Page:The Strand Magazine (Volume 2).djvu/92

 place it is nearly always in consequence of a misapprehension of facts. Too often within recent years have subsequent events shown that punishment has been inflicted upon an innocent man. It is needless to multiply instances, many of which are doubtless in the minds of our readers. We may, however, mention a case that is described at length in his interesting "Leaves of a Life," by Mr. Montagu Williams.

That eminent counsel once defended a prisoner who as charged with sheepstealing. Two constables declared that they had seen the accused driving the flock in the early morning, and swore positively to his identity, one of them having given him a light for his pipe; and he was also identified by another man, who swore that he had seen him drive the sheep into the Meat Market. On the other hand, the members of the prisoner's household declared that he had been at home in bed at the time, and had not risen until long after the offence had been committed. His wife, who had been with him, was not allowed to give evidence. The Assistant-Judge who tried the case ridiculed the alibi. "You have only," he said, "to state a certain number of facts that are actually true, to change the date, and there you have your alibi."

The jury found the prisoner "Guilty," and he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Twelve months afterwards a man was convicted of a similar offence at the same court. On being asked if he had anything to say, he replied, "Nothing about myself, my lord, but something about you. A year ago you condemned an innocent man, and he is now undergoing penal servitude. Mr. Williams, my counsel, was counsel for him. It was I who stole the sheep that were driven from Hornsey to the Meat Market. I am he for whom the innocent man was identified."

It was at once obvious that there was a striking resemblance between the two men. The Judge, however, pooh-poohed the matter, and if it had not been that the chairman of the Drovers' Association took the matter up, the innocent man might never have been liberated. As it was, he received Her Majesty's "pardon" and a sum of money by way of compensation. But it was too late. The unfortunate man's wife had died during his imprisonment, and he himself had become hopelessly insane.

In this case a failure of justice brought disaster upon a whole family, for they were all dependent upon the unfortunate prisoner, who not only suffered by the fatuity of the Judge and jury in preferring the evidence of two policemen to that of several highly respectable witnesses, but also by the ridiculous law that prevents a wife from giving evidence on her husband's behalf.