London Legal Letter. final incident of this strange drama occurred. The real man, the John Smith of 1877, now calling himself Thomas, a Jew. was caught red-handed at his old game. Among those who heard of his arrest was a well-known in spector of police who seems to have had more art, and certainly more compassion, than any officer previously connected with the case. He knew, of course, as did very many more connected with the police courts, the history of these strange crimes and how energetically Beck had protested his inno cence. He saw the importance of the arrest of Thomas, followed it up and brought facts to light which quickly caused the release and pardon of Beck. Fortunately, the victim of this remarkable case of mistaken identity had, among num bers of others, one friend, a journalist of large experience and great popularity and a dramatist whose plays for years past have been almost nightly produced all over the kingdom, George R. Sims. Mr. Sims en treated the cooperation of his associates of the press in Beck's behalf, and, as a result of the application the Government has offered Beck as a solatium of his sufferings at the hands of justice the very considerable sum of £2000. It is stated that not more than ten or twelve times in the past hundred years has any grant been made from the national treas ury under similar circumstances, and that the sum offered, so far as the amount is con cerned, is still more exceptional. But largo as the amount is it has not up to the present been accepted, as the offer has been accom panied by a condition that Beck shall receive it not merely as a solatium but in considera tion of his refraining from any further agita tion of the matter. This his friends are un willing he should agree to, and that he may not suffer loss by continuing to give further publicity to the stupidity of the police au thorities, a well-known newspaper proprietor has, it is understood, offered to pay him a
68l
like amount for his assistance in continuing the agitation. What is demanded by the public is that there shall be a searching in quiry into the circumstances under which the case against him was got up by the police and the reasons why his petitions for a re opening of it, particularly when he was able to convince the authorities that he was not John Smith, were so contemptuously disre garded. In this the press and the public alike unite. In other quarters there is strong agitation, backed up by High Court Judges of great in fluence and by many members of the bar, in favor of a court of appeals in all criminal cases. It may seem remarkable to an Amer ican that there is now practically no such right of appeal. A convicted man has only one course open to him. He may send an appeal to the Home Secretary asking for a further investigation, and stating circum stances which he thinks were not sifted at the trial. This petition does not act as a stay and while it is pending the prisoner is sent to one of the prisons to begin the term of his sentence. The petition is sent by the Home Office to the Judge who tried the man, who re-ports whether he considers there is ground for further inquiry. If he thinks there is the Home Office refers the matter to the public prosecutor. In other words the Home Sec retary takes his cue—or the officials of the departmentunderhimtaketheir cue—in such a matter from the learned Judge who tried the case and by whose summing-up, it is only fair to assume, the jury were largely influ enced in arriving at this verdict. Even if the authorities come to the conclusion that the case was not presented in an altogether satisfactory way, they have no right to order a new trial or to grant a rehearing. They must either pardon the condemned, or let the matter rest. It is stated that the Home Sec retary receives in the course of each year pe titions from over 3000 prisoners. He is an
