“I suggested to the inspector that it might be a case of mistaken identity; and, in order to set the question at rest, it would be better to send for the landlord and barman of the ‘Duke’s Head,’ which was the name of the public-house in which the swindle had been perpetrated.
“The prisoner evinced the utmost signs of joy and exultation when he heard this proposal; and the prosecutor made no objection, saying that he was sure their testimony would bear out the charges he had just made against Joseph Halliday.
“Accordingly messengers were dispatched to the ‘Duke’s Head,’ requesting the immediate attendance of the landlord and his barman. In the meantime the prisoner was conveyed into the yard of the station-house and placed in a row with nine other men.
“It was intended that the witnesses we had sent for should identify the prisoner from amongst a number of others.
“When they arrived, the landlord of the ‘Duke’s Head’ requested to be told why he had been summoned.
“‘A case of skittle-sharping,’ replied the inspector, ‘took place in your house three days ago. Would you remember the three men who hired your skittle-ground for the best part of the afternoon?’
“‘Perfectly,’ replied the landlord; ‘there were four altogether, and this gentleman’ (turning to the prosecutor) ‘was one of them.’
“‘You are quite right; but he is the victim of the three rogues. We imagine that we have one of them in custody. He is amongst some others in the back yard. If your memory serves you, you will have no difficulty in selecting him from his companions.’
“‘I don’t think I shall have the least trouble. I have a distinct recollection of the whole party,’ replied the landlord, following myself and the inspector to the yard.
“The barman we left behind; his turn was to come next.