COPY of a LETTER from Messrs. Lee, Strachan & Co., merchants in London, to Messrs. Emanuel Walker & Co., merchants in Philadelphia.
You will please to supply the bearer, Mr. John Dixon, with cash to the amount of fifty pounds sterling, taking his bill on Mr. William Walker, attorney in the Adelphi, London, for the same, which will be duly honoured, and oblige,
Sirs, Your most obedient Humble Servants, LEE, STRACHAN & CO.
Messrs. Emanuel Walker & Co., Philadelphia.
[The counsel for Mr. Brodie here observed that the object of the exculpatory proof was to show that, on Wednesday, the 5th of March last, the night on which the robbery of the Excise Office was committed, Mr. Brodie was otherwise employed the whole of that afternoon and evening, which, if established, excluded the possibility of his being concerned in that robbery.]
1. MATTHEW SHERIFF, upholsterer in Edinburgh, called.
The LORD ADVOCATE--My Lords, this gentleman is the brother-in-law of the prisoner, and therefore is certainly a very improper witness. I am at all times very averse to object to a witness adduced for a pannel, but I thought it my duty to mention the fact to your Lordships, and to leave it with you to determine whether or not this gentleman’s evidence ought to be received.
Mr. WIGHT, for William Brodie--My Lords, this is the first time I have ever heard that a brother-in-law is not a competent witness in a criminal trial. This gentleman being brother-in-law to the pannel, is a circumstance which may, and which perhaps ought, to be attended to, as affecting his credibility, if his testimony stands contradicted by other proofs; but it is surely no objection to his admissibility.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--What do you mean to prove by this witness?
Mr. WIGHT--My Lord, I mean to prove that he was in company with the prisoner until about eight o’clock of that night on which the robbery is said to have been committed.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--You may call him in. The circumstance of his being brother-in-law to the pannel will no doubt go a great length to discredit his testimony, in so far as it may be contradictory of other evidence; but this will fall to be considered by the jury when they come to judge of the proof brought by both parties.