Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Thursday 13 December 1928
Jury Disagree.
Mexborough Miner to Have a Second Trial.
An unusual conflict evidence —the testimony of two police officers against that of eight witnesses for the defence—put the jury in such a quandary during the hearing of charge of perjury against a young Mexborough miner, Frederick Michael Mullins (22), at the West Riding Assizes Leeds yesterday, that they could not return a unanimous verdict.
The hearing lasted all day, and when the jury returned after hour’s retirement, the foreman intimated to Mr. Justice Charles that there was no chance of their arriving at verdict.
Mr. Justice Charles discharged the jury and said the case would have to be tried at the next assizes, because could not put the case in the list again for this session. Mullins would be allowed bail.
Mr. A. P. Peaker, prosecuting, said Mullins had made statement on oath on a material point in the police court which he knew to be false.
On the night of June 16th, two police constables were on duty in Sheffield Road, Conisborough when they saw four men to whom they spoke. These men, who included Thomas Mullins, brother of the prisoner, walked towards the cross-roads 200 yards away. One of them named Wright, was heard say: “Let’s do strong man act,” and the four of them then got hold of a danger sign and pulled it down.
At the Doncaster West Riding Police Court the prisoner, after having been warned, took oath, and said he and another brother, named William, pulled down the danger sign, and it was not Thomas.
Steel Triangle in Court.
The two police constable in evidences said four men pulled down the Post. They were certain of this because it was fairly light at the time.
The heavy steel red triangle sign, about 11ft, long, was brought with difficulty into court, and the unwieldy exhibit was displayed by Mr. G. H. Strcatfcild (defending counsel) and a police officer.
Mr. Justice Charles: This case is assuming a serious aspect. You say you have eight or nine men call who saw two men it. That is to say these policemen are doing what this man is charged with.
Mr. Streatfeild; l am not suggesting that what the policemen are saying is deliberately untrue Bramall.
Prisoner, in evidence, adhered to his statement that the sign was pulled down him and his brother William. It was not done intentionally. He thought the sign would fall, and after he had done it, he walked to one side of the road. When the police-officers stopped the four men, he was going to cross over to put the-matter right, but his brother Thomas told him to keep out of it. He tried to put things right by giving evidence at the police court.
Eight other witnesses, including three brothers of the prisoner, gave evidence and corroborated his story. None, however, thought of telling the police that they knew the wrong men had been charged.
In his summing Mr. Justice Charles said was an important case, from one point of view, arising out of a trivial one. There was a direct conflict of evidence between the two police-constables, and the eight witnesses for the defence. The jury could not get away from the fact that one side was not telling the truth.