The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-10-11
MISTAKEN IDENTITY.
A Curious Case That Ended Happily
Through IN Appearance Of u Double.

Through the Appearance Of u Double.
One OF the most curious cases on record
Of mistaken identity is described in "a
rare volume of criminal reports. called
the "New York City Hall Recorder"
I'm June. 1904. q man known as Joseph
Parker was trie | for bigamy in the court
OF oyer and terminer. The Indictment
charged that on the 9Th of May, 179s. he
married Susan Parish, who was still
living when on the 18th Of
December he married Catherine
Secor. The first marriage and the present
existence OF the first wife being admitted,
three witnesses were then produced In
court, who testified that the man on trial
rs Joseph Parker was In reality Thomas
Hoag. who had come to Rockland county
thirty miles from New York, in S.ptem-
Der, 1900, and worked there as a laborer
and married Catherine Sscor. Decembe err
25tb, 1900, ard had disappearce the fol-
lowing Mare One Of these witnesses
was the who claimed to be his
wife, another was the judge who had
married them and the third was the man
who had worked by Thomas Hoag's side
for five months. They were all positive
the defendant was Hoag. not Only by his
features and voice but by various marks
aud scars aud by an impediment in his
speech.
The defense, however. called six wit
ncsses. who swore the prisoner was
Joseph Parker, that on Christmas, 1900,
and previous TO that time had worked at
his trade as a rigger in New York city,
and that he was not then, aud never had
been In Rockland county.
In rebuttal, the prosecution called seven
witnesses, who swore the prisoner W.
Thomas Hoag, that they saw him marry
Catherine Secor on Christmas day, 1900,
and that they identified him, not only by
the marks on his face aud neck, which
the jury could see, but by a deep scar on
the ball of his foot, which would be an
parent liz the prisoner exhibited his feet
to the jury. All these wit iesses
were persons of the utmt st
responsibility. There was no
suggestion Of bribery, and the concluding
witness for the d~ereuse, "a police captain,
not only swore that the prisoner wa
Joseph Parker, whom he had known for
many years. but produced his records,
showing the dates when Parker had been
In his employ, covering the very periods
when the Rockland county wit
nesses swore he had been
up there committing blgamy. There was
the utmost good feeling among all the
witnesses aud the parties TO this strange
case, aud when the jury found Joseph
Parker mot guilty" OF the crimes which
had been laid to his charge, under the
name OF Thomas Hong, the wit
nesses for the prosecution went
away as firmly convinced as ever
that justice had been cheated. Even
Hoag's W wives vowed Parker was be and
agreed in the most amiable way that
the wretch ought to go to the peniten-
tiary. Furthermore, IL was not until now
that Parker's foot was examined,
and behold there was no scar.
Now, how could the same man work as
a rigger in New York city and at the
same lime rs a stone mason aud carpen-
ter In Rockland county, How could he
be a DIR. Jekyl, in New YORK aud n Mr..
Hyde in Rocklandg Assuredly not by
any human agencies that we know Of.
We are forced TO the conclusion. as inyesti-
ga ors have been in hundreds Of C ses
since. that Thomas fioak and Joseph
Parker were physical doubles so much
alike that even their own wives could not
tell them apart.
The mo I interesting possible prcsenta
ton Of this curious question OF Mistake
Identity Is given by the Stuart Robson
company la its admiral 1 performance OF
Sbakespearu's Ia Gus play. tue Comedy
q Errors" Mr.. Robson. Lhe inimiiable
Drumio OF Syracuse. has in Mr.. Giles
Shine, the Dromio Of Eph, aus, not only a
dramatic doub e. but an nc ual physical
cpun' errart Ia real fife.