We need not go over the case again. It will suffice to declare that as it was presented before the judge and jury at the assizes, it was much stronger and more compact and complete than when heard before the bench of magistrates. There were two additional witnesses whose testimony corroborated those who had already been heard in respect to the prisoner’s identity.
Mr. Slapperton instructed counsel, and he was greatly hurt at the latter not entering more fully into his favourite plea of mistaken identity; but the gentleman retained for the defence had too good a knowledge of law to allow himself to be dictated to by a provincial attorney.
Two men were brought from London as witnesses for the defence.
They swore positively that the prisoner was in their company in the metropolis on the night the murder was committed.
They were two unprincipled scoundrels who had been produced by Alf Purvis and Laura Stanbridge to perjure themselves, in the hope that they might save the prisoner from the dreadful fate that awaited him.
Nobody in court believed one word they said, and their testimony was rather prejudicial than otherwise; but Mr. Slapperton would insist upon their being called.
Many of my readers will remember that a similar coarse was adopted in the Muller case.
Two women swore that he was in their company on the evening upon which Mr. Briggs was murdered.
There was not a shadow of truth in their statement, and, as in Chudley’s case, nobody believed them.
The counsel for the defence, seeing that the question of Chudley’s identity was fairly established, had no other course left open to him than to strive, by every means in his power, to reduce the crime to manslaughter.