THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1168, 26 April 1872, Page 3

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

CONTINUED.

THB OROSS-BXAMINATION. The Attorney-General next proceeded at some length to refer to the cross-ex-amination of the claimant. Certain enlightened critics out of doors had said that that cross-examination had been a failure. Well, they must' know a great deal about -what was contained in his brief. He would tell the jury what his object had been throughout that; ojcow-jßXamination. It was to give the claimant no information whatever, not to contradict him, and not to convict him of telling lies on the ■poVbyireaduig letters whiohian uncommonly shrewd man like him would not llaye been slow to avail himself of. His object— perhaps not a very charitable one— was <.io -get 'the claimant to tell as many falsehoods as possible, and in this respect the cross-examination had certainly not been a failure/ because he had never in his experience hoard a man tell so many falsehoods in so many hours. The claimant admitted hh sUmoab total ignorance* of ' the"' French language, although the real Roger Tichbome had been an accomplished French scholar, and wrote verses in French. ' Could the jury believe that the man they had seen in the witness-box had ever written a line in French } He was lamentably ignorant of all the places where the Tichbornes resided in Paris, and he knew nothing about its streets, although the real Roger Tichborne having atent the first sixteen years of his life in Paris, could not but recollect something of these things. He was grossly ignorant on matters connected with the Roman Catholic religion, although the real Roger was brought -up under the tuition* Of some of. the greatest Jesuit fathers of the day, and he did not know the name of Sir James Tichborne's valet, LAWYERS QUAUBELS.. ■„-,.■■ 'In the course of Thursday's proceedings Serjeant Ballantine complained of the " grave misapprehensions?.;. which the At-torney-General during his address had made both as regarded himself (the learned Serjeant) and others. He had not intended to say anything on the subject until the concltfstoiftnf -the case, but as I' some months might elapse before he would have the opportunity of replying, '^YSo could' riot* remain' silent any 'longer. The Attorney- General admitted that on one occasion, and on one only, he had gone beyond what was perhaps right in is observations. In commenting on certajn remarks' which had. been made by Serjeant Ballantine, he had said if his learned friend had not been instructed to make those observations he must bear the responsibility of them. . Now, upon con? sidefation, he'had come to the conclusion that it was not right of him to assume the possibility of Serjeant Ballantine makingsuch observations without instructions. To;this extent he felt that some apology was due to Serjeant Ballantine, and he •• now withdrew the expression, and apolo^ gised for having used it. THE CLAIMANT'S IONOUANCE. '"On" Friday, the 2nd February, the learned counsel began his address by speaking r o{ the claimant's ignorance of all matters relating to the college at Stonyhtirst, where it -ger Tichborne was educated while in England. Sir John Coleridge next proceeded to analyse the value of the claimant's military knowledge. He w& the Carabineers' were 1000 strong, instead of only 300. He knew nothing .oiihet^Qneepj's; Regulations, though he thought it was a book in which an officer »ft44ifin.d out the.; difference between one regiment and another. He could not tell -WU 4»fe»nj»* :betwee» a\ troop and a squadron," and close and open order. When asked who was . Commander-in-chief while ho was in the regiment in Ireland, he said the Lord Lieutenant. The claimant said he did not know Lord Fitzroy Somerset, except that he might be a rela'tiptt'of the Duke *ofSomerset.- !l The real / Roger Tichborne, however, knew his lord- \ ship so well, that he wrote letters to him about his commission. When .stationed in Dublin Roger Tichborne moved in the best- Btfewrty f but 'the claimant could not remember the name of a single person - with whom ho had dined or visited while < there. On Monday the Attorney-General read a number of letters written by Roger Tichborne) which referred to facts .of which the claimant was utterly ignorant. He also called attention to the claimant's statement, ihat he had, paid his addresses to a Mfos* 'Hales, of Canterbury; and said he remembered that he used to keep his i company of Carabineers waiting outside of Mrs Bale's house. for an hour or two ■ while he paid his attention to her daughter. Could anything be more ludicrously preposterous than an officer saying that he kept his men outside for a couple* of hours while he was courting ? But Miss ! Hales would be called to say the whole story was a cock-and-bull 1 fabrication. She did not know Roger Tichborne,; never saw him to her knowledge, and was certainly never engaged to him. Discns- J sinpr Roger's will, .the' Attorney-General said the complainant fas clearly ignorant respecting several of the most important provisions. Passing to the sealed packet, IhfriA»toritoy>Geheral read' a letter from! Roger, written after the rejection of his' suit by Sir Edward, which he said was the best confirmation, under the dead ' man's hand, if confirmation were needed, 1 of Mrs Radcliffe's denial of the imputation against her. The learned gentleman then raajUeveral lettors of the plaintiff's,! most of which had been read on previous! occasions, and contrasted the bad spelling the want of English, and the ill-construe-; ted and feeble sentences in them, with the writing of Roger, arguing that the two sets of correspondence could not have pro-: ceeded from the same mind. There was one letter^ from the plaintiff in which,: after adverting to the Chancery proceed-: ings, he said; "There is one thing, my, dear mamma, we have on our side, the God of riteousness; and if I loose my estate I may be rewarded in Heaven ; .but? I do not see how I can loose it unless they get up a confounded conspiracy." In ; afootHer*'he fetid, « Mary left^yesterday, and I have no Lady in the house to' wait at table at all." And again, "My wife at the bottom of it. I hope, my Dear Mamma, you will be very careful of everything she tell you." In another, he said, "I nave a cold on my chest, ana - I-am queer in -my inside— that is,- my dear mama, that lam very loose." And again', "I am now gohu< to.set down to enjoy myself with a pease of the beautiful lobster, you so kindly sent me.?' The

. ■ < ...» .J ... plaintiff, before he was catted;' had* seen the will of Roger, but that would not show him who drew it; and therefore when asked, he said. " Oh, Hopkins, of course," though Mr Hopkins was the very man from whom Roger particularly wished • the will kept secret. The plaintiff said that by the will he left money to his mother, but in that document she was not even mentioned. The Attorney-General said he could go on for a week with contradictions of this kind— contradictions which it was impossible could, have, been made by the real Roger. " ' '" ' WHO CASTRO WAS. „,,-• On Tuesday the Attorney-General turned to the Melipella case, and said it would be sworn that Roger Tichborrie never was at Melipilla, and if- the jury disbelieved the claimant on this point his whole case was gone, for it was at Melipilla that he adopted the name of Castro. Castro was not at Melipilla at the time Roger was alleged to have been there, nor were any of the persons of whom the claimant spoke in Chili, when Roger was there. It was no business of the defence to show that the claimant was Arthur Octan, hixt Arthur Octaa having deserted his shipinlß4B, found his way to Melipilla. The learned gentleman continued' to comment pn the South American evidence until the Court adjourned for the day. SCENES VX COURT. In Wednesday's proceedings there were one or two exciting incidents. On resuming his address, the Attorney-General produced a letter which he said would be proved to bb in the handwriting of the claimant, signed " Arthur Orton," and addressed to his sister, Mrs 'Jury. The letter, which was dated Bth June, 1866, purported to have been dated frdm'Wagga Wagga, but was clearly written in England, because it introduced to Mrs Jury Stephens, .whom the plaintiff never knew until he ' met him on board the steaoiei Cella, on the voyage from New York, to Englaud. MttjJury was called upon tc produce any other letters with the same signature, but she said she had none in her possession. The jury wished to interrotjate Mrs Jury, but as she had noi been called as a witness'they were unable to do so. The Attorney-General afterwards road a* letter from Mr Rose, ovthe firm of Baxter, Rose, and Norton, the plaintiff's solicitors, stating that he and his son had withdrawn from the case since the 22nd of last month, as they could not concur in united instructions to counsel. The firm would, however, continue'their connection with the case. The At-torney-General then denounted in strong language the "iniquity, injustice, and groundlessness 11 of the claim to the estates, and unhesitatingly asserted that all the lawyers who lent themselves to its prosecution " made themselves accomplices of the people engaged in the fraud." Later X- v?^ y tptn Serjeant Ballantine and Mr Giffard emphatically protested against the language of the Attorney-General. The former praye&'Thef corirTi to" protect him from the "endless* insinuations" of Sir John Coleridge. The learned .serjeaut said that in every Btep taken; and ev&y opinion formed in the case, there J&d been an entiitf unanimity Wong the gentlemen encaged with him, and among the matters which they had had to 'form an opinion upon was the letter that the At-torney-General had referred to! They were all acquainted with, that- letter and also with other circumstances bearing upon the Orton case, which .at the proper tune wonld be Aubmittedio the jury, who would form their opinion whether it was possible*, for them to pursue any other course ' than • that ■ they bad taken! -Mr Giffard also objected strongly to what he called the. insinuations of the AttorneyGeneral. Sir John Coleridge ' declared that ho wap ready to repeat whatever he had said. ' As th» head of the bar (how- £ y v?? W?W>rthy of that position), hojelb if cm daty tg.JJoiut out the .broad distinction between advocating innocently -.tire cause 'of a person who was guilty, a|ud prosecuting a claim to justice of wLiich they had long ceased, to be. persivactedfc. Thisshonld always carefully be hbyoecia mxnd. In this particular case* the^ existence of the letter referred Vo sewned; to hja mind, conclusive of the cases, as. showing fraud on the part of the plaintiff. The counsel troche-other side wereaasignorant of it as he himself was -uritg two days ago and he supposed that when this letter was brought to their,, attention they would pursue the coorae that became honorable men. Th| learned Serjeant (Ballantine) Should take care thai he was not ! made tte-rostrument of fraud, and he ought to insist upon- the production of every document that could throw any light upon the case. It waß the duty of an advocate to do so ; and if he found that it was not done, it was nrt Serjeant Ballantiue, oaten thousand such as he, who shiuff restrain his (the AttorneyiGenerai'sKvSce ' on the subject. The learned gantteman's argument upon the case during the day related exclusively to^the GhUiau evi-. dence, whwh he ezanineda£ great length, andurged.that pereon in Chill pretended to hatb' Known Roger Ticli-j tome, tW& ptiuy rtfwambeKd Arthur! vJftol3»^ *'."'. ' - , !>v>v - (Tobecmitimiut.) "'.. \