A CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Southland Times, Issue 1174, 11 June 1869, Page 3

A CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Thomas G-eddely lived as a waiter with Mrs Hannah Williams, who kept a public-house at York. It being a house of much business, and the mistress very assiduous therein, she was deemed in wealthy circumstances. One morning her scrutoire was found broken open ana robbed, and Thomas Greddely disappearing at the same time, no doubt was entertained as to the robber. About a twelvemonth after, a man calling himself James Crow, came to York, and worked a few days for a precarious subsistence in carrying goods as a porter. Many accosted him as Thomas Q-eddely. He declared he did not know them, that his name wes James Crow, and that he never was at York before. But this was held as merely a trick to save himself from the consequence of the robbery committed in the house of Mrs Williams; when he lived with her aa waiter^ His mistress was sent for, and in the midst of many people instantly singled him out, called him by his name (Thomas Gteddely), and charged him with hia unfaithfulness and ingratitude in robbing her. He was directly hurried before a justice of peace, but on his examination absolutely affirmed that he was not Thomas G-eddely, that he knew no such person, that he never was at York before, and that his name was James Crow.^ Not, however, giving a good account of himself, kmt rather admitting that he was a vagabond and petty rogue, and Mrs i Williams and another person swearing positively to his person, he was committed to York Castle for trial at the next assizes. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty, still denying that he was the person he was taken for ; but Mrs Williams and some others made oath that he was the identical Thomas Geddely who lived with her when she was robbed ; and a servant gill deposed that she had seen him, on the morning of the roberry, in the room where the scrutoire was broken open, with a poker in hie hand. The prisoner being unable to prove an alibi, was found guilty of the robbery. He was soon after executed, but persisted to his latest breath in affirming that he was not Thomas Geddely* and

that his name was James Crow, And so it proved ! Some time after, the true Thomas Geddely, who, on robbing his mistress, had fled from York to Ireland, was taken up in Dublin for a crime of the same stamp, and there condemned and executed. After his conviction, and again at the fatal tree, he confessed himself to be the very Thomas Geddely who had committed the roberry at York for which the unfortunate James Crow had been executed. We must add that a gentleman, an inhabitant of York, happening to be in Dublin at the time of Gteddely's trial and execution, and who knew him when he lived with Mrs Williams, declared that the resemblance between the men was so exceedingly great that it was next to impossible to distinguish their persons asunder.— ' Cambers's Miscellany.'