THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 19, Issue 1298, 13 April 1872, Page 2

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

We continueourextractsfrom the speech of the Attorney-General for the defence in the above case, as furnished by the London correspondent of the Melbourne Argus: THE AUSTRALIAN POCKET BOOK. A new document was now produced in court, and excited much interest—a pocket-book recently procured from Australia, and brought over by Mr Cox—" a person in very good position, rathei a wealthy man in Australia '' — and sworn to belong to the claimant, in whose possession it can be proved to have been as late as 1865. The At-torney-General described the book page by page ; he said also that it had been submitted to the careful examination of an expert in handwriting, who had no doubt that the entries were those of the claimant. "There are all sorts of mistakes in it," said Sir John Coleridge, *'about the Tichborne estates ami the localities connected with Tichborne. There are some sentences—one of them I cannot help thinking, peculiarly characteristic of the plaintiff There is the address of Mary Ann Loader, who was Arthur Ortou'sold flame." Again : w lti is a book which belonged to Thomas Castio (by which name the claimant was passing). His name is written throughout it. The two county court action-—the actions in the small debts court—in which he was defendant and lost, in September, 1865, are mentioned, and theie is the entry, ' I, Thomas Castro,' 4c He says in another entry in effect, 'I am a baronet.' Now, according to the claimant's own account, he was in. constant and intimate communication with Orton; but although there are six or seven long lists of names in this book, the name of Orton does not occur from one end of it to the oth*-r. Further, there is that entrv about Ho bar t Town, July 4, 1850. *La Bella, R. C. Tichborne, arrived at Hobart Town July 3, 1850/ Now, the name of the ship wan not LaBella, but the Bella, being.not a foreign but an English ship. Lady Tichborne,, not always, but constantly spoke of the ship as La Bella, and in her instructions for an advertisement it was so. termed. It is likelv enough, therefore, that the name La Bella was picked up b\ Castro from some advertisement, or some publication he had seen. He states that K. C. Tichborne arrived at Hobart Town in July, 1855 At anv rate, now it v* 1854, whatever it may have been previously. We know that the claimant's story is that he landed, not at Hobart Town, but at Melbourne, about the 4th July in that year; he does not tix the particular day. Nevertheless, the entry >aid he arrived at Hobart. Town. In this book Tichborne is called several times, not Tichborne House or Park, but Tichborne Hall. We know that is a mistake, but also that it is a mistake of the Dowager. There is the address of Miss Maiy Ann Loader, who was Arthur Orton's affianced love. Further, there is the address on one page, * New Market,' which, 1 should explain is not connected with the address, 'Tichborne Hall, Surrey, England.' Now, i r is a little remarkable that in one of his letters to Mrs Jury, Arthur Orton gi\ea the address, *• 25, New Market, Hobart Town.' Well, if the entries in this book are in the handwriting of Thomas Castro as I shall be able to prove beyond all doubt, you will find that this was a sort of practising of the initials, and names, 'R 0. T'— * Roger Charles Tichborne,' 'Tichborne Hall,'and so on You Hnd the en cry, *'Castro is not. my name, and those who say it is don't know any thing about it,' and: * baronet,. 1 hope.' The name is mis-spelt; tho county of the place where he lived is wrong; there is the.name of the ship wrongly put; there is the cumiection with Hobart Town, which he denies; there is the address of Miss Mary Ann Loader, with whom he denies that he had any sort of connection ; and there is not to be found from one end to. theother of 1 his book anything like the.name of Orton, or any allusion in direct terms to him."

AT SYDNEY. The- speech then passed to the proceedings of the claimant at Sydney, where he remained after leaving Wagga W«gs»i, The Attoinev-General sug*

seated claimant had picked up there from Guilfoyle and his wife knowledge which enabled him at the outset to impose upon Bogle—-"You will see all through the case that there is nothing more characteristic of the plaintiff than the way in which he is able to pick the brains of persons he comes across, 1 will show to demonstration that certain facts used tive or six times ovvr are made to convert five or six different persous, all which fac>s were put into his head by a particular person upon whom we have put our fin°er. We have to do *ith a man, not indeed of great ability, but of as <n-eat sharpness and cunning of a low order a* was e.ver exhibited in a court of justice." The Attorney-General then analysed the evidence of Bogle, and ar gued that ?ome portions of it were incredible. " Here was a man who, after being six years with the claimant, swore distinctly that he had never given hint any information about the early life of Sir Roger Tichborne. Gould the jury, as men of common sense, believe it ? He said that for many years he went up and down the streets of Sydney looking in people's faces, and went to the clubs for the purpose of ascertaining whether Roger Charles Tichborne had turned up. Why should he expect him to turn up in Sydney \ " Of more direct importance was the statement of the Attorney-General, that he would call before ihe jury two persons who were in Sydney with the claimant, Mr Frederick Cubitt and Mr Richard Siannard. The former gentleman had told him that the bank solicitors would not advance him money, because he could not describe his regiment. He answered —"How could T describe it 1 } I was only in it a few days." Mr Frederick Cubitt said, — —"What regiment was it V and the claimant said, "I think it was the 12th. I enlisted for a spree, and was bought oil." It so happened thai. Mr Ssannard had lived in Norwich when the Carabineers were quartered there, and he usked him the names of the officers. The reply was, "Well, the fact is, J cannot recollect any of their names. You see I was only in the regiment three weeks." 1 need not recapitulate details with which Australian readers are probably familiar. The Attorney General, alluding to the claimant's style of life m Sydney, and his purchase of the Metropolitan Hotel, laid humorous stress upon the fact that Mr Butts, the sou of the former owner of the hoi el, whom lit had taken as secretary, had not been called as a witness-. He came home with the claimant. " Just think what light he could have thrown on the knowledge of Roger Charles Tichborne at this time if he had been subjected to my limited powers of cioss examination, for only half an hour even, we should perhaps have had the whole ease of the plaintiff explained to u*. But young Mr Butt- does not appear, and I nhouid not wonder if by this time, he has, «ith the Osprey and other things vanished into thin air. Possibly at this moment he may be in this city, trying to realise his salary with Tichborne bonds. But there was also aMr Jones on board the \ess<4, who, in spite of the claimant's contradiction, will swear that the claimant stated on the voyage that be had suffered severely from St. Vitusß dance, and that it was brought on by a fright caused bv a tire, and almost removed by a fright; and there is this remarkable circunistauo« connected with the matter—"that Arthur Orton had St. Vitus'* dance, and that, so far a* we can judge, it *bh brought upon him by a fright which he sustained when a little boy, from a great fire opposite his faihei's house in Wapping "