THE DUNECHT OUTRAGE.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1219, 12 January 1883, Page 2

THE DUNECHT OUTRAGE.

The trial of Charles Soutar, the ratcatcher, in custody on a charge of being concerned in the stealing of the body of the Late Earl of Crawford, took place in the High Court of Justiciary Edinburgh, on October 23rd. Lord Craighill was the judge, and the Solicitor-general, with whom were two other leading counsel, prosecuted. The Court was crammed throughout the trial. Soutar, who is a man rather below the middle height, with a black beard and sinister expression, was formerly employed as a vermin-killer on the Dunecht Estate, but having taken to peaching, he had been discharged from his employment three or four years befoi'e the occurence of the offence with which he was now charged. The evidence against him was mainly of a presumptive kind. It was shown that he travelled to the neighborhood of Echt on the 27th May, 1881, and that two days later the aromatic odour was first perceived to issue from the mausoleum. Soon afterwards the prisoner began to make mysterious remarks to different persons, hinting that someone had been " put away " in the Echt woods ; and he also wrote anonymous letters stating that the Eirl's body had been removed, and trying to make conditions upon which he would disclose its whereabouts. Finally he himself stated that he was present in. the woods when the body was buried there, and witnessed the closing part of the transaction, He declared, however, that it was by accident that he came across the men who were engaged in the work, and that he was forced by threats of murder to swear to keep their secret The defence put forward was, accordingly, that his knowledge of the business was that of an innocent and threatened person, and that he was not an accomplice in the crime: Some of the circumstances of the case bore in favour of this contention. For instance, it appeared that his conduct in his journey to Echt and subsequent conversations were quite open, aud unlike what a criminal would have done and said. Also, it was impossible that he could have done the work single-handed, while from its difficult nature it is likely that a much abler mind directed it. The jury, however, after 35 minutes' deliberation, found Soutar guilty, and the Judge expressed his concurrence in their verdict. Some discussion took place between counsel and the Judge regarding the sentence to be passed, as there was no case on record of a vault being violited, and the only similar offence known to have been visited with legal punishment was the stealing of bodies for anatomical purposes. The Judge said that in the cases referred to the sentences had been iinprisouient, but in. this case " there was a determination, a preseverance, and a continuous heartlessness, and the motives were cold-blooded and mercenary. It was a case to be dealt with by itself. The sentence of the Coutt was five years penal servitude." In the circumstance attending Soutar's conviction this is regarded as a very heavy sentence. Much regret is also expressed that the other criminals, in whose hands Soutar was probably a mere tool, are still, as unknown as ever before. Hopes are entertained that Soutar may be induced to give information which will lead to the discovery and con viction of his accomplices ; but not a few regard his story as true, and himself therefore as both innocent and iguosant beyond what has transpired.