Series 5 > Miscellany [of the Scottish History Society] XIII

TRIAL OF GEILLIS JOHNSTONE, 1614
109
Mr Alexander Peiblis, advocat2
Mr Laurence McGill, advocat3
William Duncane, burges of Mussilburgh
The said Geillis Johnestoun with hir prelocutoris takis instruments of hir
entrie and compeirence this day and place and protestis for releif of
George Andersoun, burges of Mussilburgh, hir cautioner, of his
cautionrie.4
The persewaris5 producet my lord chanceller his precept deulie execute
and indorsate, be the quhilk the said Geillis Johnestoun was summoned
to compeir befoir his Lordship as heritable bailyie of the said lordship
and regalitie of Mussilburghshyre this day and place to underly the law
for the severall points of sorcerie and witchcraft and consultatioun with
witches specified in hir dittay underwrittin, lykwise producet be thaim,
and upoun the productioun thairof askit instumentis. And inrespect
thairof, and that thai offerit thameselfis reddie to persew, protestit for
relief of thair cautioneris fand be thaim to that effect. Off the quhilk dittay
the tennor followis:
Heir to tak in the hail dittay as it stands. Beginnand as followis the pointis
of dittay aganis Geillis, etc.6
Eftir reding of the quhilk dittay and accusatioun of the said Geillis
Johnestoun be vertew thairof upoun the severall pointis above writtin, it
1 He was admitted as an advocate on 24 Jan. 1581.
2 He was admitted as an advocate in 1586.
3 He was admitted as an advocate in 1592.
4 As cautioner, George Anderson had put up a sum of money guaranteeing that Geillis
would appear before the court on the day of her trial. If she had not, the money would
have been forfeited. This phrase signifies a legal procedure by which Geillis asks for
written confirmation that she has appeared, (‘takis instrumentis of hir entrie’) and that
her cautioner, George Anderson, be relieved of his legal obligations, (‘protestis for releif
of...’) Anderson was summoned by the pursuers as one of their witnesses but did not
testify. He was married to Christine Duncan, who may have been related to Geillis.
5 An abbreviated one folio version of this manuscript, possibly an earlier draft
(corresponding roughly to parts of fos. Ir and 2r), exists in the same file, in the same
hand. It states at this point that ‘Mr Thomas Wilson, advocat for the persewaris’ was
pleading here. This is the only point at which it adds extra information to the main
manuscript.
6 At this point in the trial, the indictment was read aloud, and arguments were made
concerning the legal relevance of each point of the indictment. The actual indictment is
not here—the clerk’s note to himself to write down the indictment was not acted on—
but folios 2-8 of the manuscript contain a record of the arguments, which provides us
with the essentials of the indictment. See below, pp. 112-128.