Examination of the claim of John Lindsay Crawfurd

JOHN LINDSAY CRAWFURD. 117
they voted 22 times, they agreed unanimously, excepting once, and
upon that exception there was only owe out of the fifteen that stood
for it. The following is the verdict returned : — " The jury all in verdict ..f
one voice find the said John Lindsay Crawfurd guilty, art and part,
and the said James Bradley guilty, actor, or art and part, of feloni-
ously falsifying the several writings mentioned in the first, second,
fourth, fifth, and sixth charges of the foresaid criminal libel ; and, by
a great plurality of voices, they find the said John Lindsay Crawfurd
guilty, art and part, and the said James Bradley guilty, actor, or art
and part, of feloniously falsifying the letter mentioned in the third
charge of the said criminal libel. Further, they all in one voice find
the said John Lindsay Crawfurd guilty, art and part, and the said
James Bradley guilty, actor, or art and part, of feloniously forging the
several writings mentioned in the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth,
and eleventh charges of the said criminal libel ; and they all in one
voice find both the said panels guilty of feloniously uttering the
writings mentioned in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
charges of the said criminal libel, knowing the same to be feloni-
ously falsified, and of feloniously uttering the writings mentioned
in the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh charges of the
said criminal libel, knowing the same to be feloniously forged."
Upon this verdict being recorded, sentence of transportation for
14 years was passed against both of the panels. The ground of
this sentence, as explained by the presiding Judge, Lord Meadow-
bank, was this : — " That the libel charged the object only of esta- Baron
blishing by a general service a representation of the first Viscount no"™!"
of Garnock. It did not charge, as it might have done, a dangerous p 56
combination and conspiracy to carry off a large estate of land from
the true heir, by vitiating, obliterating, and interpolating a series
of writings. That much of this character had indeed appeared in
evidence on the trial, but it was not so set forth in the libel, which
alone must guide the Court as to the measure of punishment to be
inflicted. If those circumstances of aggravation had been explicitly
libelled, as he thought they warrantably might have been, and if
they had been duly returned in the verdict of assize, he was of opi-
nion, that, considering the extent of the measures taken by the pa-