In 1903, George Edalji, a British-Indian solicitor, was wrongly convicted of mutilating cattle in England. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, helped clear his name, exposing racism and leading to judicial reform.

In 1903, the quiet English village of Great Wyrley in Staffordshire was struck by fear. Several horses, cows and sheep were found slashed during the night. Every few days, villagers would wake up to see mutilated animals across their fields. The brutal crimes continued for months.

The pattern was always the same, someone attacked livestock in the dead of night and vanished without a trace. Despite increased patrols, the police could not catch anyone. Fear spread so widely that children were told not to step outside after dark, and villagers began locking their animals indoors.

Then came letters from a group claiming responsibility. One name stood out, George Edalji.

Who was George Edalji?

George was the son of Reverend Shapurji Edalji, a Bombay-born man who became the first South Asian to serve as a vicar in England. George’s mother was English, and the family had lived in Great Wyrley for decades. George, born in 1876, was quiet, well-educated, and had a clean reputation. He had written a book on railway law and was working as a solicitor.

However, being a person of colour in an all-white village made George a target. The Edaljis had faced threats and harassment for years. Many locals, including police officials like Captain Anson, believed foreigners were suspicious by nature. This racist attitude eventually turned George into a suspect.

A false arrest and unfair trial

On August 18, 1903, another injured pony was found. Police raided George’s home and collected his coat, some razors, and boots. They said the coat had animal hair on it and claimed the razors could be weapons. Even though George shared a room with his father that night, the police called this odd and arrested him.

The evidence was weak. But the court convicted George based on suspicions and bias. He was sentenced to prison. Newspapers reported the case widely, and many people believed he was wrongly punished. A petition supporting George got over 10,000 signatures. After three years in jail, he was released, but banned from practising law.

Enter Arthur Conan Doyle

While in prison, George read detective novels featuring Sherlock Holmes. Desperate to clear his name, he wrote to the books' author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle was grieving the loss of his wife and saw George's letter as a reason to step out of mourning.

Doyle had never taken up real-life cases before. But something about George’s story made him curious. They met at a hotel in London. Doyle immediately noticed that George had vision problems, he was astigmatic, which made it hard for him to see clearly at night. This key fact had been ignored during the trial.

Doyle believed a man with such poor eyesight could not possibly commit the crimes in the dark, especially in stormy weather. He also found that the attacks had continued even after George was jailed.

Racism and assumptions

Doyle’s investigation also uncovered how racism had played a role in George’s arrest. Many locals believed myths about Parsis, such as performing animal sacrifices. These false beliefs further painted George as guilty in the public’s mind.

 

Scroll to load tweet…

 

In 1907, Doyle wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph, exposing the flaws in the case. His efforts forced the British Home Office to clear George of all charges. However, they refused to pay him compensation for the years lost.

Legacy of the case

The case led to major changes in the British legal system. It contributed to the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal in England and Wales. George was allowed to practise law again and spent the rest of his life working in London.

This was only one of two real-life cases Doyle ever took. The friendship between the writer and George lasted until Doyle’s death in 1930.

Even over 100 years later, the case of George Edalji remains a strong example of how racism and bias can ruin lives. In 2013, then Solicitor-General of England and Wales, Oliver Heald, called the trial a 'farce' a small but important recognition of past injustice.