in his absence I produce the minutes of session, and there have been excerpted therefrom two minutes of meeting, dated respectively 2nd and 8th April, 1852, and which have now been com- pared by me with the original minutes, and certified as true and correct copies. Since I became minister of the church I have known IVIr. Fleming ; he is one of the most regular attenders at public worship, and earnest and attentive during the services. I have frequently walked to church with him, and conversed with him ; I formed the opinion that he was an eccentric old man; I thought him staid and respectable, and his outward deportm.ent, so far as I had opportunity of observing, was perfectly correct. Shortly before the trial of Mrs. M'Lachlan I went to his son's house at Dunoon, for the purpose of seeing Mr. Fleming. I had a long private interview with him, during which he gave me precisely the same account of his actings from Friday the 4th till Monday the 7th July last, as I heard him give in his examination in court at the trial. He said he had been praying for a time. I said I understood he was a man of prayer, and therefore not surprised to hear him say so ; he replied, " Ay, but yae prayer." I looked him sternly or search- ingly in the face, and asked what that was, and he answered, " That the Lord might strengthen my memory, that I may tell a' I ken of this awfu' business." He said, "I'm feared for my memory, for I lay things out of my hand the yae minute and forget them the next." I then, still looking him sternly in the face, said, " What about your conscience in this matter? " he said, " I'm perfectly clear about that; I hae many sins to answer for, but no' that." I said, " Would you feel perfectly comfortable in your mind if summoned from the witness box to that judgment bar where the secrets of the heart are known? " when he drew himself up with manifest indigna- tion and surprise, and said, " Perfectly, so far as that's concerned." The impression produced on my mind by the whole conversation was, that he looked upon the murder with a feeling of horror ; but manifested entire innocence as to the murderer, and entire want of knowledge of any of the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. I visited him again last Tuesday : I did not speak much of IMrs. M'Lachlan's last statement, but with reference to it he spoke of the depravity of the human heart, and expressed his indignation at such statements regarding him having been made. He asked me about the public meeting in Glasgow on the previous night ; I told him there was likely to be a petition, very numerously signed, sent to the Secretar-y of State, craving a respite ; on which he said that he wished and prayed earnestly that the Lord would gie her time that a' might be cleared up, or that she might be led to make a confession to clear him. 323 Mrs. M'Lachlan. 4 October 1862. P. H'KInnon Peter RI'Kinnon, aged 58 years, Cabinetmaker, residing at 76 Carrick Street, Glasgow, says — I have been connected with Anderston United Presbyterian Church all my days, and have been an elder for nearly twenty years. From my earliest recollection I have known Mr. James Fleming, and have been intimately acquainted with him ; I never heard anything against his moral character with the exception of the sin for which he sought and submitted to the discipline of the church in the year 1852. I was present at the meeting at which he was rebuked ; his manner was indicative of great sorrow and repentance. I consider him a consistent and upright member of the church. He is regular in his attendance at public worship. Edinburgh, 4 October 1862. R. Nelson Robert Nelson, aged 52. Bookbinder, residing at St. George's Road, Glasgow, declares — I am an elder of the congregation of the Rev. John Logan Aikman, minister of the United Presbyterian Church, Anderston, Gla^sgow. I know James Fleming, who resides in his son's house at Sandyford Place, Glasgow. Looking at him casually, a person might scarcely suppose that he was 87 years of age. If I had nothing to guide me, and were asked his age, I might guess him to be a person of about eighty years of age, but I have no reason to doubt that he is eighty- seven, because about six months ago he retook his seat in said church. I am also a manager of said church, and in that capacity I was present at said seat-letting, and I remember of his then saying that he was the oldest member of the church, and that he was eighty-seven years of age. About ten years ago I became session clerk, and I can say that during these ten years past there never was any charge of any kind made against James Fleming. Previous to these ten years, and as I think about April, 1852, there is one charge against him in the church records. I believe it is the only one. I believe he has been a member of said congregation as far back as I can remember anything ; certainly for the last twenty or thirty years. I cannot speak with absolute precision as to dates, because I am being examined in Edinburgh, and the records are in Glasgow. During the long period now referred to, with the single exception now to be noticed, his character has been unexceptionable. My predecessor in the office of session clerk was a Mr. Hunter, who, if alive, is not now in connection with our church. Just before Mr. Hunter went out of office, the records show, that one of the elders mentioned " the case of Fleming to the session," as having had an illegitimate child by his servant, and that he was dealt with in the ordinary way in such cases, a subsequent minute showing that he was absolved. My present impression and belief is, that Fleming was his own accuser, and that his offence had not come to the knowledge 324 Appendix III. of the kirk session on the complaint or information of any third R. Nelson person. I believe he went to one of the elders, and stated the cir- cumstances himself. I cannot say what induced him to do so. 1 cannot say that he said it lay upon his conscience, and that he invoked church discipline. I understand that he went to the elder of his district, Mr. William Jamieson, who is now dead, but I have no idea what passed between them. I do not remember ever having heard that Fleming was told by any of the elders, that as there was no fama connected with his case, no action by the kirk session waa required ; indeed I do not think that this last occurred. I remember nothing more of the case than what the records show, and of Fleming having been his own accuser. I have endeavoured to recollect how I acquired my present impression and belief, as to his having been his own accuser, and all I can say is, that I must have been told it by some fellow-elder ; but I cannot remember when or by whom. With the exception of the incident now mentioned, I know nothing at all exceptionable in the character of Fleming. He was regular and attentive at the church services. I had no intercourse with him separate from the church. I might walk part of the way from the church with him, and bow to him in the street, or the like ; but I had no further intercourse with him ; and, therefore, I can only say that I believe him to be a respectable man, and that I know nothing against his character, with the exception above mentioned. I should say that in the church records he is called William (in the minutes above referred to), but this must be a clerical error, because I was present when he was admonished. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. Janet Bell, aged 35, says— janet Bell I am servant to and reside with the Rev. John M'CoU, 11 Annfield Terrace, Partick. Seven years ago last summer I was in the service of Mr. John Fleming, at 17 Sandyford Place. I was there for six months; the summer and autumn months. Mr. James Fleming wa« staying with the family then. Mr. John Fleming and family were at the coast, and from the Friday till the Slonday the house in Sandyford Place was only occupied by the old gentleman and myself. There was no other servant. For about five months we were that way. Dui-ing the whole of that tim.e the old gentleman conducted himself, so far as I saw, with the greatest propriety, except that once or twice, not so often as half a dozen times, he came home tipsy, but always before ten o'clock at night. This happened only when Mr. John Fleming and the family were at the coast, i.e., between a Friday and a Monday. The old man did not interfere at all with kitchen matters, but when the door bell rang he always liked to know who it was, and what they were wanting. On wet nights also he used to come occasionally to the kitchen and warm his feet. On these occasions he always con- ducted himself with propriety before me, and generally went to bed between nine and ten. The family returned from the coast about 325 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Janet Bell a week before the Sacrament [end of October]. I left them on 11th November. I had opportunities of seeing the old man's conduct before the other servant, after the family's return from the coast, and 1 never witnessed any impropriety, and the other servant (Jessie Miller) never complained to me, or stated to me that he conducted himself with anything but propriety. I did not consider him inquisitive, except when anybody rang the bell as above. For two or three days while the old man and I were in the house alone, I was unwell, and he was very kind to me then. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. E. Halliday Elizabeth Halliday, aged 25, says — I am servant to and reside with William Russell, warehouseman, No. 17 Kew Terrace, Glasgow. For about eighteen months previous to July, 1860, I was servant to Mr. John Fleming, and during that time the old gentleman lived with the family. For two or three weeks at a time I lived in the Sandyf ord Place house while the family were at the coast ; and from a Friday till a Monday the old gentleman and I were the only occupants of the house. On these occasions the old gentleman always conducted himself with propriety ; I never saw anything else. He went a good deal about the kitchen, and at nights he would sit at the fireside beside me, as he said, just for company. His conversation, both then and at other times, so far as I observed, was correct. I never saw him tipsy. He generally went to bed about nine o'clock, and rose between eight and nine. He always conducted himself properly before the other servant, and the latter never made any complaints to me about his conduct. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. M. M'lntyre Martha M'Inttbe, servant to Mr. Stuart, No. 7 Bumbank Gardens, Glasgow, says — I was in Mr. Fleming's service from the 12th November to 4th January, both last, at his house in Sandyford Place. Jessie M'Pherson was my neighbour servant. The old man used to come much about the kitchen and talk with us in a friendly way. He never used, or attempted to use, any liberties with me, and I never saw him do so to Jessie. She never complained to me about him. He was of a kind disposition, and looked to see that we were comfortable. I never heard of him using any liberties with any of the other servants. He was of a staid, quiet disposition. Dunoon, 4 October 1662. J, Thomson James Thomson, Innkeeper, Dunoon, says — For five years previous to Whitsunday last I was gardener to Mr. John Fleming, and resided, summer and winter, at his house, Avon- dale Lodge, Dunoon. His father was in the habit of coming down to 326 Appendix III. Dunoon for a day or two occasionally in the summer months, while j, Thomson the family were there. He sometimes came in the spring months, when no one except a female servant and I were at the house. I never saw him use any liberties with the female servants, nor use any improper language. He went a good deal about the kitchen, and treated all the domestics very kindly, and was looked upon by the female servants as a kind of father. I never heard any of them complain of the old man behaving in any indecent way towards them. I never saw him the worse of liquor, though I have known him to take a glass of whisky now and again. I was cited to appear at the trial of Mrs. M'Lachlan on her behalf, and was in attendance, but not called. What I was to speak to was the circumstance that about three years ago the deceased Jessie M'Pherson told me that the old man wanted to marry her, and said he would give her aU he had in the world. I observed that the old man behaved even more kindly towards her than the others, but I never saw him take any liberties with her. The prisoner and Jessie M'Pherson were fellow-servants at Dunoon during part of the time I was there, and I have heard the prisoner joking with the deceased about the old man. I have also heard the old man say that ho had need of a wife to look after him in his old age. Dunoon, 4 October 1862. Ann Gilbert, Cook to John Fleming at Avondale Lodge, Dunoon, ^^ Gilbert says — I have been in Mr. John Fleming's service at Dunoon from November, 1861. I never was in the Glasgow house. During last winter old Mr. Fleming was two or three times at Dunoon, and on each occasion he remained for two or three days. There was no one there except the gardener and me. He never used, or attempted to iLse, any liberties with me. His conversation was always correct. He was of a very kindly disposition, always friendly, and very like a father. He has been resident in Dunoon since his liberation from prison, and has since then treated me in the same kindly way he did in winter. Dunoon, 4 October 1862. Mabt Shaw, Housemaid to John Fleming, says — jl_ shaw I have been in Mr. Fleming's service since Whitsunday last. I was never in the house in Sandyford Place, but went direct to Dunoon. The old man was at Dunoon for two or three days, some time before the murder of Jessie M'Pherson; and since his liberation from prison he has been resident there. He never behaved to me, or in my presence, in any other than a becoming way. He never attempted to use any liberties with me, or make approaches of any kind. He is of a very kindly disposition, and looks to the comfort of the domestics. He goes much about the kitchen. 327 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. A. S. Knowles Alexandeb Sheridan Knowles, aged 35, says — I am a flesher and cattle dealer, at 1 ^Macfarlane Street, Gallow- gate, and reside at No. 4 Sidney Street, Gallowgate, Glasgow. Between eleven and twelve o'clock of Thursday last, 2nd current, William Ramsay, flesher. King Street, and INIr. Roberton, came into my shop, and we all went into an adjoining public-house, where the Sandyford case was discussed. In the course of conversation I remarked that I knew a Rlr. Ritchie, who had been told by a party who was returning home on the morning of the murder (Saturday), about four or five o'clock, that he (the party) saw an old man, resembling Mr. Fleming, at the door, 17 Sandyford Place. Mr. Ritchie told me this about six weeks ago, in my own house. He told me the name of the party, but I forget it ; it was a short name ; and Ritchie said that the party did not mention the matter to the authorities, because he did not want his name mixed up with the case. Ritchie also said he knew the deceased, Jessie M'Pherson, when in Falkirk. Ritchie calls upon me frequently. He called yesterday, and denied that he told me about the party seeing the old man. Both he and I had had visits before this from Mr. Roberton, concerning the matter. I said to Mr. Ritchie that if he thought Mrs. M'Lachlan's life was in jeopardy, he should state the party's name; but he insisted that he never told me about the party. Inter- rogated, declares — I am not certain that it was Mr. Ritchie that told me the above ; but the conviction in my own mind is that it was Mr. Ritchie. There was no person present when I received the informa- tion. I can think of no other person but Mr. Ritchie who could have told me. I have found Mr. Ritchie only middling truthful in matters generally. Glasgow, 4 October 1862. J. Ritchie John Ritchie, aged 29, says — I am a cattle-dealer, and reside at 85 Bellgrove Street, Duke Street, Glasgow. I know Mr. A. S. Knowles, and have been several times in his house. I have no recollection of stating to him, on any occasion whatever, that I knew a party who saw an old man, resembling Mr. Fleming, at door 17 Sandyford Place, about four or five o'clock on the morning of the Sandyford murder (Saturday), or of making any similar statement. I have no recollection of conversing with Mr. Knowle-s about the murder at aU. I don't remember being in Mr. Knowles' house about six weeks ago. I saw Mr. Knowles last night; he did not then, or on any occasion, refer to said party, or say to me that if I believed Mrs. M'Lachlan's life to be in jeopardy, I should state the party's name who saw the old man; nor did I deny that I had informed him about said party. In point of fact, I don't know any party who saw an old man, resembling ]\Ir. Fleming, at said door ; nor did I ever hear of such a thing until now. I knew the deceased Jessie M'Pherson when I kept a shop at Falkirk ; she used to come to the shop. 328 Appendix III. (4) Letter from Mr. Young to the Right Honourable Sir Geoegb Mr. Young Grey, Bart., M.P. Edinburgh, 15 May 1863; "Sir, As you have seen proper to assent to the motion for the production of the evidence which v^as taken before me in this case, I have to submit for your consideration whether the production ought not to be accompanied with a statement of the manner in which that evidence was taken. I acted upon the verbal request of the Lord Advocate, made, as I understand, at your desire ; the purport of the request being that I should see and hear such witnesses as the prisoner's agents thought proper to bring before me, and report the result. It is, I think, proper that it should be distinctly understood that I was not invested with authority or legal powers of any kind. I had no power to compel the attendance of a witness or to administer an oath. Indeed, any inquiry in a criminal case after trial, with a view to enable a IMinister of the Crown to advise the Sovereign with respect to the disposal of the prisoner, must be extra-judicial. The manner in which I proceeded was this : I informed the prisoner's agents, at an interview, that I should proceed to Glasgow, and there Bee and hear such witnesses as they thought proper to examine ; but that I could not compel any one to attend for examination, and that the examination of such persons as chose to come could not be taken in public or upon oath, the proceedings being extra-judicial. My duty, as I conceived it, was to see that the witnesses brought forward were fairly and fully examined, and notes of their evidence taken a.nd reported to you. To aid me in the discharge of this duty I thought it right that the Procurator-fiscal, who was necessarily well acquainted with the whole case, should attend the inquiry, and not only put or suggest questions to the various witnesses, but also himself bring forward any witnesses he thought proper ; and he attended accordingly at my request. Sir Archibald Alison was good enough to give me the use of his own rooms in the County Buildings of Glasgow, and I there received, and heard examined, and, so far as I thought proper, examined myself, the various witnesses who were brought to me by the prisoner's agents or the Fiscal, and notes of their evidence were taken and transmitted to you. There was no attempt at order or arrangement in taking the evidence. The witnesses were taken as they came, and they were examined, and their evidence noted as for the information of those who were acquainted with the prior proceedings in the case. After what I have said, I need not add that no one was put upon oath. Several of the witnesses had been previously examined before the Sheriff, in the course of an inquiry conducted by him with a view to test the truth of the prisoner's written statement, and copies of their examinations having been furnished to me, and communicated to the prisoner's agents, these witnesses were examined before me in supplement only, and with reference to their examinations before the 329 Mrs. M'Lachlan. Mp. Young Sheriff. It was my duty, as I conceived it, to read and consider the precognitions which had been taken before the Sheriff, the whole of which were sent to me. I did not doubt that they had been fairly taken, and the prisoner's agents, to whom I communicated them, so far as I judged proper, were, I believe, satisfied that they had been so. The examinations which took place before me were thus much shortened, and were in truth regarded as merely supplementary to those which had been previously taken by the Sheriff. — I have, &c., G. YOUNQ. The Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart., M.P., &c., &c., &c. APPENDIX IV. Statement by Mrs. M'Lachlan's Agent regarding the alleged Confession made by her to him. {From the Glasgow Herald, 6th July, 1863.) 4th July, 1863, 145 West George Street, Glasgow. Sir, — As I have received an intimation that you are about to publish a hearsay version of a certain statement made by Mrs. M'Lachlan to me, and wish, if it is to be published, it should be published in a correct and authentic form, I beg to request that you will print it in the shape enclosed, as I have altered and adjusted it, instead of in any other. Professional scruples, of which your readers are aware, have hitherto prevented my making it public ; but I have made up my own mind that it is necessary and just, and I shall be responsible for its appearance. I wish further to explain that, although I have in several places thrown the statement into the form of direct interrogatory and answer, I do not wish to pledge myself to verbal accuracy in these places, but have intended, by adopting this form, to convey not only the substance but the manner of the communication. — I am, sir, your obdt. servt., J. A. Dixon. THE STATEMENT. When the trial of Mrs. M'Lachlan was concluded, and after the Home Secretary had ordered the inquiry by Mr. Young, but before it began, Mrs. M'Lachlan's agents applied to the Prison Board for permission to confer with the prisoner alone as to her case. The request was granted, upon condition that only one of the agents should obtain admission. Mr. Dixon was appointed to confer with the prisoner, the object of the agents being to ascertain whether she could give any information which would assist them in dealing with the numerous 330 Appendix IV. reports current after the publication of the " Statement," and par- ticularly a report which was persistently made, and which came to them through many different channels, viz., that old Mr. Fleming had been seen on the door steps in front of the house between four and five on the morning of the murder. When Mr. Dixon waited on the prisoner he asked her whether she was aware that the old man had been out in front of the house, mentioning at the same time that they had hitherto been unable to discover any ground for the rumour. Mrs. M'Lachlan answered that she did not think there was any truth in it, and that they need not trouble themselves in hunting after the rumour further, as she did not think it was possible it could be true. INIr. Dixon then proceeded to ask her a number of questions as to details of the old man's movements, with the view of ascertaining whether she had any particular reason for saying that the rumour could not possibly be true. She showed some little hesitation in answer- ing these questions, preferring to turn aside to talk about the incidents of the trial, particularly criticising the portraits in the pamphlet account of the trial, and trifling with other irrelevant topics of that kind. She appeared to Mr. Dixon to be hysterical ; sometimes crying and sometimes laughing or giggling. There was nothing, however, about the peculiarities of her behaviour to indicate that she was insane, or that she did not know perfectly well what she was speaking about. On resuming the questions as he could get her to attend to him, he put some such question as " Where was the old man at this time? " After a little hesitation she looked in his face laughing, and said, " I may just as weel tell ye that the auld man wasna there at a'." And on the question being repeated, she explained that she meant to say that she had not seen the old man at all that night. Mr. Dixon then asked her, " Do you mean to say that you did not see the old man sitting in the armchair when you went down to the kitchen? " She said, "No; I did not go down to the kitchen; I did not go in by the front door at all." " Then how did you enter? " She said, '•By the back door," and that "she had not been upstairs at all that night." " Do you mean to say that the old m.an did not &end you out for whisky? " She answered, " No — and I was not out for whisky at all." " But," said IMr. Dixon, " Mrs. Walker and Miss Dykes saw you out? What were you doing out? " She answered that when these two people saw her she had not been in the house at all, and was then going to it for the first time. On being asked if she had been anywhere else after leaving Mrs. Macgregor,! near the Gushet House, a little after ten o'clock, she said she had been nowhere but on the road to Sandyford Place. On its being pointed out to her that from the time she left Mrs. Macgregorl till she was seen by Mrs. Walker and Miss Dykes, about an hour had elapsed, she still adhered to her statement, and apparently could give no other account of what she had been doing in the interval. In answer to the question, "Who had opened the door to the milkboy?" if she had not seen the old man at all, she stated that she herself had opened the door to the milkboy, and that ' ' the iMrs. Fraser.— Ed. 331 Mrs. M'Lachlan. old man was in bed at the time," she supposed. On being then asked whether she therefore meant to say that it was she who had committ^^d the murder, she said that she could not tell — that she knew nothing about it. On being requested to explain what she meant by thL«, as, if the old man did not do it, she must have done it, she went on to say that Jessie and she had been drinking ; that there had been a good deal of drink going ; that Jessie got sick with the drink, and was lying on the kitchen floor vomiting ; that she, Mrs. M'Lachlan, washed the " vomit " from Jessie's face, and brought in blankets and put them over her ; that Jessie vomited on the blankets, and she (Mrs. M'Lachlan) afterwards washed part of them ; that the blankets were not washed to remove blood stains ; and that she then washed up the floor after Jessie began to get better. She then said that from drink and nausea she herself became sick and rstched violently, and Jessie (who, she said, was always in the habit of working with laudanum when anything was wrong with her) made her take a large dose of laudanum to stop the vomiting. She then said that the effect of laudanum upon her had always been to take her head and make her delirious ; that her husband and her sister could tell that when the doctor gave her a sleeping draught during one of her illnesses, instead of composing her, it had the effect of making her start out of bed and rush about the room, and that they had to hold her (a statement which the husband and sister afterwards contradicted to Mr. Dixon) ; that the laudanum given her by Jessie produced the same effect, and took her head ; that she had no remembrance of any quarrel, or of anything except a confused recollection of Jessie crying, " Jessie ! Jessie ! what are you doing? ' and that she (Mrs. M'Lachlan) was creeping about in the dark on her hands and knees, somewhere, she did not know where. After that she had no recollection of any- thing whatever tiU she found the body in the moi-ning ; that the old man was not down the stairs that night or morning at all, a statement which she reiterated again and again ; that she could not teU whether any other person had been in the house or not. She repeated that she had opened the door to the milkboy, and on being reminded that the old man himself and the milkboy had sworn that it was the old man who had opened the door, she said that she was aware of that, but it was she that did it notwithstanding. She said she remained in the house tiU near nine o'clock, and that she was so dazed with the drink and the laudanum that she never thought of escaping sooner, and that she left by the back door. No questions were put to her regarding the clothing or the silver plate, and she said nothing about them. Nor did she make any other statement regarding the night's proceedings. On receiving this communication from Mrs. M'Lachlan, Mr. Dixon told her that he did not know what to make of it, that it placed him in a very awkward position, and that it suggested some doubts as to his continuing to act as her agent. Upon hearing this, the prisoner said that it was all nonsense, that he need not believe a word of it, and that there was not a word of truth in it, and that she only said so to see how he would look. As this statement immediately followed 332 Appendix IV. Mr. Dixon's expressed doubt about acting as her agent, he told her that he was afraid that there was some truth in it, and that he would take time to consider how he should act. She then said that she hoped he was not going to mention what she had now told him, repeat- ing that it was all lies, and that the statement read at the trial was the truth ; upon which Mr. Dixon explained to her that from his position as her agent he was bound to secrecy, and that she might rest satisfied upon that point. He also advised her that, so long as her fate was in suspense, she ought to keep her own counsel, and be very careful about repeating to any visitors or others what she had said to him, or entering upon the subject at all. She then entreated that her communication would not be mentioned, even to the other agents, a request which Mr. Dixon complied with. Immediately after this interview with the woman, Mr. Dixon felt it to be his duty to consult two gentlemen, one of them a professional friend in Edinburgh and the other a well-known merchant in this city, with the view of satisfying his own. mind on the question whether he could with propriety act for the woman during the impending investi- gation, after what she had told him. After discussing the question with these gentlemen, Mr. Dixon made up his mind that he was entitled to continue in the case, and could not well desert it at that juncture, particularly as his withdrawal from it, after being in confidential com- munication with the woman alone, would have drawn down public suspicion upon her case. In the course of last month this statement was communicated to Mr. Fleming's agents ; and by Mr. Dixon and them to several eminent and experienced gentlemen of the Faculty, including the Dean. At the Dean's suggestion, and at the request of Mr. Fleming's agents, Mr. Dixon proceeded to Perth, and obtained access to Mrs. M'Lachlan in the Penitentiary, in presence of the governor, the doctor and the matron, and, after representing to her the injustice done to the Fleming family if the old man was innocent, he requested permission to publish the statement communicated to him, or at least that portion of it stating that old Mr. Fleming had nothing to do with the murder. IMrs. M'Lachlan stated in reply that she did not remember having made any statement as to having been drugged with laudanum on the occasion referred to, and positively denied that she had ever made a statement to Mr. Dixon to the effect that Mr. Fleming was not present on the occasion of the murder, repeating her charge against the old man, protesting her entire innocence, and insisting that she had never made any other statement than the one read at the trial. I have revised and corrected the above, and I certify it to be correct. J. A. Dixon. 333 Mrs. M^Lachlan. APPENDIX V. Correspondence and Documents relating to the Interview BETWEEN jNIrS. M'LaCHLAN AND HER AGENT IN THE GENERAL Prison at Perth. [From the Glasgoxo Herald, lith August, 1863.) Glasgow, August 12, 1863. Sir, — We shall feel obliged by your inserting in the Herald of to-morrow the enclosed correspondence and documents. Mr. Burton's letter was received to-day. — We are, sir, your most obedient servants. Smith & Wright. J. H. Burton, Esq., Advocate, Manager and Secretary, General Prison Board, Edinburgh. 99 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, July 7, 1863. Sir, — Jessie M'Lachlan, at present a prisoner in the General Prison at Perth, has, we understand, made a communication to the ofl&cials of the prison regarding the commission of the crimes of which she was convicted. As agents of Mr. James Fleming, we are desirous that this communication should be made public, and have, therefore, through you, respectfully to request that the managers of the General Prison may be pleased to authorise the officials to make it known to us. — We are, sir, &c.. Smith & Wright. Office of H.M. Prison IManagers, 11 Melbourne Place, Edinburgh. Gentlemen, — The managers of the General Prison at Perth, having now received instructions from the Secretary of State how to deal with the request made in your letter of the 7th July last, transmit to you herewith a copy of each of the following documents, viz. : — 1. Entry in the journal of the governor of the General Prison relat- ing to an interview between convict Jessie M'Lachlan and her agent on 19th June, 1863. 2. ]\Iemorandum by the governor of what took place at the interview, and a subsequent conversation relating to it between him and the convict. 3. Note by Miss Hislop, Scripture reader in the General Prison, of a conversation held by her with the convict. The managers believe that these documents contain a full account of all communications of the kind referred to in your letter. — I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, J. H. Burton. 334 Appendix V. 1. Copy entry in the Journal of the Governor of General Prison, relating to an interview between convict Jessie M'Lachlan and her agent, on 19th June, 1863. Mr. Dixon, agent for 289,21 Jessie M'Lachlan at her trial, came to the prison for the purpose of seeing her relative to a conversation which, he asserted, had taken place between them ; but, though his case was strongly recommended by Andrew Bannatyne, Esquire, Dean of Faculty, Glasgow, and by Dr. Barclay, Sheriff-Substitute, Perth, it was thought advisable to telegraph to the managers for pei-mission, and a reply in the affirmative having been received, an interview took place in the governor's office between Mr. Dixon and the prisoner — the governor himself, with the surgeon, Mr. Thomson, and the matron, Miss Beattie, being present. The result was unsuccessful, as the prisoner denied that the conversation referred to had ever taken place. 2. Copy memorandum by the Governor of what took place at the interview above referred to, and at a subsequent conversation relating to it between him and the convict. At the interview, Mr. Dixon commenced by assuring the prisoner that anything she might say would have no effect upon her sentence, and that she could not now be hanged for the offence — a fact of which ehe appeared to be fully aware. He then asked her if she remembered having said anything to him about laudanum, when she at once, with- out the least hesitation, positively denied that she had ever spoken of laudanum to him, and, moreover, that she had only once seen him after the trial, and then but a very short time. Mr. Dixon put the question relative to the laudanum to her in different forms at least three or four times, and she as repeatedly denied that she had spoken of laudanum at all ; she also asserted that she was as innocent as Mr. Dixon himself ; and when he then asked her if Mr. Fleming was the guilty person, she replied that " he did the act " ; and again, on Mr. Dixon making the observation that Mr. Fleming's friends eU declared he was innocent, she exclaimed, " How could his friends know whether he was innocent or not; they were not there." She also said it was a great hardship that she should be kept here so long, apart from her delicate child. He said, "Your child is with your relatives, and will be well taken care of; but the Flemings are ruined, every one of them, and are about to leave the country " ; and he then added, " the case has lately been before Parliament." The prisoner's persistency in denial being obvious, the interview was not very protracted. On the following morning the prisoner expressed a wish to see me, and was brought to Miss Beattie's office at the Lodge, when she began by asking what was IMr. Dixon's object in desiring to see her, and upon my giving her the evasive answer that I was not quite clear upon that point myself, she at once stated, without any questions being put to her, that " she did recollect having spoken of laudanum to IMr. Dixon," and that what she had said was, " that she knew no more of it (meaning the murder) than if he, Mr. Dixon, had placed a glass of laudanum on the table fore-anent her." 335 Mrs. M'Lachlan. 3. Note by Miss Hislop, Scripture Reader in the General Prison, of a conversation held by her with the convict Jessie M'Lachlan. I had visited the prisoner several times in my official capacity, but had never once alluded to her crime, but had spoken to her as I do to other prisoners, as being a lost sinner in the sight of God. On this occasion she referred to the crime with which she was charged, and said her case was a very sad one. I said to her, " You will have noticed that in all my dealings with you I have carefully avoided speak- ing to you of your crime ; but since you have mentioned it yourself I shall let you know my mind on the subject. I believe you to be the guilty person, and to me you seem to have acted as a guilty person throughout. You have been guilty of a deed for which you ought to have been hanged, as God has never repealed that law He gave, that blood should answer for blood, but by a very mysterious providence your life has been spared, and I would beseech you to make early and earnest application to Him whose blood cleanseth from all sin." She looked at me and said, " Well, Miss Hislop, I am obliged to you for your honesty." She sat silent for a minute or so after this, and then she said, " I had as little thought of it half an hour before I left mj' own house as you have at this moment." I said I believed it was not a premeditated thing, but that one sin had led to another till the deed was committed. She said, " I feel sometimes as if I could go through these prison walls. I often think my mind will give way." She began to tell me about going out for some spirits that night at the request of Fleming. I stopped her, and said it was no use going over it, as nothing she could say would alter my opinion about it. She immediately added, " But Fleming is not a good man." I said " I don't say he is a good man, but I believe him to be innocent of that crime." APPENDIX VI. A Brief Bibliography of the M'Lachlan Case. 1. The I Mysterious Murder | At Sandyford, Glasgow. | Complete Report I Corrected from the best Accounts. | Contents. | Three Illustra- tions, I Showing the Exterior and Interior of the House. | The First Discovery Of The Murder. | Description Of The House In Which The Murder Was Committed. | Personal History of The Murdered Woman, j The Post- Mortem Examination Of The Body. | The Stolen Property And The Woman Who Pawned It. | Who Is The Murderer? | Mr James Fleming's Apprehension. | The Funeral Of The Deceased. | Latest Par- ticulars. I Glasgow : | Published For The Booksellers. | To Be Had Wholesale Of Wm. Love, 40 St. Enoch Square. 8vo. pp. 11. Published in July, 1862. This pamphlet contains a reprint of such particulars as had appeared in the newspapers, and was issued prior to the apprehension of Mrs. M'Lachlan. There is a good wood-cut of the exterior of the house, but the two plans of the ground floor and sunk flat were 336 Appendix VI. evidently prepared by one who had not had the advantage of inspecting the premises. 2. Murder most foul, as in the best, it is, but this most Foul, | Strange, and Unnatural. | Remarkable Incidents In The Life Of ( Jessie M'Lauchlan, | Now under Sentence of Death, for the Murder of | Jessie M'Pherson. | Together with the Immoral Life of Old Fleming the Reputed Murderer ; also the Life, | History, and Extraordinary Career of the murdered woman. | Together with eveiy incident in that Mockery of a Trial — | With the Scandalously Partial Summing up of Lord Deas — | With every particular in connexion with this Monstrous Affair | With A Clue To The Mystery. | Which Is The Murderer ? | Fleming or M'Lauchlan. I [Portraits] | 2 & 3, Shoe Lane. One Penny, Quarto, pp. 7. The tone of this pamphlet sufficiently appears from the above synopsis of its contents. 3. Justice : | Human And Divine. | A Sermon, | By The | Rev. William Scott, I On The | Recent Trial | For | The Sandyford Murder. | Preached, Sept. 28, 1862, and Published by Request. | Glasgow : | William Love, St. Enoch Square ; | And All Booksellers. | 1862. | Price Twopence. 8vo. pp. 20. The author of this pamphlet advocates delay in carrying out the execution of Mrs. M'Lachlan, with a view to further investigation into the circumstances of the case. 4. The Sandyford Case : | A Lecture | Delivered By The | Rev. Robert Stewart, | Of St. Mark's Church, Glasgow, | On | Sabbath, 12th October, 1862. I Glasgow : | Thomas Murray and Son. | 1862. 8vo. pp. 24. The author deals with the necessity for the establishment of a court of criminal appeal, discusses the value of circumstantial evidence, and holds that the verdict should have been one of " Not proven." 5. The Sandyford Murder. | A Plea For Mrs. M'Lachlan. | By | A Clergyman Of The Church Of Scotland. | Glasgow : | Thomas Murray and Son. I 1862. 8vo. pp. 16. This pamphlet contains a strong argument upon the evidence with a view to proving that old Fleming alone was guilty of the murder, and that Mrs. M'Lachlan's statement was true. 6. A Remonstrance Against Injustice : | James Fleming | Not Guilty. | By An Inhabitant of Glasgow. | [Quotation.] | Published by William Love, St. Enoch Square. | 1862. 8vo. pp. 16. An uncompromising attack upon Mrs. M'Lachlan, written by a strong partisan of "The Old Gentleman." The arguments adduced are similar to those of the Glasgow Herald and its correspondents. The author was, however, unable to allude to the three days' apathy of Fleming with reference to his proved character. 2 357 Mrs. M'Lachlan. 7. The I Sandford Murder Case. | Trial Of Mrs. M'Lachlan | For Murder, | At Glasgow Circuit Court, September, 1862. | With Portraits. | Glasgow : I J. H. Hastings, New City Road. | 1862. Svo. pp. 167. Contains fictitious portraits of Mrs. M'Lachlan, James Fleming, and Lord Deas. Issued in yellow paper wrappers, price one shilling. Although bearing to be a " Revised and Corrected Report," this is merely a reprint of the contemporary report published in the Morning Journal. The first separate report of the Trial, published 4th October, 1862. 8. Jessie Macintosh or Maclachlan. | Return to an Address of the Honourable The House of Commons, | dated 5 May 1863 ; — for, | " Copy of the Proceedings at the Trial of Jessie Macintosh or Maclachlan | for Murder and Robbery at Glasgow in September last, and of the | Evidence taken at the subsequent Inquiry before Mr. Young." | (Mr. Stirling.) | Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be Printed, | 19 May 1863. Folio, pp. 129. Issued as Parliamentary return No. 268, price Is. 4d. The official report of the Trial and the only separate report of the evidence taken by the Crown Commissioner. The text of the evidence adduced at the Trial is a reprint of No. 7. The addresses of counsel and the judge's charge ai'e not included. The following publications contain references to the case in its legal and medical aspects : — 9. The Sandyford Miirder Case, and Criminal Law Administration. — Jowncd of Jurisprudence, 1862, vi. 513-518. 10. The Sandyford Case — Privilege of Crown Witnesses. — Journal of Jurisprudence, 1863, vii. 281-288, 434-445. 11. Extract from Lord Brougham's Letter to the Earl of Radnor ; also The Glasgow Murder. — Law Magazine and Revieio, 1863, xiv. 65-66, 70-94. 12. Debate in the House of Commons, on 24th April, 1863, upon Mr. Stirling's motion for copies of the proceedings at the Trial and of the evidence taken at the subsequent Inquiry by the Crown Commissioner. — Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, 1863, clxx. 681-703. 13. Debate in the House of Commons, on 26th June, 1863, upon the M'Lachlan case. — Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, 1863, clxxi. 1531-1560. 14. An Account of the Medical Evidence connected with the Trial of Jessie M'Lachlan, at Glasgow Autumn Circuit, 1862. By George H. B. yi.s.c\Qod^'M.'D.,Y.^.G.^.'£,.,kc.— Glasgow Medical Journal, 1864, xi. 50-61. 15. Report of the evidence relating to the manner in which the pannel's declarations were taken and of the objections to their admission at the trial ; also Extracts from the speeches of the Lord Advocate and Mr. Mure in the Debate in the House of Commons on the case. — Irvine's Justiciary Reports, 1865, iv. 220-225, 587-588. 338 it C3 r of wall. J ine showing i— Where the body was fo\ind. sin-stand and floor. Appendix VI. 16. The Sandyford Place Murder. — Some Account of Mij Life and Writings: An Autobiography, by the late Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., D.C.L., edited by his daughter-in-law, Lady Alison, 1883, ii. 503-511. Various portraits of persons connected with the case were published in Glasgow in September, 1862, These include three large separate por- traits: — " Mrs. M'Lachlan," from a crayon drawing, " Jessie M'Pherson, from a photograph," " ' The Old Gentleman,' as he appeared in the witness box " ; reproductions of the above, with the addition of Lord Deas and an emblematic device of the cleaver and the rope, upon one sheet ; and a small portrait from a pen-and-ink sketch, " Mrs. M'Lachlan, as taken by an artist in the Court," The first-mentioned portrait was issued in two states — " Tinted, 6d, ; Plain, 3d," The isometrical and ground plans, prepared for the Crown by Mr. Charles O'Neil, were lithographed, and published in a single sheet. There were also published in October, 1862, a series of broadsheet caricatures: — (1) "Sandyford Sweepstakes," in which, in a race for the Crown Plate (The Gallows), Lord Deas and Old Fleming are represented as being beaten by the Milkboy ; (2) Lord Deas, as "Lord Death," attended by the Devil holding the rope, addresses a jury of " Cuddies," while " Old Gentleman," with angel's wings and devil's tail, hands bags of gold to "Black Fiscall" and "Needy Sherriff" [sic.]; (3) Lord Deas grasps Old Fleming by the hand, while refusing to hear Mrs. M'Lachlan's plea for mercy ; and (4) Mrs. M'Lachlan casts the noose round the neck of " a respectable ' Auld Gentleman,' " to the consternation of Lord Deas. The Weekly Free Press, 27th September, 1862 (price threepence, 16 pp.), contains — " The late Trial Sifted in Two Fresh Editorial Leaders ; Queries touching the Fleming Family ; Shameful Suppression of Dan Paton's Evidence, Legally Proved ; An Account of James Fleming's little daughter, Elizabeth Gray ; How the Articles found in Fleming's Ashpit last Monday fell into our hands, and escaped the Police ; Why was Fleming not Tried ? Sundry new documents bearing upon the case generally. " The Edinburgh Weekly Review of the same date contains — "A reprint of the four leading articles which excited so much attention in the Daily Review," viz. : — (1) Lord Deas ; (2) Mrs. M'Lachlan ; (3) Old Fleming ; (4) The Petition, Full reports of the Trial were published in the Glasgoiv Herald, the Morning Journal, the Scotsman, and the North British Daily Mail (18th to 22nd September, 1862), of which the latter is much the most accurate and complete. Comments upon and correspondence regarding the Trial appeared in the contemporary newspaper press of the United Kingdom. References to the case in its later stages are contained in the local journals for upwards of a year after the date of the Trial, The debates in the House of Commons upon the matter are fully reported in the Times, 25th April and 27th June, 1863. 339 Notable English Trials SEVERAL years ago a series of volumes, under the title of Notable Scottish Trials, was commenced by Messrs. William Hodge & Company with the publication of " The Trial of Madeleine Smith." The satisfactory reception which has been extended to the enterprise, both by the public and press of this country, has led the Publishers to adopt the suggestion which has frequently reached them from different quarters that they should publish a similar series dealing with English Trials. They have accordingly arranged for the publication of a series of volumes under the title of Notable English Trials, the object of which will be to present a full and authentic record of the more conspicuous Trials that have a place in the annals of English jurisprudence. Of many of these the details are at the present time not readily accessible, being either confined to the pages of official reports or buried in the files of the daily press ; and it is intended NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS. to issue — in a uniform series — such a narrative of the more modern causes cdlebres as shall prove not only of interest to the general reader, but also of utility to those concerned, professionally or otherwise, with the study and application of the legal and medical principles involved in the various cases to be dealt with. To each Trial a separate volume will be assigned ; and, where verbatim evidence is available, it will be reproduced in full, special care being taken to ensure accuracy of detail. Each volume will be fully illustrated. The series will be founded upon careful research into every available source of information, and, so far as permissible, the opportunity will be taken of consulting with and acquiring reliable information from gentlemen who may have been authorita- tively associated with any of the Trials in contemplation. The Publishers have been fortunate in securing the co-operation of several well- known gentlemen in the preparation of this series, in addition to the editors of the first six volumes mentioned on next page. As it is the wish of the Publishers to make this series as interesting and complete as possible, they will be grateful for any NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS. suggestions as to what Trials should be included, and for any information as to material regarding famous Trials which would not be easily accessible in the ordinary course. The size of the volumes will be demy 8vo, and the price 5S. per volume. The first six volumes deal respectively with the Trials of — THE STAUNTONS (The Penge Mystery). Edited by J. B. Atlay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Dedi- cated to Sir Edward Clarke, K.C Louis Staunton, Patrick Staunton, Mrs. Patrick Staunton, and Alice Rhodes were tried before Sir Henry Hawkins in 1877 for tlie murder of Mrs. Louis Staunton by starvation. FRANZ MULLER. Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A. (Oxon.). Franz Miiller was tried before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Baron Martin in 1S64 for the murder of Mr. Briggs in a railway train on the North London line. Dr. WILLIAM PALMER. Edited by George H. KnotTj Barrister-at-Law. Dr. Palmer was tried before Lord Campbell in 1856 for the murder of John Parsons Cook by strychnia poisoning. Dr. GEORGE HENRY LAMSON. Edited by H. L. Adam. Dr. Lamson was tried before Sir Henry Hawkins in 1882 for the murder of his brother-in-law, Percy John, by aconite poisoning. LORD LOVAT. Edited by David N. Mackay, Solicitor. Lord Lovat was tried before the House of Lords in 1747 for high treason. THOMAS and HENRY WAINWRIGHT. Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon.). Henry Wainwright was tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in 1875 for the murder of Harriet Louisa Lane. Thomas Wainwright was tried as an accessory after the fact. NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS. The publication will be continued, as far as practicable, at frequent intervals, and the following will be among the volumes to be subsequently issued : — Elizabeth Canning-. Thuptell and Hunt. Fauntleroy. Overend and Gurney. Sip Spencer Cowper. Catherine Hayes. Mrs. Maybrick. J. Blomfield Rush. Donnellan. The Perreaus. The Flowery-land Pirates. Etc., etc. k-1 ■■} 7 n 3a 5 rs THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE ST4MPED BELOW. Series 9482 AA 001 146 081 3 3 1205 00369 8568