THE TICHBORNE CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1150, 5 April 1872, Page 4

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

DEFENCE. On 15th January,, the Attorney General opened the case on behalf of the defence. He denounced the claitpant as "a cunning^ and audacious conspirator, a perjurer, a forger, an imposter, and t a villain," adding' that he would be able to prove hundreds of facts inconsistent with the story before the jury. Each^of Jhese facts would convict the claimant jof a fraud, a lie, and a crime, on a scile of depth and wickedness unequalled- in the annals of the law. The' learned counsel went on to say that he bhould be able to show that from the arrival of the claijriant in this. country, ha was engaged in! getting up this imposture,, assisted by two or three per3ons--K»rteinly !t ''nbt ihore. Among other things the % 'claimaht'deuied that ie was ever tattooed, but for the defence a young nobleman, would be. called who tattooed the real Bogejp Tichborne, and was tattooed by him in return, 1 and this nobleman would bare his arm; and show, the place where Roger Tichhorne tattooed him. The claimant, when in the witness-box had stated that he did nbtSjP-' member writing more than* twti or three 1 letters ;tQ,^jady Doughty on his life, while tor the defence hundreds of such letters would be-,produced.<. m At this point the court adjourned on Monday afternoon, ;and on Tuesday morning the Attorney-General resumed his address by referring at some length to the relations which existed botweenJJoger Tichborne and his cousin, Miss Doughty, ; no w Mrs Radcliffe. On ; the day before leaving he gave a document,- a duplicate of* which he said He had given to Mr Gosford some months before, in which he . .promised, provided he lived to return to ; " marry" her, he would build . a phur.ch or a 4snap« atf Tichborne to^ the Holy virguii in ■ thankfulness for the protection'shown • to' both of them. The sealed packet, ..about which so mnch has been said, had reference to this matter, and this was the, true story of the connection between" Roger Tichborne and his cousin Doughty. 'The jury would remember what the claim- "' ant had said on this subject, and the 'dates he had given for the letters, and what he said were the contents of the - sealed -packet The undoubted--docu-ments wouldjbe produced for the defence, and upon 'the face" or them they, would confute the statements of the ojaimjint, and prove him to have been gllilty of " the most infernal lie that ever villain - • - told in a court of justice." ;• Mr Baigent, with characteristic-, malignity, _had said 'that Lady Doughty was anxious, to ditch ■ ' Rdger Tichborne' for her daughter ; jbut < the letters of her ladyship, which would be produced, would prove beyond j all doubt that this statement, was utterly/] ; untrue. After leaving 1 his 'cousin, Rojger , Tichborne determined to travel in South America, India, and elsewhere. { , At this time he knew a good deal of music, and could play that difficult instrument ithe French horn. . He .was also a good chessplayer. The jury would remember iow hopelessly ignorant the claimant was on . these subjects. It had been ■ suggested in •■; the claimant's case that Roger Ticjbborne had always been an indolent, idle, Jdonothing fellow, whereas for the defence it would be shown that there was, not a • trace :of indolence in the character of the \ ; real Roger Tichborne. Oaji the other. hand, he was a remarkably active man.' ■i When the news arrived'tha't the Bella had ; ;been lost Sir James Tichborne wassatisfied'that his son Roger had perished With her, but Lady Tichborne, - who was of a morbid turn of mind, never would believe ' that he had'been drowned.. Mr Baigent, in a letter which he wrote to ; Mr Scott Murray, described Lady Tichborne as a ;• poor* foolish woman, and said he jihould not be surprised if an imposter turned up • and j. convinced her he was 'Roger Tichborqe. Moore, the .butler, ■was of a " similar opinion witii respect to her lady-, 1 ship, because, he said, he believed that if--1 'they" had sent an Egyptain mummy and" called it Roger Tichborne she %r wbuld haVe acknowledged it as her son. The learned counsel proceeded, to say that it • was no part of defendant's . duty to'prdve who the claimant was ; it was for the : claimant to satisfy the jury that he was ...'' what he representen himself to be. .They U .had, a. {body of information; respecting the claimant, which it raighti or might not {be necessary to prove, but he contended that the claimant, from his own statement and from his letters) had shown hopelessly jind irretrievably ; that^ iejwal^^oi.only ■"' r Tabr "Roger Tichborne, but that fie vj-as Arthur Orton.- No man in his senses could doubt this, taking the claimant's own story. The Attorney-General then proceeded to give an outline of the case in supporfof this hypothesis, and pointed put that . whenever prtpn^^turned^ up Castro 'turned .up, " and' wherever Castro _ ( did not turn up Orton waß also .' He was commenting upon the circum- , stances, under which the discovery of the claimant was made in Australia when the . • cpurtadj.oumed. .:■..• „.-.\u ,'*. . .i. ? ! On Wednesday the Attorney-General devoted nearly the whole ■ day to v an analysis of the Australian letters, because, he said, in bis view, the initiation of the alleged fraud was of the utmoat impor-. tance/for the consideration of the jury. He pointed out that the claimant's infor- , mation. had grown with the .progress of the correspondence, and that it ,^vas . evident that. at first, .the, claimant thought . . that if Laxly.Tichborne acknowledged him, there would be an end of ; ! all difficulty in t v the; way of recognition, and' he ' could 1 settle down in the cdlony^to'enjoythe Tichborne estates. The first letter wlfich the claimant oddreMed to Lady Tichborne was daierl the 17th of January, .1866. He addressed her as "My dear Mother," y aqdj said, that found- jdi^9u}ty injjeginhing because he 5 had not wntterrto her since the of April, 1854. This selection of date was ; rather -unfortunate, because it was an undoubted fact thatHhe Belli left Rio on the 20th of April,- 1854, and if the claimant was speaking 'the truth he -niiist haie written the letter while man open boat on the sea. In the same letter he told Lady Tichborne that he had still the brown mark oii'iw side. It- would be that the leal Rfcger Tichboraer had no Biich mark. The 1 claitn.f^nt, Sir John Coleridge said (adopting a , saggestion made by Mr Hawkins), cvi- ! dently jwent upon , the principle fouowed in the well-known farce where Box saidCox must be his long-lost brother because he Had ■'& strawberry mark upon his arm. The entire contents of the letter wore most absurd, inasmuch as they showed gross ignorance of the" affairs of the Tionborne family. He 1 spoke of his

grandfather, whereas the real Roger Tichborne never knew his grandfather; because he was dead at the time his mother married. One passage in the letter referred to the Brighton card caso, a well-known Bwindle, for which two Srabte fall? thlfougn'out the country at the time. In connection with this two important facts would be proved—first, that the real Roger Tichborne was not in England at the time the trial took place ; and, secondly, that Arthur Orton was. The letter was addressed to Lady Tichborne, at Tichborne Ball, Hamshire, England. If the claimant was what he represented himself to be, he must have known that the family residense always went by theijiarae >pt Uidibqrne^ark, and was riot 'and never tad "been called' Tichborne Hall. With respect to Lady Tichborne, the Attorney-General said he did not desire to say one word against the poor lady whose grandson he now represented, but no other interpretation c^nlcUbe put upon? her letters than that 'she was" so anxious to have her son Roger back that she was almost ready to identify anyone. The claimant sent to England a photograph of himself, and Lady Tichborne said she *did! notf iremelnbei' iltogeif htfSfa^brWh* •Mlk^orihisirde^but^Hai; did not signify] > as he might have had it without her seeing it. This was a very extraordinary thing, and the jury, who had seen the mark upon the claimant, would say whether a mother could have helped seeing the mark hundreds of times. The claimant said he had been afflicted with St. Vitus's dance from childhood. Now the real Roger Tichborne never had anything of the kind, -, butf ArthittxOrtdn, Continuing his speech on Thursday, the lAjtorae^rrtrerieral; sai& rit^ST been* rex marked that he h'ad'used strong language against the claimant, since he commenced,. Sfe^rifenaw) J3PWte k&w.> Him?, This man was either the real Roger Tichborne or he was not. If he was what he represented himself to be, let him prove 5t.~, .If %c , was j not, ,-b% deserved .jeVery: been uttered against him. He had no notion of being mealy-mouthed if this man was an itnj>oste&-?-as. he believed he was. The learW<J f g6nfclemati theft* proceeded to call attention to what he considered an important fact. Mr^Gibbs, claimant's attorney,^ha;d stated in his examination before the Australian commission that De Castro had told him that he sailed in a vessel called the Jessie" Miller, which was beyond doubt the vessel in which .Arthur,* QrtQn saUed. • .Ifv this statement 5 6f Mr- 'Glßbs' was to be* believed there was an end of. the case, because; while the sailing of the Mffl&'&M r havelieen^kVown'f» ArtKur Orton, it could not have been known to rßoger Charles Tichbcjffie^wli|);wiyaf -this ; iame'serving%ith nisregiment in Ireland,; It would be remembered that before leaving^iEpgland^jßogeTr^xecuted^vran: elaborate will, in which ne dealt with ins property in a masterly fashion. On the Ist of June, 1866, the claimant executed a will at Wagga Wagga, in which no reference was made to the other will,, and in dealing withihe-Tiehb6rne^Ste% did not set forth one solitary thing connected with the family or property which was correct. The testator 4 spoke of his mother as "Lady Hannah Francis," "her name was Henrietta Felicfte? Isle' *6f * Weigl^wf ere *ttfe" Tictobrnef .never had ..an acre, and he appointed as one of his executors a person whom he called Sir John Bird, of Dorsetshire, whom they have never been able to find, although they had diligently searched for him. The claimant said he "trumped up" the will with the attention of deceiving Mr Gibbs,. and getting money from him. Well, then, according to the claimant's own showing, he had been guilty of an atrocious fraud, and had obtained money under false pretences. W^iile this jwilL, .displayed, fa; marvellous * ignorance bfl the Tich borne family, *if shoVed a'strange' knowledge of the Orton family. It mentioned the names of Jaryis and Angel, and who were connected with the Ortons, and it dealt with some supposed property at Hermitage, which was the name of a street near which old Orton lived at Wapping. Since the close of the examination of the claimant, the defence had sent out a.geritfe^ man to Australia, and he had TOaJe "a curious discovery. In the possession of a man named Cox there had been found a pocketbook which originally belonged to the claimant, and which would be proved to be in his handwriting. On many of the pages of the book the name of Sir Roger Tichborne was written many times, as if the claimant was practising how to write such a signature. In some cases Rodger was spelt with a d t and Tichborne was described as^ being jinj.SnrryrEngf( land. America was spelt in different ways, such as " Ameroka," and " Amerika." On one page there was written the following^jigned »" R. Ci Tichbo' ne,' Bart": — " l3Bme men|has'j)lenty.pf mpney_ and no brains, and some men has plenty" brains and no money. Surely men with plenty money and no brains were made for men with plenty brains and no money.?'* On* a subsequent? page there '"was Iwritlln.l^R? G^lTilhbprn.e.Parklhope some day." On another page there was the following : — " I, Thomas Castro^ do hereby certify my namefisinot Tfibfhas* Castro. Those who 'say it is dontluiow nothink about it.— R. C. T." On the last page there was " Oh, Dear fair one. Mary Ann r Lpder,. .7. EusseU's-buildings, ; Highistreei^Wappihg,^ Lb^on."' ' filSy" Ann Loder, it would be proved, was an "old flame" of Arthur Orton's. The claimant had admitted that he was in constant communication with Orton, and he alleged that he made his will under Orton's influence. This being so, it was singular that amid all the names which were written in the book, and there were very many, the name of Arthur Orton never occurred once. Altogether the book threw a flood of light upon the case and the, previous history of .the.clwin.a.ntrt * If it was proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the book had been in the possession of the claimant, and was in his handwriting, it must be conclusive evidence that he was not Roger Tichborne. The Attorney-General then went on to speak of the claimant's meeting with Bogle, and he admitted that if this man was speaking^ the truth he was the most. whether full reliance was to be placed on all he said. Bogle, when in the witnessbDX, positively swore that the claimant had never asked him one word for the purpose of obtaining information from

him as to the early life of Roger Tichborne. Now these two men had been together in intimate connection from 1866 to 1872, and could eleven men of common sense, such as the jurywete, believe ' that Bogle was speaking' the *!&itzgerala]| a gentleman of unblemished character, would be called, and he would prove that Bogle had told him that the claimant was not Roger Tichborne. After describing other pieces of evidences unfavorable to the claimant's case which he intended to produce, the learned gentleman turned to the claimant's arrival in England on Christmas day, 1866. On the night of that day, he said, the returned baroue V the^ Aead of>the^, Tichborne^ familyj andfthefpwner of its estates, went disguised in a cab to Wapping, "where," said the Attorney-General, "I propose to leave him till to-morrow (Friday) morning." The court then adjourned. 'Mlb 'ii% (To be continued.)