Matthew Sheriff, upholsterer in Edinburgh, called.

The Lord Advocate  —  My Lords, this gentleman is the brother-in-law of the prisoner, and therefore is certainly a very improper witness. I am at all times very averse to object to a witness adduced for a panel, but I thought it my duty to mention the fact to your Lordships, and to leave it with you to determine whether or not this gentleman’s evidence ought to be received.

Mr. Wight, for William Brodie — My Lords, this is the first time I have ever heard that a brother-in-law is not a competent witness in a criminal trial. This gentleman being brother-in-law to the panel, is a circumstance which may, and which perhaps ought, to be attended to, as affecting his credibility, if his testimony stands contradicted by other proofs; but it is surely no objection to his admissibility.

The Lord Justice-clerk — What do you mean to prove by this witness?

Mr. Wight—My Lord, I mean to prove that he was in company with the prisoner until about eight o’clock of that night on which the robbery is said to have been committed.

The Lord Justice-clerk—You may call him in. The circumstance of his being brother-in-law to the panel will no doubt go a great length to discredit his testimony, in so far as it may be contradictory of other evidence; but this will fall to be considered by the jury when they come to judge of the proof brought by both parties.

[The witness was then called in and sworn.]

Matthew Sheriff — I know that the prisoner left Edinburgh in March last, and I think it was on the 9th of March, the Sunday after the Excise Office was broke into. I dined with him in his own house on the Wednesday preceding—the 5th of March. I think I went there to dinner about a quarter before three o’clock. Mr. Brodie was then at home. I was in his house from dinner until within a few minutes of eight o’clock at night. There was present at dinner in company a stranger gentleman whose name I do not know, the prisoner’s two sisters, and an old lady, his aunt. We drank together from dinner to tea, which I think was brought in about six o’clock, and then the stranger gentleman went away. We sat in the same room all the while I was there. Mr. Brodie was dressed in lightish-coloured or grey clothes. Before I came away, Mr. Brodie pressed me to stay supper with him, but I declined his invitation, saying I was engaged. When I came away, I left Mr. Brodie in his own house. I went directly from his house to my own house in Bunker’s Hill. Mr. Brodie dined with me next day (Thursday), and remained with me in my house from three o’clock until eleven o’clock at night.

Cross-examined by the Lord Advocate — What was the gentleman’s name who was in company with you?

Matthew Sheriff — I do not know; I do not remember his name.

The Lord Advocate —Did you hear his name mentioned?

Matthew Sheriff — I may perhaps have heard him named while at table with him, but as he went away early in the evening, and as I had no reason at the time to pay any particular attention to his name, it has escaped me.

The Lord Advocate —When did you sit down to dinner?

Matthew Sheriff — We sat down to dinner about three o’clock.

The Lord Advocate —Are you sure Mr. Brodie did not leave the room from dinner until you parted with him?

Matthew Sheriff — I am certain Mr. Brodie did not leave the room.

The Lord Advocate —Did you, on your way home, hear any clock strike or bell ring? or how do you know that it was precisely a few minutes from eight o’clock when you left Mr. Brodie?

Matthew Sheriff — I do not remember to have heard any clock strike or bell ring on my way home, but I had a clock in my house and a watch in my pocket. I am sure that I reached my own house within a few minutes of eight, either before or after it, and I had occasion to remark the hour from Mr. Brodie being so immediately afterwards accused of having that night broke into the Excise Office, a thing which I did not then, and which I do not yet, believe.