Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The panel was charged with culpable homicide, with an alternative charge of assault to effusion of blood and serious injury of the person. The narrative set forth, that on a certain day the panel did, at a certain place, “wickedly and feloniously attack and assault the now deceased Robert Easton,” and after giving details, concluded with the words “his ( i.e., deceased's) face being cut and bleeding, and blood being effused on the brain.”

W. F. Hunter, for the panel, argued—The aggravations of assault charged in the major, on the ground of their not being supported by the statements in the minor, are irrelevant. The words “his face being cut and bleeding, and blood being effused on the brain,” denote a state of the face and of the brain not on the face of the libel due to the acts of the panel, and which might have existed prior to the alleged assault. The sense would have been the same had these words occurred at the commencement instead of the conclusion of the narrative.

Deas, A.-D., replied for the Crown.

The Court repelled the objection, holding that the narrative, though ungrammatically expressed, evidently meant to connect the injuries to the face and brain of deceased with the assault committed by the panel.

The case went to trial, and resulted in a unanimous verdict of “Not proven.”