Trial T/LA/1075
Trial Summary
| Trial Ref | T/LA/1075 |
|---|---|
| Case | Cunningham,Mary |
| Accused | Mary Cunningham |
| Trial Date | 28/8/1644 |
Location
| Parish | P/ST/629 |
|---|---|
| Presbytery | Dunfermline |
| County | Fife |
| Burgh | Culross |
Outcome
| Verdict | Not Proven |
|---|---|
| Defence | Yes |
| High Status | No |
| Female Accusers | 0 |
|---|---|
| Male Accusers | 0 |
Pre-Trial
| Arrest | Yes |
|---|---|
| Confronting Suspects | No |
Notes: She was ordered to pay for her imprisonment in Culross, and her transportation to Edinburgh/Canongate. She managed to get someone to authorise her release on caution and the charges seem to have dropped for over a year. 4/2/1645 the commissioners tried to reactivate her case under the lord advocate. A rather harrowing description of how they were investigated and treated in prison.
| Date | Type | Exists |
|---|---|---|
| Irons | ✓ |
| Date | Prison | Location | Fate in Prison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolbooth | Culross | ||
| 12/12/1644 | Tolbooth | Canongate |
| Date | Body | Type | Seal |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6/12/1644 | Privy Council | ||
| Committee of Estates | Justiciary |
local commissioners did not trust the procurator fiscal to handle the case and asked that it be tried by the lord advocate, who agreed.
a commission of some kind was presented to the bailies of Culross.
| Date | Type | Where Lodged | Witch Pricker |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6/8/1644 | Suspect's | Privy Council | — |
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| Searching |
| Name | Title | Involvement | Witch Pricker |
|---|---|---|---|
| David Moir | Prosecutor | — | |
| David Williamson | Mr | Defence | — |
Trial Notes
It is difficult to determine exactly what happened. She appears to have been tried in Culross, then moved to Edinburgh where the Lord Advocate maybe oversaw her trial.