RootsChat.Com

Caledonian Mercury 15-10-1753:

Thereafter came on the Trial of Alison Inglis, Daughter of --- Inglis at Scone, indicted for Adultery with the deceast George Bruce at Brechin a married Man. After reading the Indictment, she gave in a Petiton praying to be banished Scotland for Life, which the Advocate Depute having consented to, she was banished accordingly, never to return under the usual Certifications.

Her designation suggests she was not married, however, she is indicted for adultery and avoids the death penalty for "notour adultery" by petitioning for banishment instead.

Just quoting myself to draw attention again to an unmarried woman being indicted for the capital crime adultery. The law here certainly treats and punishes her as an adulteress.

George Miller Smith Indueller (= indweller) in S/E paroch (= parish) &
Elizabeth Brockie Daughter to the deceast pa[tric]k
Brockie indueller in SE parish

At this time Edinburgh was divided into four parishes. The South East parishioners worshipped at the Tron Kirk.

The following is from my 1709 copy of Collections and observations methodiz'd concerning the worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland.

"Adultery is the violation of another's bed... and is committed by a Married person's lying with an Unmarried, or the Unmarried person's lying with one who is married. If the Woman with whom the adultery is committed was at that Time living as a common Whore, and the Committer was a single Man, and knew nothing of her being Married, his punishment should be moderated on that account, but if the Man was Married, the Crime is the same, whether the Woman was a Whore or not, it being still a Violation on his part." That would seem to suggest both parties are guilty of adultery, the married and the unmarried.

The same book says "Fornication is committed by the carnal knowledge of unmarried Persons."

The second word is "and" - compare it with the ending of "thowsand" in the line above. That means the first word must designate the previous person. It isn't very clear, but could be "zor" (= zo[unge]r = younger). John will have been mentioned earlier in the document and it might be clearer there. The date of the document, from the previous line, in in the 1560s.

The Glasgow Herald 6-2-1846.