Donald Hendry lived at Occumster. The cliffs, mid left,
would have been a hazard on a dark night.
Thursday night, 28 May, 1739 Elizabeth Sinclair and
her husband Alexander Cormack along with several other local folk, went
over to the house of their neighbour Robert McKay. During the evening Elizabeth
also went to Widow Oag’s house where Donald Hendry noticed her. About
10 o’clock at night Elizabeth started walking home on her own. Her husband Alexander
left for home half an hour later.
 |
| A Merry Meeting. Walter Geikie.1885. Public Domain |
Donald Hendry of Occumster was with
the group of neighbours. After Elizabeth left for home, Donald Hendry followed
her. He had no good reason going the way of Alexander Cormack’s house. Before
she got home Hendry violently attacked Elizabeth, tore her clothes off her, and
‘actually ravished her’. She tried screaming but her voice was muzzled.
Alexander, walking home found his wife in great distress, bruised, and
scratched, her clothes strewn about. He asked her what the matter was and who
had attacked her, her attacker having quickly crawled on all fours off in the
dark.
Knowing she would have to report the attack to the
minister, Elizabeth asked for any neighbours who were nearby to come and see
what had happened to her.
Friday morning came and found poor Elizabeth very
traumatised and distressed. George McKay, Frances Sinclair and George Bain
turned up. Also Alexander Bain from Clyth had some thoughts on the
matter.
Friday night, 29 May, 1739 Elizabeth and Alexander told
what happened to the Session clerk Hugh Sutherland.
Wednesday, 3 June, 1739 Elizabeth was called on to appear
before all the Session elders. Her husband came with her. The whole
neighbourhood was talking about the attack. She told her story finishing by
saying she thought she had met her untimely death and hoped that would be a
heavy burden on Donald Hendry’s head.
 |
| Peasant woman sitting in a chair. Vincent van Gogh. Public
Domain |
Donald Hendry now appeared before the Session and a
statement was read out to him with great pains and exhortations to confess the
truth and give ‘glory to God’. Hendry flatly refused every particular of the
report.
Alexander Cormack ‘craved leave’ to be heard by the
session. He said that he was sorry from his heart for the pitiful condition of
his wife ever since Donald Hendry had to do with her. But he had to admit that because it was so
dark he couldn’t be positive if Hendry was the man or not because he only saw
him creeping off. He begged that as far as possible his wife’s injury might be
repaired and publick justice done to him that ‘teased’ (meaning break her down)
her. The Session promised to do their utmost and enjoined him to bear
Christianly with his wife.
 |
| Van Gogh. Sorrowing Old Man. Public Domain |
Wednesday, 10 June, 1739 the session met to consider the
affair of Donald Hendry and Elizabeth Sinclair. Because of ‘shifts and
deviations’ in Hendry’s statements they called for any other persons to declare
what they knew. They widened the inquiry to include whoever was in Robert
McKays house that night and anyone who knew of anything of Hendry’s behaviour
toward Elizabeth Sinclair that night or previously.
William Oag, son of Widow Oag, was
called. Oag had gone to sleep in his mother’s barn when his dog started barking
and woke him up. He said he heard a
smothered noise in the corner of his mother’s yard. The ‘broken noise’ went on
for half an hour before Oag got up and went outside. There he found Alexander
with Elizabeth who was telling her husband that Donald Hendry ‘did her ruin’.
Oag was questioned if he actually saw Hendry but said No it
was too dark. He wasn’t even sure if he heard Hendry’s voice but was sure the
voice he heard was not Alexander Cormack’s voice.
Alexander Georgeson said
he saw Cormack’s wife in a disordered and distracted manner going down the way
by McKay’s house but that’s all he knew.
George Bain stated that he saw
Elizabeth Sinclair the day after and saw that her clothes were torn by violence
and force.
Donald Hendry was called in again
and the whole minute of the report was read to him. Hendry’s story started to
change. He said he was at Robert McKay’s house and from there noticed a woman
at Widow Oag’s house and followed her. He admitted he was drunk and didn’t know
where he was going or what he was doing. He said he ‘happened’ to fall upon a
woman and found it was Elizabeth Sinclair and struggled with her for quarter of
a hour but endevoured to be safe with her! Now he lied that Elizabeth said he
would not get any favours from her unless he would go up with her to her own
barn. In the meantime her husband came upon them and Hendry made his escape.
The Session asked what made him run away. He replied that he was afraid it
might be worse if he stayed. Again asked what he meant by that Hendry said he
thought they might have killed one another. He again denied having any carnal
dealings with Elizabeth but then said that if she deponed upon the Bible that
he was guilty then he would own it and submit to any censure. He was sent out.
The Session considered the whole matter and found it to be
a perplex and prescience thing before them so delayed doing anything until next
Session.
 |
| Auld Acquaintances. Walter Geikie. Wikimedia Commons |
In the meantime the minister Rev James Brodie was to
advise this case with the Civil Magistrates and at the first meeting of the
Presbytery.
Wednesday, 17 June, 1739 the session decided that because
of the shifts and deviations of Hendry’s statements that they needed to hear
from everyone who was in Robert McKays house the night in question, or any who
had knowledge of any other attacks on Elizabeth Sinclair by Hendry.
Wednesday, 1 July, 1739 Alexander Cormack appeared along
with others to be examined.
First up was Janet Sutherland, the mother of
Alexander Cormack and mother-in-law of Elizabeth Sinclair. Janet declared that
about twelve months ago her son went out of the county. Next morning Elizabeth
Sinclair came to her saying that after her husband went away Donald Hendry was
in her house and she wanted very much that he would leave but she could not get
him to go until he was put away by the neighbours. It was said that it was not
on any good designs that he was there at that time.
 |
| Vincent Van Gogh – Head of a peasant woman |
Donald Gun (was in Clyth but now
in Latheron) declared that his wife informed him that Donald Hendry was on a
certain night in Alexander Cormack’s house until Kathron Cormack and Elspet
Young did shame him away but when they thought he was gone saw him skulking
below the yard. They went back and caused rife and Hendry went home very
unwillingly. Kathron Cormack, confirmed what was said and further added that
Elizabeth Sinclair said to her that she would never go into the house while
Donald Hendry was in it and added that Donald Hendry was drunk at the time.
 |
Very Fou, Walter Geikie. Public
Domain. |
Donald Sutherland, John Mouat and David
Sutherland said that they heard some jarring betwixt Hendry and James
Forbes in Mavise, upon an alleged scandal of ‘unbecoming carriage’ twixt
Hendry and the wife of James Forbes. James Forbes agreed that when he came home
from Inverness he heard the story but believing his wife to be a virtuous woman
he didn’t complain about it. Likewise Kathron Christie admitted that
Hendry was ‘socking and sporting’ with her and all the wives in the
neighbourhood but in no other way.
The session considering the information found that Donald Hendry had no good reason going the way of
Alexander Cormack’s house and agreed that it was very likely he wanted to
do violence to her and also to James Forbes wife.
The minister stated that he asked Mr Law (Excise
officer) who was with Hendry the night he attacked Elizabeth Sinclair. Mr Law
said that while he was with him Hendry was sober enough. Law joined the company
of Cormack and his wife and saw no more of Hendry.
Three more witnesses John Sutherland, John Sinclair and
John Kenedy all declared they saw marks and bruises on Elizabeth Sinclair’s
thighs and legs occasioned by Hendry struggling with her.
The session considered the whole of the evidence,
particularly the character and conduct of Hendry in this present scandal and decided
to apply to the civil magistrate for a warrant of commitment (jail) grounded
upon his own confession. After being punished by the civil magistrate he then would
still be required to satisfy the Session and other congregations. The Minister was
appointed to procure the warrant after first acquainting Lady Ulster.
To be continued…
www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk Latheron kirk
session, Minutes (1734-1776, with gaps) (1754-1783, with gaps), CH2/530/1 pgs
57 - 70
