THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Evening Star, Issue 3465, 31 March 1874, Page 3

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE. The following summary of this remarkable trial is furnished to the ‘Hobart Town Mercury’ by one “who has closely watched the case from the commencement, reading every scrap of information relating to both sides of the questions The case rests principally upon three or four points which I shall presently show. Ist. The story of the Bella. 2nd. The visit to Wapping. 3rd. The tattoo marks. 4th Perjury in England. At least three or four hundred witnesses in the aggregate on the two sides may be set aside altogether, as only confusing the minds of the jurymen: one contradicting the other; but there are the silent witnesses of f*r greater importance, which alone have decided the minds of boob judges aud jury. Then, Ist. The story of the Bella : the claimant stated that he was picked up at soa, in aa open boat with eight seamen of the Bella that foundered, by a vessel of something like 300, tons, he believed the Osprey, and after a three months’ passage, during which time they called at the Cape pt Good Hope; that two months of the time ho was so ill he could not remember much of what passed aboard the ship, but the last month his health improved so far that when he landed in Melbourne in June, 854, he immediately hired himself to a squatter as boundary rider,, and left the place for Gippsland directly. This is the statement of the claimant, and upon this foundation the whole case rests—:establish this as a fact, all the other, evidence of his ia as clear as noonday, uh the other Land, if this foundation ia rotten, then the whole superstructure of evidence of eaor tmms proportions is as nothing I will now p. oceed to analyse it. He with eight seamen is picked up off the meric an coast by a vessel of some 3uo tons, which must have ;had on board to man it some twelve to ■fifteen bauds all told ; touches at the Cape :of Good Hope. VV by were hot the eight seaimen lauded there, as they ought to have ; been, and returned to England .to the owners of the lost ship; but taken another 3,00. miles out of their course to be landed in Melbourne? How is it no report reaches the .owners of the lost ship, or tile friends of thi seamen from the Gape, narrating the lost and the picking up at sea of eight seamen and a gentleman ? Did the captain of the osprey attach no importance to the facts, was he too lazy, or can his silence bo explained in not reporting the circumstance 2 ' '

’ Again, the arrival in Melbourne, 1854 ! Ihe Custom house records, the files of the ‘ Argus ’ for the year 1854, reveal no such arrivals. The ‘ Argus ’ kept a steam launch on purpose to board vessels arriving from all parts, so as to get every possible scrap of information to fill the columns of their paper ; and yet we are to believe that eight shipwrecked seamen and a gentleman could lan. in Melbourne without any notice being taker by either of the above offices. Again, how is it that no report reaches the owners of tin Bella from the captain or officers of the Usprey when they arrive in Melbourne ? The crew of the lost Bella were mostly marrieii men. Hid they one and all forget their wives and families left behi ,d them in Old England? bow is it that of tbt eight sailors of the lost vessel—the captain and crew of the alleged Osprey— not one of the whole number could be found to conn forward to give evidence in favor of tbt claimant ? The captain of the Heel Jacket stated that he wa,s in Melbourne in June, 1854, and out of thirty-six- seamen he only lost six by desertion, and his. vessel was unloaded and reloaded again in six weeks, thereby setting aoide the statement made bs the claimant that he could not get a ship to return to England by, 'i hings were, according to his showing, in a very confused and muddled state, as I said before, this is the real foundation to start from, The second point in the case is, as Dr Kenealy styled it, “the fatal visit to Wapping. He (Hr K;) admitted that he could not explain it :-Oo the 25th December, 1866, the claimant first makes his bow On English soil as heir to the Tichborne estates, put he is not landed more than four or five hours before he goes to Wapping,!and there is recognised as Arthur Orton. He said no, I am not Arthur Orton, 1 am a friend of his. my name is W. H. Stevens, reporter for one of the Australian newspapers, and I have come to England to get information upon the teman movement. Why this falsehood, if he was Sir Roger Tichborne ? Then he must repeat his visits several times, and also exP^ o *'? B °f Arthur Orton’s wife and child, which turn out to be identical with his own wife aud child. Weil might Hr K. be unable to explain these visits to Wapping I( ;®id e nce °f the Ortons for years gone by. Third point, the tattoo marks ; This was the turning point of the first trial, and the first witness who deposed to them was Dr Lipscombe, the family doctor to the Tichbqrnes, and who was a witness on the first trial on the claimant’s behalf ; and who, upon cross-examinati >n by the AttorneyGeneral, said that Roger T. was tattooed, evidence which took the claimant’s friends by surprise such marks he could not show upon his arm. The defence brought sixteen witnesses to prove thiatooint, and the foreman of the jury immMiately stopped the case; and'the claimant was non-suited and also charged with perjury and forgery. The reason of'the Attorney-General not revealing the secret of the tattoo, marks must be patent to everybody, and no doubt ho knew of it long before, and enjoined the most rigid secrecy on the part of his witnesses on that ppint, until the proper time came to make use of it.

Fourth. Perjury in England: One of the counts tor perjury is, that he stated on oath ttiat he had never been to Lloyds’ Office in Liverpool, to search the records, whereas evidence of the highest character was brought forward to prove that he not only had been there, but had spent four hours in company with another gentleman in the collars of searc^u g for information respecting Iq&t sffips &c., & c . Here was another matter Or K. declared himself unable to clear up. After several eminent lawyers had retired from the case, Dr. Tv enealy took it in hand ® on “ uc j led it with consummate shill, abihty, and impudence, exerting all his might to throw doubt and distrust upon the evidence for the prosecution ; but whatever Wa was “ffc-ahsed, bis. bringing forward, almost at the eleventh hour, the man Jean Line, whoso evidence, if true, must have decided it in the claimant’s favor. That fatal mistake of Dr. K’a sealed all hope of an acquittal Jn eonolusion, I feel certain had the three judges and the jurymen euteybamed the suialJest doubt as to the uniit t>t the claimant, he would have got the benetit °f it- ; what 'Die tjual cost. ■During the one hundred and fiteen days’ trial of the Tighhornecaae, there have been Hid to the jury LB,WO j to the shorthand

writers, dose on 12,000; to the printers, nearly L 4 00(X The P'osecutuu; counsel—five in all—have swallowed over L14 ; 00Q. ' he defendant’s counsel are paid miserably, compared with the piosecution, but the exact amount is not known. Borne of the witnesses for the prosecution received very fees-one LI,OOO, and another 1.700, aid a third LttO. Of course thev came from Australia and Chili, and their evidence was deemed necessary. Altogether, the “little bill,”.on one side alone, when it comes to be added up, must reach close on L 150.000 ■ esult obtained for this expenditure—“the claimant ” sentenced to fourteen years’ penal servitude.