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

TRIAL OF GEILLIS JOHNSTONE, 1614
117
article stands relevant in respect the factis sett doun thairin was done at
hir direction, be hir sone, and that scho come fiirth of the said tolbuth eftir
hir sone had done his mother’s direction et ita probatum ab effectis.1
The Lords remittis this fill article to the tryell of the assyse, quhairupon
the persewaris askit instrumentis.
[4r.] 6. It is allegit be the panned that the sixt article of dittay, anent the
inchanting and bewitcheing of William Duncane’s malt, taking fra him
the fruit and proffet thairof and of his industrie of brewing, etc.: non
relevat, nocht condiscending thairin quibus mediis the samyn was done,
vel quid fecit vel dixit, without the quhilks war speciallie condiscendit
upon the samyn can nocht pas to the knawledge of ane assyse.
Answeris, aucht to be repellit inrespect of the dittay.
Findis the sixt article of the dittay relevant and remittis the samyn to the
tryell of the assyse.
7. It is allegit be the panned and her prelocutoris aganis the sevint article
of dittay, anent the adegit bewitcheing of Euphame Douglas, spous to Mr
George Nisbet, in maner specifeit in the said article, etc.: that the samyn
is nawayes relevant, nocht condiscending thairin quibus mediis the said
witchcraft or sorcerie was perpetrat, veil quid fecit vel dixit in laying on
thairof, et quo modo et qua forma2 the samyn was done, quither be
[[inchantment]] inchantit wordis, venemous oiles or ointmentis, herbis or
ruitis inchantit, or be quhat uther medicamentis the samyn was put in
practiye. Lykas for the cleiring of the persewaris malice in the upgeving
of the said article of dittay, the panned desires that Mr George Nisbet, the
said umquhile Euphame’s husband, to be cadit and inquyret upone the
verritie thairof, quha as scho understandis is present within this hous, and
will be his declaration purge hir of that calumnie and devidische fact.3
It is answerit be the persewar that the adegeance foirsaid aught to be
repedit in respect of of the dittay and notorietie of the panned’s giltines of
the crymes thairin contend.
The Lordis repedis the sevint article of the said dittay as nawayes relevant
in respect of the answer maid thairto, quhairupon the panned askit
instrumentis.
1 and so proved from effects
2 how and by which manner
3 Mr George Nisbet was one of the prosecution witnesses mentioned in the summons of
11 Feb. 1614.