12 SCOTS TRIALS
KEITH OF NORTHFIELD
SOCIETY in Scotland had a sufficiency of scandal
to furnish
topics for many tea-tables in the summer of 1766. In March
of that year, the beautiful Katharine Nairn, then under sentence
of death for the murder of her husband, made her picturesque
escape from the Heart of Midlothian, not without suspicion
of her uncle's connivance, himself being a senator of the College
of Justice, and successfully fled to that plaisant pays de France,
where they order some matters better, as Mr. Yorick remarked.
The Douglas Cause, that huge, unwieldy lawsuit, was at length
well under way, and the portentous pleadings began in July
their three weeks' course before "the Fifteen" at Edinburgh,
amid the intense excitement of a perfervid people, bets to the
amount of £100,000 being laid upon the result. That same
month provided a fresh sensation: Mrs. Keith of Northfield, in
Banffshire, and her son William were, on the information of the
laird, her stepson, arrested for the murder of his father ten years
before within the house of Northfield.
"The singular circumstances of this
case," observes a con-
temporary pamphleteer, "the atrocious nature of the crime, the
great distance of time since that crime is said to have been
committed, together with the doubtfulness and uncertainty of
the evidence, have excited the curiosity of the public"--and inci-
dentally inspired his pen. And though the world has long since
ceased to concern itself as to whether the widow and her son
were cold-blooded assassins or the innocent victims of family
spite and medical ignorance, their trial may still be read with
interest, as affording a quaint picture of the Scottish life of its
day, and as an instructive problem in the niceties of presumptive
proof.
[136]
Alexander Keith, the late laird--old Northfield,
as he was
termed at the trial, to distinguish him from his son and successor
--was born in 1692, and was thus "three score and three years
when he died" on 21st November 1756. Some twenty years
before his death, Northfield, a widower with a son and daughter,
had married a girl named Helen Watt, the daughter of a fisher-
man at Crovie, a village in Banffshire, who bore him several
children, and with whom, as she afterwards alleged, he always
lived very happily. Their union, however, had other and less
pleasing results, for the marriage was deeply resented by the
family of the first wife, whose brother "thought it a most dis-
graceful one." It led to a complete estrangement between old
Northfield and George Keith, his son and heir, who quarrelled
with his father on the subject, and left home in consequence,
nor were they ever reconciled during the old man's life. The
laird's brother and sister, John and Anne Keith, who lived
"about three rig-lengths distant," continued upon friendly
terms with their relatives at Northfield. The daughter of the
first marriage later made her own experiment in matrimony,
so that in the month of November 1756 the household consisted,
in addition to the servants, of the laird and his second wife and
their five children--William, aged 17 ; Henrietta, 15 ; Elizabeth,
13 ; Alexander, 10 ; and Helen, 7. Old Northfield, it was alleged,
had early in life contracted a habit of excessive drinking, which
gradually impaired his health, and being persisted in for a long
course of years, at length ruined a constitution naturally sound.
Be that as it may, there is evidence that during the autumn of
1756 the laird's health was in a critical condition. His brother,
John Keith, deponed "that he had been long in a valetudenary
way," and considered himself "a-dying"; while his medical
attendant, Dr. Chap, surgeon in Old Deer, stated that he pro-
fessionally visited the laird, who was suffering from "an asthma,
attended with a high fever," until the week before his death,
when he found him so ill that he also "thought him a-dying."
The doctor, who seems to have been an easy-going practitioner,
[137]
added that in these circumstances he desired Mrs. Keith not to
send for him again unless her husband "grew better," and took
his departure, leaving the patient to the care of Providence.
Old Northfield, having thus had his own belief
that his days
were numbered fortified by the expert opinion of the faculty,
prepared like a prudent man for the inevitable end. In view
of the attitude adopted from the first by his eldest son George
towards his father's second wife and family, and of the unfor-
giving temper which that young man had since exhibited
towards himself, the laird well knew that he could trust little
to his heir's generosity or good feeling in regard to the future
of his widow and younger children. In order, therefore, to
secure for them some provision after his death, he decided
to make a will settling upon them certain small sums of money,
by no means beyond what his estate could easily bear. Accord-
ingly, a few days before his death, Northfield sent for his old
friend the Reverend James Wilson, minister of Gamrie, who at
his request wrote out for him a short document embodying this
intention, which was duly signed by the testator in presence of
his neighbour, Mr. Garden of Troup, and his own servant,
William Taylor, who subscribed the deed as attesting witnesses.
It was admitted that the execution of this will was the voluntary
act of the laird, and that the provisions therein contained were
equitable, and such as his estate could well afford. Neverthe-
less, as afterwards appeared, the granting of these sums, small
though they were, gave great offence to his successor.
In the evidence led at the trial we have glimpses
of the old
man on what was to be his last day in this world. Mr. Wilson,
the minister, called in the afternoon to see the invalid, and
found him looking better. Northfield, who appears to have
borne his bodily infirmities with a cheerful spirit, talked to his
reverend visitor "in his usual jocose manner." The minister
thought him "to be past danger." William Taylor, the servant
who had witnessed the will, having finished his day's work,
went up to ask for his master. The laird, though confined to
[138]
his room, apparently did not keep his bed; he was "sitting in
the chair with one leg above the other, and a pinch of snuff
between his finger and thumb," and remarked that he was
feeling better. George Gelly, a friend, afterwards looked in
before dark to inquire for him, and saw him "sitting in the
chair, and not very well." They talked together for a while
and Northfeld laughed several times in the course of the
conversation. The last caller, one James Manson, shoemaker
in Gardenstoun, came that evening as usual to shave the laird
who "was sitting in his night-gown, not well." That night
Northfield, as seems to have been his custom during his illness
supped in his bedroom with his wife and their five children.
We are told that he took "a very little supper, either of
aleberry or kail-brose," which, in view of his condition, is not
surprising. What little he did eat seems to have disagreed with
him, for he complained of feeling worse, and asked to be put
to bed. The bed was accordingly made ready, "a blanket was
warmed and put about him," and the old man was helped
into bed by his wife and her eldest son, William. The
supper dishes having been .removed by the servant, the laird
"desired his children to go to bed, for that he wanted to be
quiet." The two eldest girls, Henrietta and Elizabeth, then
bade their parents good-night and went to their own room.
As to what afterwards happened we have no
information
except the declarations of the widow and her son, emitted later
with reference to the charge of murder brought against them by
George Keith. In considering these, it has to be kept in view
that although they were made ten years after the event, by
two persons, suddenly seized and separately examined upon
the most dreadful of charges, they are nevertheless strikingly
uniform and consistent. The laird having told his wife that
he was afraid he would die in the night, she insisted that the
boy William should remain in the room, to be at hand in case
his father grew worse, and the old man " desired him to lye
down at his back to see if he could gather any heat." Mrs.
[139]
Keith then went to bed herself, along with her two youngest
children, Alexander and Helen, "in a bed at the end of the
deceased's bed," and the lad, having "thrown off all his clothes
but his breeches," blew out the solitary candle and lay down
besides his father. He noticed that the old man's breathing
was barely perceptible, and spoke to him twice, but received
no answer. He then jumped out of bed, and "calling out
hastily in surprise to his mother to rise and light the candle, for
his father was either dead or dying," ran to the door to summon
the two elder girls and the maid. They entered the room as
Mrs. Keith was relighting the candle.
Meanwhile, as appears from her evidence, the
servant,
Elspeth Bruce, was in the kitchen immediately adjoining
Northfield's bedroom, from which it was divided by "a timber
partition." She said she heard no sound in the bedroom that
night. After supper Henrietta Keith came into the kitchen and
told her that the laird "was sitting ben yonder, and that he had
taken two spoonfuls of brose to his supper"; and "in a little
time after the cry came ben that he was dead." Elspeth then
ran into her master's room, where she was joined by the two
girls. The subsequent events as spoken to by her are, with the
exception presently to be noticed, in accordance with the declara-
tions of Mrs. Keith and her son. Neither Henrietta nor Eliza-
beth were called as witnesses at the trial, and the children,
Alexander and Helen, were too young to be examined. William
declared, that when the others came in and the candle was
lighted, he looked at his father's face and saw "one eye shut
and another open; his lips quivered a little, and he could just
be observed to breathe." Mrs. Keith said that she herself did
not then look at her husband, as she "expected he would come
alive again," but that Henrietta did so, and told her that "she
saw her father's lips moving." Elspeth says she looked at her
master, "and found him in appearance dead in the bed." William
states that he then sent her for William Spence--apparently one
of old Northfield's men--"who was drying corn at the kiln,"
[140]
and that she returned with Spence forthwith, by which time
"the deceased's breathing could not be observed, and the eye
that was formerly open was partly shut." Elspeth says nothing
of this incident, and Spence was not produced as a witness at
the trial. Probably he was dead, for the prisoners' counsel
afterwards, with justice, complained that the defence had
suffered greatly by reason of the ten years' delay in bringing
the charge, owing to the death of several witnesses "who would
have been of the most material consequence in their exculpa-
tion." Elspeth, according to the story of the mother and son,
was then dispatched to bring John and Ann Keith, the laird's
brother and sister, who lived at hand, which, as she admits, she
did. Mrs. Keith declared, that when John Keith came, they
both looked at her husband, and John "said he did not think
but he was dead." John Keith, though examined at the trial,
was asked no question as to this night's doings, which is the
more curious as Elspeth had stated that when she returned
at once with the Keiths, she found the laird's body already
taken out of bed and "streikit upon a deal"--laid out upon
a board; whereas both Mrs. Keith and William declare that
this was not done until after the arrival of Northfield's brother
and sister. Anne Keith had died some years before the trial,
and was not amenable to earthly citation, but John could have
told what actually occurred. The importance of this point is,
that while we have plenty of evidence as to the appearance
presented by the body next day, there is none as to its
condition on the night of the death.
Northfield breathed his last about ten o'clock
on the evening
of Monday, 21st November, and that night there was no sus-
picion whatever that he had not died in the natural course of
his disease. It is therefore instructive to see from what quarter
the first suggestion of murder came. We do not know where
George Keith lived, but it must have been in the neighbour-
hood, for he had early information of his bereavement, and lost
no time in coming to look after the inheritance. He entered
[141]
the house of Northfield, to which he had been so long a stranger,
on the morning after his father's death, and it is probable that
not till then did he learn of the provisions of the will. Now
the sole foundation for the charge brought by him ten years
later against the mother and son was a certain discoloration of
the skin upon the neck and breast of Northfield's body, seen on
the Tuesday and Wednesday after his death. He was buried,
as we shall find, on the forenoon of Thursday, and the "chest-
ing" spoken to by some of the witnesses probably did not take
place till the night before, as the coffin had to be made and the
funeral arranged. The first we hear of the mysterious mark is
in the evidence of Elspeth Bruce, who depones "That when
George Keith, young Northfield, came next morning [Tuesday]
and took a look at his father's corpse, he expressed some sus-
picion of foul play because of a blae [livid] mark round his
neck." Elspeth, who obviously had heard no word of this
before, then went into the room and examined the body, when
she "saw a blae mark round the defunct's neck about the
breadth of two fingers, and a blae spot upon his breast," which
she thought "were strange circumstances." The other evidence
of those who saw the marks is as follows: William Taylor, the
late laird's servant, "saw a blue mark about his neck about the
breadth of three fingers, but whether it went round the back
part of his neck he cannot say, because he did not see that
part." John Strachan, wright in Gardenstoun, who made old
Northfield's coffin, stated that when the body was being placed
in it, young Northfield turned down the grave-clothes "and
showed the deponent a mark round the fore part of the
defunct's neck, but whether it went round he cannot say,
because he did not see the back part of his neck; that he
also saw a mark upon the defunct's breast that reached down
towards the slot of his breast; and that the marks were of a
blackish blue, like the neck of a fowl newly strangled." James
King, who assisted Strachan to make the coffin for the
late Northfield, and to put him into it," said that at young
[142]
Northfield's request he looked at the body, and saw "a black
red mark round the neck, such as the deponent never saw on
any corpse before that time." Alexander Hepburn, in Cushnie,
deponed that he inspected the body at the "chesting," being
desired to do so by young Northfield, "who threw off or laid
aside the dead cloaths from the upper part of the body." The
first thing that attracted his attention was "some blue spots
upon., the breast;" the next thing he noticed was "a blue girth
that went round his neck, like bruised blood ; and on the back
part of the neck he saw a mark like what is occasioned by a
knot drawn strait."
The observations of Elspeth Bruce and William
Taylor were
each the result of a private view of the corpse, but the evidence
of Strachan, King, and Hepburn has reference to one and the
same occasion, namely, the "chesting," at which young North-
field, Mrs. Keith, the lad William, and apparently John Keith,
were present. This seems to have been the first time that the
widow's attention was specially called to the marks. Hepburn
states that she appeared unwilling to have the body inspected,
saying "that there was nothing unseemly to be seen there."
Taylor, however, depones "That no person, so far as he knows,
was hindered from looking to the corpse." The same witness
adds that he asked Mrs. Keith, in presence of John Keith "and
others," what was the meaning of that mark, and that she
answered that it was occasioned by a string tied round North-
field's neck "for holding on a plaister." John Keith, when in
the witness-box, says nothing about this incident. Such was
the explanation given by Mrs. Keith at the time, so soon as she
was asked about the matter. Ten years afterwards she and her
son gave in their declarations a more particular account of the
circumstance. Mrs. Keith declared, "That she did not look at
the body that night [of the death], but next day she assisted to
put on a shirt on the body, and then she observed something blue
about the back part of the neck, but cannot tell whether that
blueness was round his neck or not; That she heard a plaister
[143]
had been applied to the deceased's back or his neck; but when
she assisted to put on the shirt on the dead body, as above, she
cannot tell whether the plaister was on the body or not, or
whether there was any mark of a plaister upon the body or
not; and that she can tell nothing more of her husband's death
than is above mentioned." William is more specific: "Declares,
that there had been a blistering plaister applied to the de-
ceased's back; and after it was taken away, kail-blades [cabbage
leaves] were applied to the place where the plaister had been;
and in order to keep these blades in the proper place, they were
tied on with the deceased's own garters, which went below the
arm-pits, and round the farther side of the neck; and these
kail-blades and garters continued in that situation after the
deceased's death, until his grave-linen was made and put upon
him. Declares, that he was present when the grave-linen was
put upon the body; at which time some of the women who
were there loosed the above garters, and took them away; and
the declarant then observed a blue spot upon the left breast,
about the breadth of three fingers, but did not observe anything
about the neck, further then that there was a great swelling
over his whole body. Declares, that from the time the deceased
was put to bed the evening of his death, no person went near
him until the declarant called to light a candle, as above; nor
did the deceased make the least noise after he was put to bed."
Now someone must have helped to prepare the
body for the
grave, and whoever did so would be likely to notice this curious
arrangement of the garters, which can hardly have been in-
vented by William. But throughout the trial no other refer-
ence is made to these "women who were there," unless it be
that one of them was Anne Keith, who had died some years
before, and, as was alleged for the defence, would have con-
firmed the prisoners' explanation as to "the innocent and acci-
dental cause of these discoloured appearances on the dead body,
which are the frail and only foundation of this prosecution."
That the plasters, at least, were no creation of the young man's
[144]
fancy is proved by the testimony of Dr. Chap, who depones
that when he withdrew from the case as hopeless, he "left two
blistering plaisters to put upon his [Northfield's] back." When
and by whom the plaster and "kail-blades" were respectively
applied, tied on, and taken off, who took away the garters and
what became of them, are matters upon which the evidence
throws no light.
It appears that there were "words" between
the widow and
the heir "about naming a day for the late Northfield's burial,"
Mrs. Keith proposing Thursday and George Keith wishing the
interment postponed till Saturday. The widow carried her
point. John Mair, a neighbour, who mentions this difference,
states that before the funeral "he heard the said George require
Elspeth Bruce to acquaint him with the circumstances of his
father's death; to which she made no answer, but turned about
her back and wept. Upon which George said that as she would
not tell then, she behoved to tell afterwards." Elspeth says
nothing about this incident. Plainly, she had no suspicions till
these were suggested to her by George Keith. William Taylor
says in his evidence that George objected to the earlier date
being fixed "before he had time to prepare matters for the
burial "--not because he suspected foul play. Taylor, whose
sympathies were evidently engaged in behalf of the prosecution,
adds that on the night following Northfield's death he heard
Mrs. Keith ask her son William what his brother George would
get for his supper. Upon which William answered, "That a
guidfull of the dog's meat was good enough for him; that he
had no business there; and that, cursing his brother, he said
that little hindered him to take a gun to shoot him." The lad
may be excused this outburst of resentment against the new
laird, who hitherto had ignored his existence, and now began
their fraternal relations by accusing him of parricide. Neither
is it surprising that the widow, after the insulting treatment
she had received at and since her marriage, should resent the
imputation of having murdered her own husband.
[145]
For what happened at the funeral, we have the
account of
the Reverend Mr. Wilson. "Being invited to the burial of the
deceased Northfield, he was taken up to a room privately by
the present Northfield, who intimated to him his suspicions
that his father had not got justice in his death." Here, as in
all the other instances, the first suggestion of foul play is made
by the heir. It is evident that George Keith sought to involve
the minister in the responsibility of openly charging his step-
mother and brother with murder, for he desired Mr. Wilson
"to look to the dead body and give him his advice how he
should behave." The good man perceived the snare thus art-
fully set for him, and declined to examine the corpse, excusing
himself by his ignorance in these matters "--he was no expert
in the science of forensic medicine as applied to post-mortem
appearances. He gave, however, the practical and judicious
advice that if George thought anything was wrong he ought to
consult a physician. "Upon this he was told by young North-
field that he had wrote Mr. Finlay, surgeon in Fraserburgh, and
had got for an answer that he could do nothing single, and advising
him to take the assistance of the two physicians at Banff." Dr.
Finlay, who, by the way, if actually consulted as George alleged,
was not produced as a witness at the trial, showed no anxiety
to move in the matter; but why did not George, if he honestly
believed that his father had been strangled, call in Dr. Chap,
the local practitioner in charge of the case until a few days
before the death, who does not even appear to have been
invited to the funeral ? During this secret conclave, the last
arrangements had been going forward, and the minister states
that George, at this point of the conversation, having looked out
of window, "observed that the corpse was gone, at which both
of them were much surprised." They then left the house in
pursuit of the funeral cortege, the young laird on foot and the
minister on horseback. The following reference to what
occurred on this occasion is contained in the evidence of Taylor,
who depones, "That the present Northfield and Mr. Wilson, the
[146]
minister, were in an upper room when the corpse was taken out
of the house for the burial without acquainting them; that
when they got notice that the corpse was removed, they
followed; but it was a considerable time before they overtook
the company; that Northfield was at the time in complete
mourning; that the corpse was removed in the forenoon; and
that the place of interment was at the distance of three or four
miles." This incident is treated by the prosecution as affording
one of the proofs of the pannels' guilt, but it is difficult to see
what is its bearing upon the question whether old Northfield
was or was not murdered. If the widow and her son guessed
the purpose for which George Keith was then closeted with the
minister, it is very natural that they should have allowed the
funeral to proceed without them.
The only other evidence we have regarding
George's attitude
at this time is that of his uncle, James Gordon of Techmuiry,
brother of the first Mrs. Keith. This gentleman exhibited a
strong animus against the woman who for twenty years had
occupied the place left vacant by his sister in the affections of
Northfield. He stated that he saw little of the laird after his
second marriage, which he considered "a most disgraceful one,"
and that he was last at the house of Northfield on the occasion
of his niece's wedding, solely to witness that ceremony, "but
insisted that Helen Watt, Northfield's wife, should not be
admitted." The mistress of the house would doubtless appre-
ciate to the full this courteous stipulation, and it need not surprise
us that Mr. Gordon received no invitation to the next family
function, his brother-in-law's funeral. He added that some
time after the laird's death he received from his nephew George
a letter, "signifying a strong suspicion that his father was
strangled by his wife and his son William, and desiring the
deponent's advice how he should behave." Once again young
Northfield lacked the courage of his conviction. Mr. Gordon
wrote in answer, advising him not to insist in any criminal
prosecution unless he had clear evidence, which rather looks as
[147]
if the uncle had not much faith in his nephew's detective
genius.
There for the time this matter of the
alleged murder rested;
and not the least mysterious circumstance in the case is that
George Keith did nothing further till ten years had elapsed,
when he lodged the formal information against his relatives
which resulted in their arrest. One would naturally expect
that he was led to do so by the discovery of some fresh evidence
which justified his former suspicions and at length warranted
his making a specific charge, but such is not the fact. This
point was well put by counsel for the defence in their pleadings
at the trial:--"It is hoped the Gentlemen of the Jury will not
be inattentive to these disadvantages under which, from the
long delay of this prosecution, the prisoners must necessarily
labour in making their defence. We hope they will not fail
to observe that the present Keith of Northfield neglected to
exhibit any information to the public prosecutor while wit-
nesses were alive who had the best access to know the true
state of this matter, and has brought it now after their death
when, at the same time, he cannot allege that any new evidence
has presented itself."
How the widow and her young family fared when
they went
out into the world, leaving the rightful heir in possession of the
house of Northfield, and whether they ever received payment
of the sums due to them under the will, we do not know, but.
uncertain glimpses of the mother and son may be descried in
the evidence given at the trial. William, whose conduct as well
before as after his father's death is said by his counsel to have
been irreproachable, "employed himself in agriculture," and
that with sufficient success to enable him at the time of his
trial to support "a wife and a little family." He seems to
have quarrelled with his mother, as we shall see from various,
angry scenes between them spoken to by the witnesses, and
there is no doubt that Mrs. Keith's affairs, from whatever cause,
were much less prosperous than those of her son. It appears
[148]
LORD KAMES
Fron an engraving after the portrait by Martin
from the evidence of James Duncan, in Whitefield, a shearer in
William's employment, that in the harvest of 1761, five years
after Northfield's death, his widow's circumstances were so far
reduced that she "came to her son William and offered herself
to him as a shearer, and that he rejected her services." We
shall consider later the relations between William and his
mother; in any view the picture thus presented is a pathetic one.
George Keith having for some inscrutable reason
at last
brought himself to denounce his relatives to the authorities,
the mother and son were apprehended by warrant of the
Sheriff and lodged in the prison of Banff. The prisoners were
respectively examined on 7th and 8th July 1766, in presence
of Mr. Alexander Dirom, Sheriff-Substitute of Banffshire, when
they emitted separate declarations, and were duly committed
for trial. They lay in Banff prison until 26th August, when
they were removed to Aberdeen, where at a Circuit Court of
Justiciary held by the Right Honourable Lord Kames, one
of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, on Thursday, 4th
September, "Helen Watt, widow of the deceased Alexander
Keith of Northfield, and William Keith, eldest lawful son
procreated betwixt the said deceased Alexander Keith and
the said Helen Watt, pannels, were placed at the bar indicted
and accused at the instance of James Montgomery, Esq., his
Majesty's Advocate, for his Majesty's interest, for the crime of
murder committed by them upon the person of the said deceased
Alexander Keith, in manner mentioned in the Criminal Letters
raised thereanent."
Henry Home, Lord Kames, a man of much learning
and a
voluminous writer, "who did more to promote the interests of
philosophy and belles lettres in Scotland then all the men of law
had done for a century before," was noted for his severity as a
criminal judge. When at the bar he had acted as counsel for
the unfortunate Captain Porteous; and he was one of the judges
presiding at the trial of Katharine Nairn in the preceding year,
on which occasion he introduced the practice of charging the
[149]
jury at the conclusion of the speech for the defence, a custom
since universal but till then unknown. Lord Kames, however,
is now best remembered in legal traditions on account of his
familiar use of that monosyllable which M2r. John Willet so
reprehensibly called up the stairs of the Maypole six distinct
times, to the grave scandal of the cook and housemaid. The
"Procurators for the Prosecutor" or counsel for the Crown were
Mr. Cosmo Gordon, Advocate-Depute, and Mr. John Douglas,
advocate; the "Procurators in defence" or counsel for the
pannels were Messrs. Alexander Wight, Alexander Elphinston,
and Robert Cullen, advocates. Wight afterwards assisted
Henry Erskine in the famous but unsuccessful defence of
Deacon Brodie on his trial before the great Braxfield in 1788.
The indictment set forth that the deceased
having executed
the will to which we have referred, the prisoners became "im-
patient " for his death; that Mrs. Keith "was heard to express
wishes to that purpose" ; that she and her son "did treacher-
ously and wickedly conspire to murder" Northfield; and that
"in pursuance of this their wicked intention," they, in the
circumstances already mentioned, "did wickedly murder the
said Alexander Keith by strangling him in his bed either with
their hands or with some cord or rope or napkin or in some
other violent manner," as appeared from certain marks of
discoloration afterwards seen upon his body, "which could not
have proceeded from the effects of any natural disease, if the
said Alexander Keith had died without violence." It was
further alleged that Mrs. Keith, "conscious of her guilt in the
premises," attempted to conceal the marks from observation,
invented the whole story of the plaster, and "to prevent further
discovery" caused the body to be buried with unseemly haste
"in a most indecent manner."
Both pannels having pleaded not guilty, counsel
for the
defence stated that while it was not proposed to offer any
objections to the relevancy of the indictment, as the prosecutor
did not pretend to bring against the prisoners any direct proof
[150]
of this alleged murder, but meant by a train of circumstances to
infer their guilt, "it had become necessary for the prisoners, in
justice to themselves, to state the facts which had given rise to
this prosecution as they truly happened, and as it was expected
they would appear from the evidence to be brought. That this,
they hoped, would remove the impression created against them
by the frame of the Indictment, and would prepare the Gentle-
men of the Jury to attend equally to those circumstances which
were to be proved in defence." Counsel then gave their clients'
own version of the facts, from which we have quoted in the
foregoing narrative. It was argued that in order to support
the accusation there were two separate facts, of each of which
it was necessary there should be clear and distinct evidence
firstly, that a murder had been committed, and secondly, that
the prisoners were guilty of that murder. Was it clearly
proved that Keith of Northfield died a violent death ? To
establish his case the prosecutor relied mainly upon the marks
seen upon the body some time after the death, but the jury
would bear in mind that the appearances of dead bodies are
often so various and extraordinary "that physicians of the
greatest abilities and most extensive experience have declared
themselves unable to account for their causes, or to determine
with any degree of certainty whether they proceeded from a
natural or a violent death." Besides the general uncertainty
of such post-inortem appearances there was in the present case
the further circumstance, "which should make us still more
cautious to infer from such discoloured marks that Northfield's
death had been a violent one," namely, that the body was
neither seen nor examined by any surgeon or person of skill,
but that these appearances were now to be described ten years
after the event by ignorant, inaccurate country folk, "by whom
alone they are said to have been perceived." Physicians who
admitted their own inability to determine the cause of such
marks when seen by themselves would surely be less able to
account for them from the description of ignorant and unskilful
[151]
observers. The jury were cautioned against confounding the
proof required regarding each of the two distinct questions
before them. "They will reflect on the dangerous consequence
of admitting circumstances tending to fix a crime on particular
persons to supply the defective evidence of that crime's having
itself existed. Circumstances of conduct in themselves the
most innocent may, upon the supposition of a crime, assume a
very suspicious appearance, which arises entirely from innocence
that had rendered the conduct careless and unguarded. From
circumstances, therefore, suspicious only upon the supposition
of a crime's having been committed, to reason backwards and
conclude from these that the crime truly was committed, is
contrary to all just and fair reasoning, and surely inconsistent
with that regular form of procedure which has been established
for the protection and security of innocence." If, however, the
jury came to the conclusion that a murder had been committed,
they must carefully examine the evidence adduced to prove the
prisoners guilty of that shocking crime. Upon this branch of
the case counsel dwelt upon the injury their clients had sustained
by reason of the ten years' delay in bringing the charge. Many
important witnesses necessary to their defence had died, and
in particular Anne Keith, Northfield's sister, the loss of whose
testimony was a great misfortune for the pannels, "as she was
the only person, besides the two prisoners, who was constantly
near the bedside of the deceased." The motive alleged in the
present case was, counsel maintained, absurd and incredible.
Even if the prisoners were wicked enough to be influenced by
such a motive, in view of Northfield's age and serious illness
the story was still highly improbable. "Can we believe that
when they foresaw his death to be so fast approaching, they
would thus wantonly inbrue their hands in the blood of a
husband and a father merely to attain a few days, perhaps
a few hours, sooner the possession of that pittance which he
had provided for them ?" On the contrary, it was far more
to the pannels' interest that Northfield should survive, for
[152]
while he continued in possession of his estate they were much
better off than they would be when reduced to live on the
inconsiderable provision which he had secured to them. There
was no suggestion that Northfield wished to alter his will, and
the only person having any interest to induce him to do so was
the heir, who lived at a distance and never approached his
dying father. Counsel then made a powerful appeal to the
jury on behalf of William Keith, pointing out the extreme
improbability of a boy of seventeen, of previous good character,
and "of all his other children the most beloved and favoured
by his father," committing so atrocious and unnatural a crime.
And when it was remembered that there was the greatest
uncertainty whether any crime had been in fact committed at
all, surely little doubt would remain concerning his innocence.
If, however, the jury were satisfied he was innocent, they were
bound to acquit his mother also; the two prisoners were the
only grown persons in the room with the deceased at the time
of his death, and if he were murdered, both of them must have
been equally guilty of that bloody deed.
An interlocutor was pronounced by Lord Kames
finding the
libel relevant to infer the pains of law, and allowing the pannels
to prove all facts and circumstances that might tend to exculpate
them or alleviate their guilt. A jury consisting of local land-
owners and Aberdeen merchants was then empanelled, and the
trial proceeded. With most of the evidence adduced we have
already dealt, excepting that which relates to certain incriminat-
ing expressions said to have been uttered by the pannels on
various occasions before and after Northfield's death, which we
shall now consider. The first of these is spoken to by Elspeth
Bruce, who says that the laird and his wife did not live com-
fortably together, but were often squabbling, "though she
cannot say who gave occasion to their squabbling." On a certain
day unspecified Mrs. Keith came "butt the house" in a passion
and exclaimed, "God ! that he [her husband] had broke his
neck when he broke his horse's neck, and then she would not
[153]
have got so much anger by him"--which hardly implies an
intention to murder him herself. This is the only instance
given by Elspeth, who of all the witnesses was the one most
likely to know the facts. William Taylor deponed that a fort-
night before his master's death Mrs. Keith said: "If God would
not take her husband, might the devil take him!" and that the
reason of her saying so was that Northfield "liked a dram too
well and was spending too much." The lady plainly had a
sharp tongue and an unweeded vocabulary; but how the laird
contrived to be extravagant in his sickroom does not appear.
Taylor adds that some time afterwards he heard William address
his mother in the following enigmatic and unfilial terms:--
"That if it had not been her four quarters his father might
have been living; that she never would get justice till she was
hung up beside William Wast ; and that he could be content
to pull down her feet." On research I find that the gentleman
referred to was executed at Aberdeen in 1752 for the murder
of his wife, where his skeleton still hung in chains on the
Gallowhill to give point to William's remark. Isobel Robertson
stated that five or six years before, she, being a servant with
Mrs. Keith, had occasion to know that William, who was then
living with his mother and sleeping in the bed in which his
father died, "was frightened with ghosts and apparitions," so
that he got a lad to lie in the room with him for a night or two,
and afterwards changed his bed. James Irvine, the lad in
question, said that six or seven years ago his master, William
Keith, complained that he could not sleep in his bed "because
he was troubled," but did not say what he was troubled about.
At his request the witness sat up with him in his room a whole
night, after which William changed his bed. In cross-examina-
tion, Irvine admitted it was said that William was afraid of
his brother George, but that he never heard that William was
afraid of his father's ghost. James Boath, tailor in Banff,
deponed that several years after old Northfield's death the
pannels quarrelled in his house, "provoking one another by
[154]
abusive language," when the mother said to the son: "Sir, I
know as much of you as would get you hanged." Janet Watt,
in Crovie, apparently a relative of Mrs. Keith, stated that once,
after a quarrel between the pannels "about milking cows,"
William observed that his mother was a liar, a thief, and a
murderer. John Duncan deponed that when William refused
to employ his mother as a shearer, as already mentioned,
William said that she would not get justice till she was
hanged. Here ends this unedifying testimony. If mother
and son did in fact share that fatal secret, it seems unlikely
that they would thus twit one another in public with their
mutual guilt; more probably when they afterwards fell out,
they found in the old suspicions a handy form of recrimination.
In any view, William's conduct scarcely warrants the encomiums
of his counsel.
The medical evidence adduced for the Crown
was confined
to that of a single witness, Dr. Alexander Irvine, physician in
Banff, who dogmatically deponed that he never saw in the
course of his practice such marks as those described in the
case of Northfield "that he could suspect was occasioned by
any sort of disease, without external violence," and that such
marks could not be occasioned by any known disease. This
evidence would have immense weight with a local jury. Now,
in the year of grace 1766, and for many a long year afterwards,
the ordinary country practitioner knew as little about the science
of medical jurisprudence as he did of wireless telegraphy. Not
until 1806, by the efforts of the great Andrew Duncan, was the
study of that subject officially recognised by the University
of Edinburgh, when the first chair in the country was there
founded. To-day, any final year's medical student knows that
one of the commonest of all post-mortem appearances is just
such hypostatic lividity as was seen upon Northfield's body the
day after his death, and that neither plasters nor garters were
necessary to produce it. Nay more, that had he been strangled,
as was alleged, by the forcible compression of his throat with
[155]
cord or handkerchief, the resulting mark would have been pale
rather than blue, any livid appearance being above and below
the line of constriction. Thus no competent medical man
would nowadays peril his reputation by endorsing the scien-
tific testimony of Dr. Irvine of Banff.
The Crown proposed to call as their last witness
George Keith
of Northfield, to whose evidence objection was taken on behalf
of the prisoners that not only was he "the private informer and
spring of the present prosecution," but he had likewise acted
as an agent by assisting in the precognition--examination of
witnesses--before the Sheriff, and had suggested questions to
be put to the persons examined. The Court sustained the
objection on proof of the fact, and refused to receive George
Keith as a witness, which is a matter of regret; for while the
prisoners took no benefit from his exclusion, his deposition
would probably have made plain many points otherwise obscure.
Only two witnesses were called for the defence, John Keith and
Dr. Chap, whose evidence has been already noticed. The jury
was then addressed by the Advocate-Depute for the Crown and
by Alexander Wight on behalf of the pannels, after which Lord
Kames ordered the jury to be inclosed "in the laigh council-
house," and to return their verdict at ten o'clock next morning.
No record of the speeches of counsel has been preserved, nor
does it appear from the report of the trial whether or not
Lord Kames himself addressed the jury, though, as we
learn from another source, it seems likely that his lordship
did so.
Next day, Friday, 5th September 1766, when
the Court met,
the jury "by a plurality of voices" found both the prisoners
guilty, but in respect of William's youth and the presumed
influence of his mother, they earnestly recommended him to
the mercy of the Court. It is said that the jury deliberated
for five hours before arriving at their verdict, which was by a
majority, nine voting for guilty and six for not guilty. Burnett,
in his Criminal Law, states that Lord Kames is said to have
[156]
approved of this verdict; yet the case seems one in which even
the Scots form of Not Proven would have been inappropriate.
After delivery of the verdict, Alexander Elphinston, one of the
counsel for the defence, stated a plea in arrest of judgment. In
those days when a pannel was once "remitted to the knowledge of
an assize," that is, when the jury were sworn and evidence given,
the trial could not legally be adjourned until they had delivered
their verdict or were "inclosed" to consider it. Thus in a
heavy case the Court had to sit continuously until that point
was reached, and even our stalwart forefathers must have
quailed before so terrible an ordeal. The worst feature of such
a system was the injustice done to the prisoner; for after all
parties had been occupied with the prosecutor's evidence, it
may be for days and nights, there is little wonder that the case
for the defence often received but scant justice. At the trial
of Katharine Nairn, for instance, which lasted forty-eight con-
secutive hours, the jury became frankly bored, and requested
the witnesses for the defence to "cut it short." The heavy
strain upon the prisoners' counsel must also have unfairly
handicapped the defence.
The objections now taken were that several
of the jury had
from time to time left the Court-room during the trial, and that
in particular, one of them, Mr. Forbes of Skellater, actually
went outside, "and was seen on the street going in towards the
New Inn," doubtless with a view to alleviate the dryness of
the proceedings; and that Lord Kames himself had on one
occasion quitted the bench. The Advocate-Depute justified
these irregularities as regards the jury on humane grounds,
and said that the judge had only gone to "the verge of the
Court-house" for a breath of fresh air. Lord Kames repelled
the objections, and intimated that he would defer sentence till
the following day.
On Saturday, 6th September, the prisoners
having been
placed at the bar, his lordship sentenced them both to death,
Mrs. Keith to be hanged at Aberdeen on 17th October, and
[157]
William Keith on 14th November next. His lordship gave
effect to the jury's recommendation in William's case by
adjudging his body merely to be hung in chains upon a gallows
on the Gallowhill of Aberdeen, whereas his mother's remains
were to be delivered to Dr. David Skene, physician in
Aberdeen, "to be by him dissected and anatomised." The
Court then rose.
But, after all, the services of Dr. Skene
were not required.
At the instance of the prisoners' friends and of a numerous
public, who considered the evidence insufficient to justify the
verdict, their case was laid before the authorities in London,
with the result that sentence on Mrs. Keith was respited
for four weeks, till the day fixed for William's hanging. On
Sunday, 9th November, an express arrived at Edinburgh with
a free pardon for both mother and son. It was announced that
"His Majesty, upon some favourable circumstances having been
represented to him, was most graciously pleased to grant a
pardon to both the convicts." Such a decision was not at that
period uncommon, for the first Georges were rather given to
interfere in the affairs of the High Court, not so much in the
interests of their Scottish subjects, as to show the Lords Com-
missioners of Justiciary that they were not masters in their
own house. On this occasion, however, Farmer George did
well to be merciful.
The trial was published on 22nd November at
Edinburgh,
though bearing to be printed at London. This was done to
avoid the wrath of the judges, as there was prefixed to it an
"Advertisement" in which, in the course of certain observations
upon the value of presumptive evidence, the administration of
the criminal law of Scotland, as exemplified in this particular
case, was criticised with refreshing freedom. It is interesting to
note that the writer takes exception to that dangerous innova-
tion, the judicial charge, from which it would appear that Lord
Kames had followed the precedent created by himself a year
before on the trial of Katharine Nairn. The curious will find
[158]
in the Scots Magazine for September 1767 a spirited reply to
these strictures.
William Keith only survived his pardon a few
weeks; he
died on 22nd December following. What became of his mother
is not known.
[159]
|
