. 
APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. | 
the 22nd article of war, “ in case 
of the commission of any crime 
deserving punishment ;”? and the 
Court was therefore of opinion, 
that the alleged trespasses were 
covered up to the 24th of Decem- 
-ber, by the limitation in the Lo- 
cal Militia Act, and that all the 
subsequently alleged trespasses 
under the orders of Lieutenant- 
colonel Whitbread, were justifi- 
able in respect of that officer, 
and consequently in respect of 
the defendant Baillie, as acting 
under the orders of his superior 
officer. The judgment was con- 
sequently in favour of the plain- 
tiff in error. 
Circuit Court, Inverness, Sept. 
22.—John Lamont, Roman Ca- 
tholic Priest, residing at Aber- 
chalder, was brought to the bar. 
The indictment against him was 
founded on the common law, and 
on the Act of the Parliament of 
Scotland, 34th of first Session of 
Charles II. (1661, chap. 34.) in- 
tituled, *«* An Act against clan- 
destine and unlawful Marriages,” 
whereby it is provided, that 
*‘ whatsoever person or persons 
shall hereafter marry, or procure 
themselves to be married in a 
clandestine and inorderly way, or 
by Jesuits, Priests, or any other 
not authorized by this Kirk,” 
shall suffer the penalties therein 
mentioned ; ‘¢ and that the cele- 
brator of such marriages be ba- 
nished the kingdom, never to re- 
turn therein under pain of ceath.” 
The indictment charged the pri- 
soner, with having ‘“ celebrated 
a clandestine and irregular mar- 
riage, between John M’Railt, a 
Protestant, and Isabella Mac- 
donald, a Roman Catholic, or 
309 
Papist, without any certificate 
produced or required by him, 
that the bans of marriage be- 
tween the said parties had been 
proclaimed, as required by law, 
on three different Sundays,’”’ in 
the church of the parish wherein 
they resided, ‘ and without any 
due proclamation of the bans of 
marriage having taken place.” 
Mr. Lamont having pleaded 
not guilty, the Lord Justice Clerk 
inquired if there was any objec- 
tion to the relevancy? Whereup- 
on Mr. Grant, of Rothiemurchus, 
as counsel for the prisoner, stat- 
ed, that there was no objection to 
the relevancy, and that the panel 
rested his defence on the general 
plea of not guilty. 
The Lord Justice Clerk, how- 
ever, deemed it his duty to make a 
few remarks on the statutory 
crime charged. His Lordship 
mentioned, that his attention 
was for the first time particu- 
larly called to a consideration of 
the statute, when on circuit at 
Jedburgh, in April 1812. He 
then bestowed his most careful 
attention on the subject, and 
thought it his duty to pronounce 
sentence, in terms of the act, 
on two persons then tried. They 
appeared, however, to have as- 
sumed the character of clergy- 
men, which did not belong to 
them. Another case occurred be- 
fore his Lordship and Lord Her- 
mand, at Aberdeen, in September 
1812, against one of the Baillies 
of Inverary. Special circumstan- 
ces occurred in that case, which 
rendered it unnecessary to give 
any general judgment on the point 
of law. These cases were not 
_exactly similar to the present ; 
they were in various respects dif- 
