THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1169, 27 April 1872, Page 3

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

CONTINUED.

THE CHILIAN EVIDENCE. On Thursday the Attorney-General continued his examination of the Chilian evidence. Among the, witnesses whom the learned gentleman referred to was Padro Pablo Toro, a small landed proprietor, at whose house at Concumen the plaintiff said he stayed. This witness said that he did not know Roger Tichborne in 1853 or 1854. Arthur Orton, about three or four years before, stayed in his house for nine or ten months* He did not recollect that any oilier Englishman stayed in his house. The result of the Chili Commission, the Attorney-General said, was that every witness but one whom the claimant had alluded to in his letter was examined ; and this one, the Senorita Matilda, they could not get at. Every one of them - denied that they had known Mr Tichborne : and Thomas Castro stated that he was not in Melipilla during the three months that the plaintiff said he was there. Other old inhabitants of the place were called, and they all denied any knowledge of Tichborne. There was no answer to this, except the suggestion of the plaintiff that his own friends had been bribed wholesale by Don Severo Barra. There was no conflict of evidence, for it was absolutely all one way. THE WRECK OF THE BELLA. In resuming his. speech on Monday, 12th February, the ninetieth day of the trial, the Attorney-General went on to speak of the wreck of the. Bella, examining in detail the plaintiff's accounts of the loss of the ship and his rescue by the { Osprey, and characterising many of them as absurd. Among other things he had said that the leak in the vessel was not discovered until there was 12ft of water in the hole, although the ship's draught was only 14|ft. Where, the AttorneyGeneral asked, were the survivors of the Bella 1 The case had now been published for many months all over the world ; and it was past belief that all these persons could have vanished into space, or, if living, that they must have heard something of the case. In 1854 there was a customhouse, an emigratioji office, and many Newspapers in Melbourne, and yet from none of these sources could any reference be obtained of the saved crew. The learned gentleman than drew attention to the different accounts given by the claimant of the name of the ship which rescued him, who at length fixed on the Osprey, haring previously stated that he was saved by the Jessie Miller, the very vessel in which Arthur Orton sailed to England. The claimant stated the Osprey was much larger than the Bella, whereas the Bella was 383 tons and the Osprey only 67. He said she had a round stern, whereas she had a square one. He. did not seem to know that the Osprey touched at the Cape, and he gave as the names of the crew those of sailors on board of the ship in which Arthur Orton sailed. • THE AUSTRALIAN EVIDENCE; Continuing this branch of the subject on Tuesday, the Attorney-General referred to the evidence of the Messrs Liardet and other witnesses, who spJce { of a large' three-masted shooner, the Osprey, lying in 1854 in Hobson'sßay, and said that he should show that a schooner named the Osprey was wrecked in Lowtitt Bay about the 18th June, 1854 and that the crew were all saved. Possibly this vessel, not being a total wreck, was towed into Port Phillip, and was the vessel which had been seen by the witnesses. There were only two American Ospreys, neither of them schooners, and neither could have picked up the crew of the Bella. The learned counsel then passed to the evidence taken by the Australian Commission, which he contended amply demonstrated the fraudulent nature of the claim. IE the plaintiff were recognised in Australia or Tasmania earlier than April, 1854, then undoubtedly he could not be Roger Tichborne, whoever else he might be, because Roger did not leave South America until April, 1854. It would be shown by evidence that the claimant was in Australia long before 3854. No doubt many of the witnesses would say that he then bore the name of Arthur Orton, but he (the AttorneyGeneral) should put the witnesses forward simply to show that he was not

Tichborne. He undertook further to show that the claimant never called hitr* self Castrountil 1859. The learned counsel compared the wanderings of the plaintift • •with those of Arthur Orton, remarking I that when Castro appeared Orton disappeared. It was a case of exit Arthur Orton on the left, and enter Thomas! Castro on the right ; but no one person: ever saw tho two— if two there were— together. After going over the evidence' at great length, the Attorney-General said it was imperative oa the claimant — it* ws, in fact, the cardinal point in the case; —to give convincing testimony that while; he was in Gipps Land he "bore the name of Castro ; but every effort to prove that had unquestionably failed. The Attorney-General's speech on Wednesday was entirely occupied with a continuation of his analysis of the eviuenoa taken before tho Australian commissioa, He quoted the statements of several witnesses, who recognised the* undoubted portrait of the claimant and '.'nato*. Orton, but did not recognise that of Roger Tich-: borne. Orton was traced to a variety of p'oces in Australia whore the claimant aumitted he h?d been, but people who lived there and knew Orton. never heard of Castro. The learned counsel remarked that it was not wonderful that the claimant refused to face the Axistralian Commission, as ho had evaded the Chilian one. On Thursday, Sir John Coleridge waa still occupied with the evidence of the Australian witnesses. He hoped, he said, that he might incise upon the minds , of thejnry that it was essential to the plaintiffs case that he became Thomas .Castro in the middle of 1854, when he said he left Melbourne for Boisdale, while a number of witnesses whose evidence had been read showed that he was Arthur Orton down to the latter end of 1859. In December, 1859, he disappeared, and nothing was known of him until June, 1860, when he was at Deniliquiw passing as Thomas Castro, by which name he was henceforth known. A witness named M'Donald, a butcher, said that he knew Orton in 1853, when he came out. He said that he was a peer of the realm, and that he got remittances from Valparaise. The witness said. "I thought he was blowing." He afterwards knew the same person at Deniliquin and Hay, and he then passed as Thomas Castro. He said, " Don't say anything about it ; I have changed my name. Call me Tom. lam Tom Castro." He had told witness that his mother was a duchess, and lived on the property in England. He said that he himself was a baronet. On being shown a likeness of the plaintiff, the witness said, " Ah, poor Tom ! that is as he used to be in his bush dress." Another, he Baid, was no more like him than he himself was. Orton or Castro was not marked with small-pox. He was marked with a cross on his right arm. A witness named William Hopwood said he knew Orton at Newhurn Park in 1855 and afterwards at Boisdale. He afterwards saw Orton at Wagrga Wagga, and said, "Hallo, Arthur, is it you :" and he pnt tip his finger for him not to say anything more. He said that he was then passing as Tom de Castro. In conversation afterwards he told witness not to say anything of his having been at Boisdale' or Sale. He said that he had to leave Sale in consequence of having horses in his possession. Upon this and other evidence of a similar character the jury would, the Attorney-General said, probably come to tbe conclusion that the claimant was Arthur Orton ; but he must press upon them that this was not the question raised— the only question being whether , the claimant was or was not Roger Charles Tichborne. The learned gentleman then referred to the horsestealing case, respecting which he said the claimant had given a completely false account, the persons charged being not Castro and Orton, but Orton and a man named "Alec." Orton was acquitted, and he should suggest came to England— the other man was hanged. The Attorney-General also called attention to the depositions of a > servant, Rosina M'Carthy, who lived with .the plaintiff at Croydon. This, witness said ,that at Croydon the Dowager Lady Tichborne used not to speak of the cla'.mant as her son. Sho used to say, *f if ho is my son." She said that her son was thin and well educated. Sh<* siid, •'They must bo savages in Australia to have changed my son ; he has got so gross and stout, and his manners are so r^njeh ; they must bo savages to have made him so rough." When the claimant came back from his examination, he said that he would not stand another examination like that for the world, and he must have a strong constitution to stand it. He said that he would sooner be in Australia in the bush. The dowager was kind to the children, but looking at the little boy she said, " Yon are not a Tichborne," he had such big sticking-out ears. The dowager was restless in her manner, and could not sleep at night. She said Roar's affairs troubled her, and she walked about .her .bedroom at night. The witness thought she was insane. The witness also said that the plaintiff made immoral proposals to her. (To be oontimfed.)