MISTAKE IN IDENTITY.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5362, 10 December 1928, Page 4

MISTAKE IN IDENTITY.

WRONG MAN IN DOCK.

A case of mistaken identity which the recorder, Sir Ernest Wild, described as the most extraordinary lie had heard in h'is long experience of the law, was revealed at the Old Bailey in London last m’cfnth. The accused was found uqt guilty, and discharged after another man had gone into the witness-box and confessed to the offence. There was not only a facial likeness between the two men, but the Recorder remarked that there .was a remarkable resemblance between the handwriting of the man who had confessed, and that of certain documents in the case.

Alfred George Westqn, aged 35, an engineer, denied having obtained £4 by means of a forged money order, and contended that it was a case of mistaken identity. Mr Percival Clarke, prosecuting, said that a man whom the pr,csecuttion alleged was Weston, entered the White Boar. Hotel at Hendon, and had a conversation .with the niauagpr, Mr Duncan, regarding life, in- Canada. The manager introduced him to a man named Lavelle, and) after a conveisation the two left the hotel with the object of purchasing a second-hand car. They returned tc; the hotel later, apd as Lavelle was about to drive away in his car the other* man ran after him and asked him if he could cash a money order for £l2 2s 4dt, as it was crossed.

Lavelle handed £4 to thei man, Pnomi&ing to give him the balance when they met again, in three days’ time. The second man failed to keep the appointment, and when the order was passed into the bank by Mr Lavelle it was dishonoured 1 . The money order had been purchased only three days before in and was for 2s 4d only. It had been altered to £l2 2s 4d.

Hugh Duncan and James Leonard Lavelle both stated in evidence! that the man whom they saw in the public house at Hendon was Wesiton. The latter declared that he had never been in Sheffifield, and had 'never been in the White Bear Hotel at Hendon. The Recorder referred 1 to another man known as Ryder, w4io, it was alleged, had confessed to t|he offence with which Weaton was charged. He said that in the interests of justice the man should be called The man was brought up from the cells, and placed! in thie witness-box. He proved to be slightly taller than. Westbn.

Sir Ernest Wild: The man in the doc,k Ms charged with forcing a money order. Do you wish to give evidepce ? The man replied that he would voluntarily give evidence, as Weston was innocen t. He gave his name as Francis Atkinson, and said that he was now -in custody. He had been sentenced to five years’ penal ser.vin tude for attempted guicidJe, forgery, theft. • Atkinson declared that jhe uttered the money order outside a publichouse in- Hendon. He pun chased i*from a post office in Sheffield, he believed, gave it to; another ■ man to alter, and then negotiated It I himself. “The other map was hot the one in the dock.”

The Recorder: Do you kpknv the prisoner ’—No, I have neveir seen him. I do not know that hei is innocent of the charge agains t) himAtkinson was then asked tot write certain words on paper. He < did so» and the Recorder compare 11 the writing with that on various papers anfi documents which had bee |n P ut in as exhibits. “It is a rema rfcable resemblance,” he observed.

While Atkinson was in the w itneat 4 box, other witnesses were order, id ©at of Court. When they were rd called Duncan and Lavelle declared) thi tit Atkinson was not the map they s; aw at Hendon.

Another witness, named Pope, h»wever, stated that Atkinson uhdou l>ted L ly was the man who discussed 1 the purchase of a car. with him.

Evidence was given that when J Atkinson .was sentenced at Knut: 3fi ird Sessions ten offences similar to tl mt with which Weston was charged we re taken into consideration, apd) one wi is the identical case, Summing up, Sir Ernest Wild said; ’ ' “I have been in my profession mere years than .1 care to remember, and[ on the question <jf identity I do not remember, either in my own personal experience, or from what I have read', a more extraordinary case.”

Weston was found nqt guilty, and was discharged. The judge remarked there was was no doubt he was not the man who committed the offence.