West Port murders, or an authentic account of the atrocious murders committed by Burke and his associates; containing a full account of all the extraordinary circumstances connected with them. Also, a report of the trial of Burke and M'Dougal. With a description of the execution of Burke, his confessions, and memoirs of his accomplices, including the proceedings against Hare, &c.

  • Burke, William, 1792-1829.
Date:
1829
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: West Port murders, or an authentic account of the atrocious murders committed by Burke and his associates; containing a full account of all the extraordinary circumstances connected with them. Also, a report of the trial of Burke and M'Dougal. With a description of the execution of Burke, his confessions, and memoirs of his accomplices, including the proceedings against Hare, &c. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    44/392 (page 34)
    tempted to invalidate their authority. The particular case referred to occurred after the Revolution, when the Judges were as great and eminent lawyers as ever sat in that Court. But in order to show the uniformity of the practice, he needed not go farther back than the case of Murdiston and Miller, where several acts, committed by different individuals in dif- ferent counties, were put into the same indictment; yet not one iota of an objection was urged against the proceeding si- milar to what they had heard to-day. Our own practice, in cases of forgery, which was a capital crime, left no doubt up- on the matter. Several acts of this description of crime were constantly charged in the same indictment.—In cases of rob- bery, it was not competent to libel aggravation. The Prosecu- tor was not admitted to libel habit and repute. That was now settled law. It had not been so formerly ; and accordingly, when he had the honour to fill the same situation, which his learned friend (the Lord Advocate) now held, he had directed an indictment to be raised to try the point,—and the law was now settled. But it was competent to accumulate several acts in the same indictment, and to have it tried by the same evi- dence and before the same Jury. It was competent where there was several acts of robbery charged against different in- dividuals ; and there was one case of a father and a daughter, where the daughter was charged with two acts, and the father with all the three libelled. He was therefore of opinion that the Lord Advocate had done right in proceeding as he did. But the Court had a discretion; and to that discretion the prisoners had appealed. But having stated his opinion of that discretion, he deemed it right to say, that the Court was not answerable for the consequences. The prisoners had ex- ercised their discretion, and lie warned them to consider well the step they had taken. As to the Court they were bound to sit there and try the cases one after another. Lord Mackenzie also agreed with his learned brothers as to the competency. In so far as discretion was concerned he likewise concurred, upon the statement made by the paunel and his counsel that he would suffer prejudice. He saw that the pannel was well and ably advised; and he could not take it upon him to allege that there was any thing absurd or un- reasonable in the request which had been made Lord Justice Clerk.—The only question here was as to the competency of the charge against Burke: for the Lord Advocate had intimated his intention not to proceed at present against the woman. After listening attentively to all that had btten said, after considering the authorities, and recollecting some-