ought up at Bow
Street this morning. It turns out that Drayton is an innkeeper at
Hendon, where he has long borne a dubious character. He was arrested
at midnight in St. Pancras Station, in a daring and mad attempt to
escape by the north-bound train, and it is understood that the
incident of his capture is such as reflects the highest credit on the
resolution, energy, and intrepidity of the force."

The same paper, of the day after, contained this further paragraph:

"The man Drayton, who was yesterday formally committed to take his
trial at the Central Criminal Court, will be brought up at the Old
Bailey to-morrow; and as the evidence is said to be of a simple and
unconflicting character, it is not expected that the hearing will
extend over a single day. It is stated that the accused, who observed
a rigid silence during yesterday's proceedings, will, on his trial,
set up the extraordinary defense of mistaken identity."

An evening paper of Friday, November--, contained the following remarks
in the course of a leading note:

"It is a familiar legal maxim that a plea of alibi that breaks down
is the worst of all accusations. The scoundrel that attempted to rob
a dying man, who lay helpless and at his mercy amid the confusion of
Friday night's accident at Hendon, was audacious enough to put forth
the defense that he was not the man he was taken for. Cases of
mistaken identity are, of course, common enough in the annals of
jurisprudence, but we imagine the instances are rare indeed of
evidence of identity so exceptional and conclusive as that which
convicted the Hendon innkeeper being susceptible of error. The very
clothes he wore in the dock bore their own witness to his guilt, and
the court saw the police-sergeant produce a scrap of cloth torn from
the guilty man's back, which exactly fitted a rent in the prisoner's
ulster. The whole case would be a case of criminality too gross and
palpable to merit a syllable of comment but for the astounding
assurance with which the accused adhered to his plea in the face of
evidence that was so complete as to make denial little more than a
farce. He denied that he was Paul Drayton, and said his name was Paul
Ritson. He was identified as Drayton by several witnesses who have
known him from infancy; among others by his old mother, Martha
Drayton, whose evidence (given with reluctance,