Hi All,

Yes, witchcraft has been a topic here before, but I just heard a new
slant on the theme and since the date seems appropriate...

A poster in the newsgroup rec.pets.cats.anecdotes mentioned an AP
article covering a story about one of Scotland's baronial courts
pardoning the witches which were hanged in its jurisdiction.  (The AP
article can be read here at the site of a daily carrying the story:
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/10049104.htm

From the article:

I followed up in characteristic fashion (for me, not the group) with
the best diatribe I could manage on short notice about the last gasps
of inbred descendents of a feudal aristocracy.  Not much of a surprise
there!

Finally, we come to the UL.  In a reply to a follow-up, the original
poster remarked that:

Strange but true, there really was a "Witchcraft Act 1735" on the
books till 1951.  Upon checking the background though of what I had
been sure was a UL,  I was vaguely disappointed to learn that the act
hadn't  outlawed  'being' a witch, what it did was do away with the
crime of 'real witchcraft' as well as making it a crime to pretend to
be a witch (ie: act as a medium, sell love potions, etc)

The 1944 conviction refers to the case of Helen Duncan who was acting
as a medium and preying on the widows of servicemen killed in the war.
Duncan was found guilty under section four of the Witchcraft Act of
1735, which states:

The Witchcraft Act was replaced by the "Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951",
a far more pedestrian sounding statute.  The preamble to the act
reads:

So I suppose the answer to the T/F question in the subject line is
true.  An interesting side note is that some present day 'witches' are
trying to clear Helen Duncan's name. Some of those claim that the Home
Office only prosecuted her because they were afraid she might reveal
secret war plans.  

I'm left stricken by the well-constructed logic and concise language
of section four of the Witchcraft Act.  I'd vote to enact it today.

Regards,
O J Gritmon