James Fraser, of Belladrum.
William Fraser, of Culbockie.
William Mackintosh, of Balnaspeck.
Duncan Fraser, of Fingask.
Alexander Smith, merchant in Inverness.
John Gillanders, of Highfield.
William Reid, of Muirtown.
William Mackenzie, of Strathgarve.
George Falconer Mackenzie, of Allangrange.
Robert Denham, tacksman of Dunglass.
George Kay, residing at Tannachy.
Bailie Robert Joss, merchant in Elgin.
John Barclay, writer, Elgin.
John Collie, farmer at Alvas.
John Smith, tacksman of Greens.
Evidence for the prosecution and for the defence having been led at
considerable length,
Mr. Drummond addressed the jury on the part of the Crown. He stated
that he gave up all the charges except the one which regarded the
ejections from the barns, and that of real injury in the case of the
old woman at Badinloskin. He certainly did not think the evidence in
this case last was sufficient to establish culpable homicide; but he
argued, that the circumstances proved were sufficient to authorise the
jury in finding a verdict of guilty to the extent of an injury, as
she had been removed at the risk of her life, which he maintained to
be contrary to law. As to the barns, he contended that the conduct of
Mr. Sellar was irregular and illegal, and consequently oppressive, the
outgoing tenants being entitled, by the custom of Sutherland, to retain
them as long as the arable land.
Mr. Gordon addressed the jury on the part of the panel, and replied
to the arguments used on behalf of the prosecution. He entered at
great length into the history and objects of the prosecution; the
preconcerted plan on which certain persons had instigated the people
of Strathnaver to complain at first, and to persist afterwards; the
views they entertained of successfully opposing the improvements
of Sutherland, by affecting the noble persons to whom the property
belonged, through the sides of Mr. Sellar, as a convenient medium
of succeeding; the disgraceful measures to which these persons
had resorted, with a view to affect the channels of justice, the
impartiality of jurymen, and the purity of evidence. He attacked the
measures and conduct of Mr. Mackid in the most pointed terms; exposed
the characters of the evidence of Chisholm and others, and dwelt in the
clear evidence of the total innocence of Mr. Sellar, and on the points
of law which applied to the particular charges as criminal charges, at
considerable length, and with reference to various law authorities;
and finally, concluded by maintaining to the jury, that this was not
merely the trial of Mr. Sellar, but, in truth, a conflict between the
law of the land and a resistance to that law: That the question at
issue involved the future fate and progress of agricultural, and even
moral improvements, in the county of Sutherland; that (though certainly
not so intended by the Public Prosecutor, whose conduct throughout has
been candid, correct, and liberal), it was nevertheless, in substance,
and in fact, a trial of strength between the abettors of anarchy and
misrule, and the magistracy, as well as the laws of this country.
Lord Pitmilly, after having stated the law as applicable to this case,
summed up the evidence in a very clear and able manner. His lordship
stated, that it was unnecessary for the jury to consider any of the
charges, excepting the one in regard to the old woman at Badinloskin.
As to the first, there could be no doubt of the practice in the
country, of retaining these barns till the crops would be threshed out;
neither could it be doubted, that Mr. Sellar had not left the whole of
the barns for the use of the outgoing tenants, and in consequence of
this, the tenants suffered damage. But _in point of law_, as the Court
of Session had decided in a similar question, Mr. Sellar was not bound
by any such practice, but was entitled to proceed in the ejections.
In regard to the injury charged to have been done to Margaret M’Kay,
his Lordship directed the attention of the jury to the evidence of
Chisholm. This witness, although contradicted in some particulars by
his wife, was confirmed by John M’Kay, whose testimony his Lordship
also laid before them. On the other hand, he brought under their view,
the evidence of Sutherland, Fraser, and Burns, and stated that it was
the duty of the Jury to balance betwixt these two sets of witnesses.
His Lordship also said, that if the jury were at all at a loss on this
part of the case, they ought to take into view the character of the
accused; for this was always of importance in balancing contradictory
testimony. Now here there was, in the _first_ place, real evidence,
from the conduct of Mr. Sellar, in regard to the sick, for this, in
several instances, had been proved to be most humane. And _secondly_,
there were the letters of Sir George Abercromby, Mr. Brodie, and Mr.
Fenton, which, _although not evidence_,[11] must have some weight
with the jury; and there were the testimonies of Mr. Gilzean and Sir
Archibald Dunbar--all establishing Mr. Sellar’s humanity of disposition.
[11] The italics are mine.--ED.
The jury having retired for a quarter of an hour, returned a _viva
voce_ verdict, unanimously finding Mr. Sellar NOT GUILTY.
Lord Pitmilly observed that his opinion completely concurred with that
of the jury, and in dismissing them after so long a trial, he was happy
to say they had paid the most patient attention to the case, and had
returned a verdict satisfactory to the Court.
The verdict having been recorded,
The Advocate-Depute declared that he thought it fair to the panel, and
that it would be satisfactory to the jury, to state his conviction,
that if those witnesses who were rejected on account of errors in their
designations, had been examined, the result of the trial would have
been the same.
Lord Pitmilly then addressed Mr. Sellar.
His Lordship said, “Mr. Sellar, it is now my duty to dismiss you from
the bar; and you have the satisfaction of thinking, that you are
discharged by the unanimous opinion of the jury and the Court. I am
sure that, although your feelings must have been agitated, you cannot
regret that this trial took place, and I am hopeful it will have due
effect on the minds of the country, which have been so much, and so
improperly agitated.”
The Court then pronounced an interlocutor, in respect of the verdict of
the assize, assoilzieing the panel _simpliciter_, and dismissing him
from the bar.
The trial lasted from ten o’clock on Tuesday till one o’clock on
Wednesday morning, and the Court-room was crowded to excess.
_ROSS-SHIRE._