ady,
about seventy years of age. Her maiden name is ---, {140} and she is
a native of Braemar, but left that district when about twenty years
old, and has never been back to it even for a visit. On being asked
whether she had ever heard the story of Sergeant Davies, she at first
persisted in denying all knowledge of it. The ordinary version was
then related to her, and she listened quietly until it was finished,
when she broke out with:--
"That isn't the way of it at all, for the men _were_ seen, and it was
a forbear of my own that saw them. He had gone out to try to get a
stag, and had his gun and a deer-hound with him. He saw the men on
the hill doing something, and thinking they had got a deer, he went
towards them. When he got near them, the hound began to run on in
front of him, and at that minute _he saw what it was they had_. He
called to the dog, and turned to run away, but saw at once that he had
made a mistake, for he had called their attention to himself, and a
shot was fired after him, which wounded the dog. He then ran home as
fast as he could, never looking behind him, and did not know how far
the men followed him. Some time afterwards the dog came home, and he
went to see whether it was much hurt, whereupon it flew at him, and
had to be killed. They thought that it was trying to revenge itself
on him for having left it behind."
At this point the old lady became conscious that she was telling the
story, and no more could be got out of her. The name of the lady who
keeps a secret of 145 years' standing, is the name of a witness in the
trial. The whole affair is thoroughly characteristic of the
Highlanders and of Scottish jurisprudence after Culloden, while the
verdict of "Not Guilty" (when "Not Proven" would have been stretching
a point) is evidence to the "common-sense" of the eighteenth century.
{141}
There are other cases, in Webster, Aubrey and Glanvil of ghosts who
tried more successfully to bring their murderers to justice. But the
reports of the trials do not exist, or cannot be found, and Webster
lost a letter which he once possessed, which would have been proof
that ghostly evidence was given and was received at a trial in Durham
(1631 or 1632). Reports of old men present were collected for
Glanvil, but are entirely too vague.
The case of Fisher's Ghost, which led to evidence being given as to a
murder in New South Wales, cannot be wholly omitted. Fisher was a
convict settl
|