The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft

1563-1736

By Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller and Louise Yeoman, January 2003

The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft logo

Case Details

C/EGD/1153 Jon Hog

name of accused
Jon Hog
designated title
no information
Accused Reference
A/EGD/1141
Case date start
7/11/1629
Given case date
no information
Case commission
no information
case complaint
no information
case correspondence
no information
case chronicle
no information
other details
no information

characterisation

  • maleficium (secondary characteristic)
  • Implicated by another (secondary characteristic)
  • neighbourhood dispute (secondary characteristic)
  • not enough information (secondary characteristic)
  • not enough information (primary characteristic)
Characterisation Notes
They were clearly the victims of a quest for suspects from Alexander Hammilton. There is some evidence of neighbourhood disputes - especially around a horse that went mad and a possibly suspicious healing done on John Hog where the disease may have transferred to a neighbour's baby. But this healing was done on John Hog not by him or his wife. Their family was also questioned. Hog was accused of trying to seduce his neighbour's wife.

Qualitative information

Non-natural beings

Notes
Lots of accusations regarding the Devil in depositions given in by Hammilton, but did not include them here because he retracted them and Hog and wife never confessed. Both Hog and his wife made an oath on their knees denying everything in Hammilton's depositions.
  • no information

Demonic pacts

  • no information

witches meetings

Notes
None

Meeting places

  • no information

musical instruments

  • no information

Folk culture

Notes
There is a description of a possible unwitching episode that was attempted on John Hog where a disease was transferred to a newly born baby. Lots of information about this event in JC26/9 item 7. There is something about a strange cat found in Margaret's house and a din of cats that was seen and heard at her neighbour's around Michaelmas.

Counter strategies

  • no information

white magic

  • no information

Elf/fairy elements

  • no information

Shape-changing

  • no information

Ritual objects

  • no information

Religious motif

  • no information

Calendar customs

  • Michaelmas

Diseases or illness

  • Animal illness
  • Transferring disease
  • Quarreling
Notes
None

Cause of witch's malice

  • no information

Other maleficia

Damage to property

  • no information

weather modification

  • no information

Notes
None

Other charges

  • no information

Notes
None

Plea

Claimed bewitched
no
Claimed possessed
no
Admitted lesser charges
no
No defence
no
Claimed natural causes
no
Notes
None
Case Notes
Denounced by Hammilton, investigated and dropped. Lots of detail in the JC26/9, his wife was quarrelling with lots of people and he was accused of trying to seduce his neighbour's wife. Witness statements from 7 November 1629 through to 23 November 1629 - intensive questioning of neighbours and family members by Colville and the Bishop of Dunblane. Hammilton was known to beg at their house.
references
name notes
SJC v1, p. 148 Hammilton initially accused Hog and wife, but he cleared them.
RPC 2nd S v3 p. 345; 358-359 investigated and dropped
Process Notes JC26/9 item 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10x, 13, 15, 10, 17 witness statements collected between 7 Nov. 1629 and 23 Nov. 1629. Has specific questions that were asked.
Process Notes JC26/9 items 7, 11, 14 Margaret Nicolson and John Hog questioned.
Process Notes JC26/9 item 6 Hammilton's denunciation filled with information about the Devil, Devil's meetings, sex with the Devil (his wife), renunciation of baptism and dancing at the meeting. I didn't record it in Hog's case because Hammilton retracted and Hog never confessed.