CURIOUS JUDICAL BLUNDER.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2277, 5 July 1880, Page 2

CURIOUS JUDICAL BLUNDER.

The value of evidence given upon oath in courts of justice is not likely to be raised in popular estimation by such an incident as that which took place recently in the police court at Hull, in England. Two men were in custody—one, by name Matthew Axellsom charged with fcluoniosly entering a house, and the other, G eorge Mat thews, charged with stealing a ring from a jeweller’s shop. The charge against Matthews was tried lirst, and the evidence being conclusive, the prisoner was with due solemnity, sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, and removed from the dock. It was then discovered that an unfortunate error had occurred in the proceedings. The man who had been tried and sentenced for stealing the ring was not Matthews, but Axellson, who was in custody on the other charge of feloniously entering a house. What made the matter still more embarrassing was the fact that all the witnesses, including even the policeman in charge of (be case, had sworn to the identity of the wrong man ; and that Axellson himself, when asked to plead said he was guilty, adding, “ I did not know what I was doing when I went

into the house.” He subsequently explained that he was deaf; and having answered to the name “Matthews’’ when it was called, honestly believed ho was being tried for house-breaking. The policeman who swore that Axellson was Matthews also explained that his mistake arose from his thinking prisoner had “ possibly shaved his whiskers off.” This shows the wide range of a constable’s imagination, for there was not, it is stated, the slightest likeness between the two men. Of course the case had, under the circumstances, to be tried over again, when a like sentence was passed, it is to be hoped on the veritable Matthews. The affair is termed in the report, “a ludicrous mistake.”