There is a record in the St. Andrews Kirk Session minutes of 1595, a period

of witchcraft persecutions, which states ‘James Chaplaine to make public

humiliation for the fetching of umquihill (late or deceased) Janet Lohoar, a

condamnit wyche to cure John Richard’s wife in Strathkinness’. There is no

way of telling for certain what the actual fate of Janet Lohoar was. Some

scholars believe she was probably released and others think she was probably

executed. According to one writer on witchcraft in Scotland (G. B. Black)

executions at that time were so frequent they were not always recorded as

having taken place. Certainly the words ‘umquihill’ and ‘condamnit’ would

lead one to think she would have been executed, but other scholars (R. G Cant

and R. Smart) believe that condemned witches were often released and made

to leave the area. Unless further information comes to light it seems the case

will have to remain ‘non-proven’.

If a case was contested the Kirk Session acted as both prosecutor and

judge, and witnesses could be called on both sides. If the Session felt they

were incompetent to deal with a case it was referred to the Presbytery for

further consideration. Punishment could be fines or appearing before the

congregation in ‘public humiliation’ or a combination of both. Around the

1770s requests were made for permission to pay a larger fine instead of

appearing before the congregation. One of the first cases was that of a man

who said ‘that as he lived a long way off it would be difficult for him to attend’.

He was given permission to pay a larger fine and riot to appear before the

congregation. One man paid twenty shillings (a very large fine), sixteen

shillings of which went to the poor and the other four shillings was divided

between the clerk and the beadle (church officer) who depended on the fines

for part of their wages, but the woman involved with him still had to appear.

It appears the fines were assessed according to the means of the parties involved,

for instance in 1779 one couple paid only twenty pence ‘and this puts a stop

to their making publick appearances’, and in another case a woman was not

fined ‘as she is poor’.

Punishment was for all, not only the poor and less well-off; there were

cases in which Kirk elders were censured and obliged to resign from the Kirk

Session and their names were removed from the roll of elders.

ln 1793 ‘Mr. William Haig who had lately been made Tacksman of the

Distillery at Kincaple’ (founded in about 1770 by his uncle) had been reported

as ‘being in the practice of running his stills on the Lord’s Day’. Mr. Haig

admitted that it was so, and in a letter, asked for by the Kirk Session to explain

his action, he said that ‘the other Distillers did so, and with the dut’~l being so

heavy’ he was forced to as the distilleries in Edinburgh who worked on the

Lord’s Day could undersell him in St. Andrews, as they were allowed to run

their stills on the Sabbath and thus have proportionately less tax to pay.

21