THE TICHBORNE CASE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 119, 26 February 1872, Page 3

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

(FROM ” BEI.I.’s WKKKI.Y MESSENGER,” NOVEMBER 2'>.) Henry Jackson, gardener, of Poole, said lie was acquainted wit! linger Tiehborne in his youth, and saw the claimant at I’oole, in 18G8, and by features and appearance recognised him in a minute or two as the Roger Tiehborne he formerly knew. He had no conversation with him, hut he had no doubt about him. Except being stouter, he was hut little changed, lie had heard that the claimant was in Poole, and "tie went to the London Hotel, in that town, to see him, and 'nund him in a room with two other gentlemen. Though witness was in the room linlf-au-hour, nothing was said by either of them. Efforts were made to get from the witness that lie knew beforehand whom lie was to see, so that lie was prepared to single out the claimant. The witness admitted that he never spoke a word in his life to Roger Tiehborne, and he had not spokeu at all to the claimant.

Than came Mr Francis Joseph Baigcnt, j of Winchester, antiquarian and archteolo- ' gist, who had long been well acquainted i with the family of Roger Ticlibornc; with his uiolher very intimately. lie perj fectly well remembered that young man ' before he went abroad, from the. age of • 17, in 1840 ; remembered his appearance : distinctly; he was thin, broad-shouldered, ! awkward, very plain-looking, and alto- | gether remarkable-looking. Ilis principal , pursuit was smoking. lie was not fond [ of society at all, owing to his difficulty in | speaking English, anil associated with his | inferiors, was much about the stables, was j of very few words, shy, and fond of being by himself. Witness spoke of tlie time claimant was at Stoncyhurst,of his fondness for drawing—ships being favourite suh--1 jeeis; of knowing him when he was in the I Carabineers, of recollecting when he was | going away, and telling him it was foolish to do so. That was the last time

witness saw him previous to his departlire for Australia. Witness continued an intimacy with the Tichborne family, and with Sir Alfred in particular, to the time of his death. Since the return of the claimant to this country witness hail been in intimate association with him,

and assisted him in every way possible

for the sake of justice and no other ■ reason, certainly not for payment. Witness communicated with Lady Doughty before lie saw claimant. lie did not believe claimant to he the man until after he saw him. In December, 1800, witness went to Alresford, and fust saw the claimant at the Swan. The circumstances of that day, which did not lead to recognition then, were minutely detailed. Having in the meantime seen Bogle, witness again saw claimant at Alresford. The witness having begun to refer to letters and papers which preceded the ! meeting, the examination was suspended I while he went to get them. The witness j spoke of preliminary precautions taken to j have from the claimant some inkling of identity before he and Mr Hopkins (who was at Alresford then) would meet him. This was effected by a letter written by tiie claimant to witness, containing allusions to certain matters. Having been shown a photograph of the claimant (much as he is), witness then said, “That is Roger Ticlibornc—there is no mistake about it,” and this, notwithstanding minor differences of appearance. In the event witness saw the claimant in person at Alresford, and he went on to tell what occurred on that occasion, dwelling particularly on a “ smile remembered of old,” mid other niiniiluc (with singular intonation, and showing much command of memory), relating to the taming of a horse and other adventures of the claimant at Melbourne. Nothing more passed then, and nothing was said about the Ticlibornc family. Witness formed an opinion then as to his identity by his features and his voice, which had an electrical effect on witness ; hut he still wished to test. him. The process of testing was minutely described hy the witness —the likeness to the Ticlibornc family growing upon him ; flic peculiarily of his knuckles and hands; his questioning t he claimant on occurrences of former days, most circumstantially narrated, comprising reference fo persons, Mr Henry Seymour and some of: flic Ticlihornc family ; places, Stoneyhurst for instance; special matters, such as the settling of the Doughty property when lie came of age, Mr Hopkins going to see him alCabir

with deeds to sign, the dale of 1 1 is going into the army, his saying that, he liked Kate Doughty because she was his only relative who did not try to set him against his mamma, and his knowing some handwriting shown to him as that of l:is mamma. The witness strongly repudiated the notion of his having prepared the claimant for this interview, for he was much prejudiced against, him, and lie did not believe him, originally, to he the man. On that occasion witness cam" to the conclusion that he was the man. On the Sunday following the elaima.it was to go to the chapel at Ticlibornc to see Mrs Greenwood, but he was prevented, and witness went alone. Witness saw claimant at Mrs Hopkins’s house on the following Thursday, hut he took no further trouble to assure himself of his identity, there being no occasion. Since then witness had been constantly in the claimant's company. and he repeated that there was no possibility of doubt that he was Roger Tichborne. The cross-examination was, hy arrangement, postponed to Monday, and the proceedings of the day closed. Some time before the hour for the resumption of the ease on Monday morning, every available seat and standing place was occupied, and the whole com l pressingly crowded, ingress and eg ess being exceedingly dillieidt The attraction was apparently the cross-examination of Mr Francis Baigcnt, who, on Friday, had shown himself to be so remarkable a witness in every respect, both as regarded his testimony and his mode of giving it. The cross-examination was commenced by Mr Hawkins, to whom the witness said at the outset Ili.-.t lie was assisting the claimant as a friend, not professionally, being neither an attorney nor an attorncy’s clerk—in no sense, in fact, was lie aciing professionallv. 11 is expenses in London were paid partly by the claimant’s attorneys. He was forty-two years of ago, and was a member of the Arclueologicrd Society at the age of sixteen *r seventeen. He was a rate-paying householder and elector of Winchester. He lived in the house with his father, who had a shop for the sale of drawings, A-e. : in that city. His means of livelihood were derived from his profession as an arclueologist, antiquarian, and genealogist. Had been collecting materials for a history of the Ticlibornc family on his own account, and was doing it to this day. This lie began in 1817. He never had access to the deeds and muniments of the family, but got his materials from the muniments of Winchester, the Recti id Office, and other sources. Had since 8'47 contributed papers to the .Iw/in’w'w/iiw/ Join’.nil and the Ilv.'nh' nnd (tnnulni/ist, relating to the Tichborne family. He had not contributed such papers since he had seen the claimant, or shice he heard of some one coming to England to lay claim to the Tichborne estates, lie had been spoken of by tiie Tichborne family as knowing more of it than the fani’ly itself, lie had made drawings of armorial healings and seels at Ticlibornc. Knew Sir Edward Doughty, hut had never been a guest at his table. Witness was questioned as to the a'lcgeil intimacy with Sir James Ticlihonic between IBSH and 1802, to show that it was slight—indeed, next to nothing. At that time Sir James and Mr Hopkins were on bail terms —Sir .James quarrelled with every one he knew at some time er other of his life. At this point the witness being dealt with sharply by Mr Hawkins, and almost rep oved hy the Judge, on account of his indirect answers to que; 1 ions, seemed to become irritated, and nearly angiy in his manner. He was asked if he was connected with the Ticlibornc family, and, as he paused, Mr Hawkins asked if he did not know wont was meant, and, after some pressing, witness said lie was connected with it hy marriage, hut this caused no rupture with the family except with Sir James. The date

of his marriage was December, 1858 it was with Miss Plowdcn, a lady double his agey-with £3OO a year of her own, to whom lie was married hy a priest at Aldershot. He parted from her either there or at Faruboroiigh ; saw her at Farnham ten days after, in order to be married again at the Registrar’s Office ; wont back with her to Aldershot, where they parted. Lad seen her again at Bath ; did not know if she was living. “ What,” said Mr Hawkins, “ She is only 71, now, you know ?” Witness denied having been asked hy a solicitor to .settle the £3OO a year on his wife; hut added that lie did make such a set (lenient voluntarily. The Dowager Lady Tichborne was not aware of his intended marriage, and he never proposed to make it light for his wife hy his will. It was sought to show that, after his marriage, the witness was not countenanced or received hy the Tichborne family. After the loss of the Bella witness was often in communication with the Dowager Lady Tichborne, who always said that Roger would (uni up ; Imt witness denied having encouraged that belief, though he had some hope himself; hut admitted that there was some proposal that he should go to Australia to make inquiries. In her expectation of the return of her son, lliu dowager was a little Highly, and had extravagant, notions about it. He had never heard that she kept a lantern constantly burning in the hall, or that she used to go out with a lantern into the grounds, in order to guide Roger to the house. lie

did not think h r crazy in this matter, or foolish. A letter written hy witness in 1800 to Mr Scoll-Murray, in which there was an erasure, and which related to the dowager, was handed to,the Bench, and to the witness, and he was pressed to say

whether the word scratched over was not

“ en zy,” but he maintained that it. was “ foolish.” It came out that (he witness, after he had seen the claimant in 1857,g0t the letter in question hack, and then made the erasure. At the time of the erasure witness knew Lady Tichborne had received (he claimant as her son, and witness had himself acknowledged him, and therefore ho struck out the word as being too strong; hut he never thought that the. opinion expressed could have damaged iiis evidence. Another letter of witness’s, dated in 1800, was read, treating the pretensions of the claimant as ridiculous and futile, suggesting that the claimant might he one of some branches of the Tichborncs which had gone astray and fallen low in the world, and saying he | should he glad to hear “ anything about the butcher.” Witness had heard that the claimant was said to he a butcher. Being asked if he saw Alfred Tichborne within eighteen months of his death, and was at his funeral by invitation, he replied, “ Not hy his invitation ;” and it was brought out that lie was not there hy invitation, and was not on good terms with the family of Tichborne. The crossexamination next ran minutely into the intimacy of the witness with young Roger Tichborne, and dealt with such matters as his French accent, and his speaking and reading French ; and witness said that in 1807 lie detected something of the French accent still. Witness remembered Roger’s ears as peculiar, and was qiics ioned as to his memory of his feat ures ami appearance generally. The several photographs were handed to him, and lie said of those taken in voiilli that lie knew who it was, and that was all, am! that they did not represent faithfully his peculiar ears. Rsferring to young Roger’s pursuits, the witness persisted that his principal occupation was smoking, that he was not particularly devoted to active pursuits, and that he associated with his inferiors, frequented (lie servants’ hall, and so on. Witness declared (hat young Boger was no fool ; hut as to his being a truthful, honourable young man, he could not, say one way or the other. The witness was unable to say whether Roger was a constant visitor to his relatives and friends; and, being much prevsed on this point, was taunted with the slight knowledge he must have had of him. He knew Lady Doughty wished Rngvr to many her daughter. The witness fought hard against answering whether he was acquainted with Roger’s handwriting, protesting that he did not know in what sense to interpret that word. ,A letter was read hy Mr Hawkins, written by the witness to Lady Doughty, in which he stated that he had seen a letter in the handwriting of Boger (in 1800) which he knew well, and as that was written hy the claimant iie was the right man. Nevertheless, the witness adhered to his statement now, that he had no means of kno wing Roger’s hand writing. A long time was taken in endeavouring to induce Hie witness to say whether he knew that the interests of Lady Alfred Tichborne and those of the claimant were antagonistie, and having at last answered " Yes,” he was reprimanded by the Judge for liis hesitancy. A complaint was made by Sergeant Ballantine, and confirmed by the foreman of the jury, of indecorous audible expicssions ol : opinion by spectators in the Court, which were severely condemned hy his lordship. The witness was pressed as to whether lie had not, as lie stated in the letter above mentioned, intended to put a letter lie believed to he for the Dowager into the hands of Lady Alfred Tichborne. The cross-examination was going on when the witness stated that he was becoming quite bewildered, and the proceedings were brought to a close for the day.