THE TICHBORNE CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1189, 21 May 1872, Page 2

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

— We_gim a JulLjrepoxfc.of.. the_ closing V proceedings in this remarkable trial. The previoiis /i acco\ili^ : 6f' : the u toal closed, it will; be remembered, with the examina-'ti6ri-in-chief', of Mrs jUrfciiffe/' '' I Mrs Radcliffe," in J fier 'cross-examina-tion, gave^ the following answers to the questions of Sergeant Ballantine :— At the termination o£ ; thei first interview I don't think T had ' any ' doubt that the plaiutiff'was'.no>my.co.usin;;il was not quite confident^ but near atf possible. I was very unwilling to 'give -up the idea [■that ihe 1 . was my cousin.'- .There 1 iwasno- . thing about hid feature^' feh'at I recogiiSsed, I was so astounded by'his size arid alteration. When 1 Mrs Towiiley' ; Went"in,Vith my 'husband it was done 'to test'the'plaintiff. We both, had , .veils .'on Vl Eoger Tichborne Had known "Mrs To'wniey very well. Whe^ I saw. the plaintiff in the Court I was' certain abfluthim the first day, and I did, 'not coirie "afterwards to satisfy -any doubts . I had about him. I : wa3..certain in a y^ry few 'minutes, and have!.remaine,d; ( so, everxsince. .There is nothing iwhatever about him thatreminds nic. of Roger Tichborne'. -I- remember Roger's hands very well. They^ were* long and bony, ; with large knuckles; 1 " They were not hollow : I remeniber 7 thatf distinctly,'eveii! at tliis 'distance of ; titde; r He had ' m twitcHi% bi'lKe ; eyes 'or eyebrows hat eyer, and f had^ no, peculiftrityii'bout theeyes/' He beriV the knee forward, but he Hi waa not, in f ,th.e. least. in T kneed. I'm ■perfectlyj.^ertain ,of ...that.; il 'heard Mr Scott^ and^^herwitnesses^describe,^. sort of~£wiFcEihg*wliicn""tEey recollect. They are-entirelymis^kytfjiasthWe was nothing whatever of the kind. I pledge my recok ■lebfcioff tb'that:' ! Th'e first 'tiiin'el'mfet Tichborne yfap in l$$ f - I have accompanied him' 'to Abingdon; and rode back over the hills.. . I to.ok pinging Jesaions at Winchester^ j > but npj^ j^when Ilbger was there. He "never accompanied me to iWinchester for; .that, purpose. -We were never togetlxeratWinohester during the period.when-I_was-taking-singing-lessons, or ( lessons of any kind v - He was at Winch" ester with' me on many occasions; $We drove, and. ineyer rode. We were "never there alone. I have ridden with, him . through Cheriton and other places. We were always accompanied by a groom, whether other people were with us or not,

Tkkborne House is only a field from the village. There is a large oak tree in front of Tichborno House, which iB called the Sevington oak. 1 remember when Lady Doughty, Roger, and: myself went to the tree for the purpose of measuring it. No one else was with us. I think Roger measured it. We went home after it, I think. I had no walk with him that day. I've no doubt whatever upon it. There is a road close by, separated by a hedge, butwa.didnot go, into; that road.;; We came back by the field. I think my maid sometimes went out with me. Mr Tilt, the priest, left in August or September, 1851, and -he .wjw succeeded by the Her. Mr Guidez, who continued about a year. He was well known to my cousin, who had known him longer than I had. Fathe* Guide*,- > tny cousin, i and myself may have been alone together. Father Guidez lived in the village ; but I can't say whether .Roger and I ever called upon him.' Roger did 'tiofpsft* with my parents in anger, after a considerable quarrel. They were on perfectly good terms. I never heard them complain about his habits, except drinking. That was one of the grounds of objection formed by my family* , Wh, en we ; parked, there was no understood engagement between us, except hoping that we should at some time marry. There -was no stormy discussion to my knowledge. 1 never saw Roger ] after he left, but I knew he was in the neighborhood of Tichbome in the autumn. I heafld :of ritwin the dvenlrig of rthe same day. I swear positively I never saw him again after the 22nd of June. It is not true that . he .met, me .in Tichborne when he wai bnh'ora'ebact and 'X was walking, or that a boy held his horse and he walked with me. The whole story is untrue. There" urnirt a^'drd of ftnth'urthe story that we then called upon Father Guidez. I don't think that after the interview at Eaiex' Lodge* I said to ! axiy"one that'l could not say he was not my cousin. I mean to swear that I'm perfectly confident that that man is not my cousin. (SupFfifffc »P»J«Wfc) L\X).' A^rr There was no re-examination. j Mr Henry Danby Seymour was then examined, '.by: jßfr Hawkins, and said : I was one of the members for Poole, and wm well acquainted with Mr Roger GharleßwTiohborn^. I knew' him~ before he went to Stonyhurst. He was a con(For continuation of A ews sea 4th Page.

stant visitor at my father's from the time he was a boy. I remember him while he was living in Paris with his parents. I have seen the plaintiff repeatedly, and I have no doubt whatever that he is not Boger Tichborne. I never saw Roger's arms, and don't know whether he was iattooed ; but I always understood he was. He did not tell me so himself. He always addressed me as Hem/, and he never called me " uncle" in his l?*e. He had no involuntary "twitch " in his eye, or such a twitch as plaintiff has. That J speak positively. I went to Alresford, and took Wm. Burdon with me. He was a person who had been long in the Tichborne family, and had acted as valet to Roger when a boy. I thought he would be the best able to recognise him, and I did not wish to go alone. I travelled from London, and we both travelled together in a first-class carriage. At Arlesford I saw plaintiff walking down the street with Mr Hopkins. I saw them from the window of the Swan Inn, and we walked out to meet them. We caught them. We came up close behind them, and when turned around I said, " I suppose you aro Sir Roger, or the person that calls himself Sir Roger ; how do you do V He looked at me, and did not appear to recollect me. Mr Hopkins said, " That's Mr Seymour, Sir Roger." We then went into the house, accompanied by Burdon. I then said, "If you are Sir Roger Tichborne, you will know this gentleman who is with me. I then stood out of the way that he mi^ht see William Burdon. Plaintiff looked at me for some little time, and then said, "My Uncle Nangle, I think." (Laughter.) William Burdon was not his Uncle Nangle, of course. (Renewed laughter.) The Attorney -General having formally put in the Chili Commission evidence, The Court rose till Monday. On Monday, his Lordship said that a letter had been sent to him, and in compliauce with a request of the writer he handed it to the Attorney-General, as the representative of the Government. He had not opened it, and did not know its contents. The Attorney General, to show its value, offered it to Mr Giflard, who declined to receive it, as it was not intended for his eye. (A laugh.) EMPHATIC TESTIMONY. Mrs Lucy Nanglo, daughter of the lato Sir Henry Tichborne, said she had never any doubt claimant was an impostor. On Friday, the Ist March, Mrs Nangle's evidence was resumed. She was very emphatic in her assertions that the claimant was not Roger Tichborne. When asked by Sir G. Honyman, " Is; that your nephew?" she exclaimed, "Gracious? no." Describing the interview at Croydon between the claimant and Mr and Mrs Radcliffe and herself, Mrs Nangle mimicked his mispronunciation of French, and said that when he got angry at being cross-examined all the foreign accent departed from his speech, and " it was quite British." Mrs Nangle was very positive as to the tattoo marks, and afoo as to the extreme unlikeness between the claimant Lnd Roger Tichborne. M. Adrian Chatillon, tutor to Roger Tichborne for six years, from 1834 or 1335, was tde next witness, and he also was very positive in his declarations that the plaintiff was not the heir to the Ticliborne property. When asked whether the claimant was his former pupil, he said, " Never Roger Tichborne — never, never!" and stated that, when he saw Roger in .1853, his French had in no way deteriorated. Jules Berrant, too, at one time an innkeeper at Lima, and who had acted as servant to Roger Tichborne, also repudiated the idea that the plaintiff was his former master. On Monday— the 102 nd day of the trial • -M. Berrant's evidence was continned. He stated that whilst he was in Roger Tichborne's service he presented his master with a mummy, and this incident the plaintiff had forgotten. M. Berrant was followed by Mdme. Chatillon, the wife of Roger's former tutor; Serior Deranza, who had known Roger from a child ; and Mr Robert Mansfield, a landed proprietor in Hampshire. The whole of these emphatically disputed the claimant's identity.