The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-12-16 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

'Me eres.v.examination of Mr. liaigent was reaunied on
Monday morning hy Mr. Hawkins. and after several pre-
nmimin questions had been answered, the witneav v.... Ahmed
d.o;st know .irthiir Denbo. I had not heard anything
ewkinwhal with the name that I recollect am enough to
take my breath 11Wi17." fl ha% o MI idea that something was
said hy Rouse that he might be the person whom Cater
meant In his affidavit.

That would not be enough to take your breath away?-1
have my breath still. (Laughter.) I thought it very sad that
there should be a mistake in the affidavit.

Was it supposed that Arthur [Munn was Arthur Orton
-I had on knowledge of that. I to not know Arthur
Deslin or Denlau. I only heard some such a name from
31r. Rouse. It was that name or • similar one,
What did Mr. Rouse tel you about the name ?—1 cannot
charge any memory with what he said, tot he had a notion
t this might be the pemon Catt•r referred in in this :Mi.
davit. I dont Meow even whether such • person masted.
I bean! Of the letter written by Arthur idol, to Mrs. Jury. It
was sot that letter that I had a tracing of. taint think I
showed Inkstone the letter, but he very probably saw it.
What Is now handed to me ,produred Ay Mr. Holmes) is the
letter.

Mr. Hawkins The letter Is dated the 31st of Niarch, and
commences, " Dear sister, I came back from the south," And
deoncludes. " I remain, your affectionate brother, Arthur
often," and underneath the signature there are some marks
your lordship will see. I Wish your lordship to have this
description of the letter.

Witness I believe this is the letter that was shown to Mr.
Inludone. I have it, recollection, however, of the circum-
stance. (The letter was handed to and inspected by the
The Lord Ode (Justice : Upon tide letter 'which Mrs. Jury
was asked for and mid she had not, and Which Mr. Moline'
now produces, there lathe endorsement '• Belongs to Mrs. IL
Jury. The last letter received by her from Arthur Orton;
supposed date, ltis6."

Mr. Hawkins to tho witness): TM you observe any
sindiarity betwern the writing awl that 14 the plaintifre—
Yes. a slight similarity. There is always a similarity In the
writing of persons who aro slightly wilueateil.

In 4 you, when you first saw It, thiuk that there was
strong similarity? .4 might have done. I cannot my.

Did you think it was a marvellous resemblance '
have no recollection. I now see there is a great difference.
Did not you and Mr. Inkstone, after to claimant had
started for Chili, carefully examine the letter to form an
opinion whether it was the claimant's writing 4-1 cannot
remember.

Did not Mr. Inkstone say that It was " marvellous In Its
resemblance" 7—l don't recollect Mr. inkstone in connection
with it. I don't recollect a facsimile of It being furnished to
me. I don't recollect at all how lung I examined the letter.

Was the object of the cvaminatio; to see if it was like the
claimant's cannot my. I believe it was. I might have
compared it with writing of the claimant. hut I .I.Mt re-
member. I never in any letter of Roger Tlchborno saw any
hieroglyphics like those under the signature of Arthur Orton.
In the "Ready Reckoner" produced hy the plaintiff there
are written by him the Initials" it. C. T." Under that there
are marks like two " Co and this was handed to the Jury
for inspection, and compared by them with Arthur Ortou's
letter.

The foreman of the jury asked for a letter which had been
produced from Arthur Orton to Miss Loder from Tonmsy, or
sense such place, and the letter was handed to him.
Witness continued 1 rememla r seeing the letter of the
51st March. 1 think the late should be 1854 instead of 1855
because one interview with Captain Angell referred to in it
was in 1874.

Mr. serjeant Rillantine sald that Captain Angell, Who had
now gone abroad, had been email lied on commission during
the vacation.

Witness: I cannot recollect haring examined this letter
wit ii any but Roger Tiehberne. I may have compared it
with one of the plaintiff's. I don't recollect anything beyond
seeing the letter. I don't recollect coining to the conclusion
that there was a" marvellous resemblance," and that it was
an awkward letter.

Mr. Hawkins read another letter of the:witness to Mr.
Rouse, dated the Sth April, ISO, and asked him after that
whether the letter of Orton's hail not "puzzled' him?
Witness: It scents so by my letter. No doubt this was on
account of its resemblance to his writing. I cannot say
whether I told the plaintiff It WAX exactly like his, and I
believed it was his. I cannot say I did not. I believe I did
not tell him that. I say I cannot recollect. I will not swear
that I did not, because t cannot recollect. I don't recollect
that the plaintiffs "countenance fell considerably" when
I read to him that letter. It is no stated in my letter,
but I have no recollection whatever of the interview. I have
now compared Arthur Orion's letter with letters of Roger
Tichbonm. All the capital letters are different In one to
the other except the" LI,"
I wish to ask a question in reference to the use of the
little and large Ili." The plaintiff writes:—" My dear
Causing Kate,—l ant very sorry i an, not able to come and
see you before I go. My head is so had that lam not flt to
come;" anti Arthur Orton wrote from Torquay, "1 take this
opportunity of writing. These few lines, i hope, will find
you quite well as it leaves me the same. I little thotight 1
should not he on further than this. or 17 and so on. Is
there a mixture of small and lare l's" in both letters?—
Yes

•
A large "I" begins the letter, and then little "Fs" follow
lave you ever found anything of the kind hi Roger's letters
have not seen it myself, but I have heard of it.
Yon know the letters produced at the meeting of the lgth
February, and denied by the plaintiff, but afterwards ad.
mated by him in the box to be his ?—Yes, I know then, but
I have never compared them There lithe same peculiarity
In these letters as to the little "is' and the large •. Fs."
II one of the letters, that of the 7th January, 1,67, the word
received in more places•than one is spelt "receved."
In Arthur Orton's letter from Torquay to Miss Loder, the
word is also spelt " receved "
In the letter to Mr. Stephens, written from Gravesend,
whileh the plaintiff has now admitted to be his, the word
'received" ii spelt in the same way ?--Yes. In a letter of
the pWntiff of the sth February, 1,67, to Lady Tichbonie, the
"reeev.ai'in three different place.
. .

The Lon.; Chief Justice : I have asked 31r. Davis for scone
of the plaint.nts earlier letters. and I eve in two of the 23rd
January, ISutt, and the 24th July, ISW, the word is also spelt
. . . .

lir. Hawkins: Here 13 a printed book, in which there are
memoranda, said by the plaintiff to have been written by
Arthur Orton. The word "received" is spelt there
eS.

And little out big I's are inked ?—Yea.
lie says, " This day I received a letter from Donald Mae
donald with the seal broken ; " and again, •• I Arthur Orton,
here make a vow on this hook although It is not a Bible
with a cross that gal am a man of houe blood awl flesh I
will find out the man if possible --Yes. I have seen many
of Roger's letters.

Wive yon ever met the word "reeeved " so spelt there?
Net to my recollection. The number of Roger's letters that
I have seen, however, is very limited. You have great
bundles of them. 11l had your opportunity I rather think
I should find such instances. I found this non his habit
of at spelling. I went through Roger's mis-spellings for
counsel, hut I did not notice the word " receivad." I have
not got the memoranda 1 made. I dare say they were
elestp•yed after they were copied.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine : The copy is hi my possession.
'Witness : I believe the rough notes I made were destroyed.
I mmte a copy, but I don't know where it is.
. . . . _ . .

Here la a letter of Arthur Orton's to Mrs. Jewry, dated
January L. 18. in which he says "I have got a fue very
g04,k1 enstooers that will keep me going till I get a Pm
more." Now .• few "in both eases Is spelt " hoer—it may
be emit may he something elme•--'• teu" or "foe."
• - • •

In Orton's letter Pi Miss T,orter from Torquay he writes :
" I take the opportilLity of writing thuse fur lines 1--Yes.
In the plaintiff's letter' of the 17th June, 1,,,c4 to Lady Tich..
borne—in the " fiear Colleibg Kate" letter, and in He or two
other letters of the plaintiff, the word "few" is spelt " fur."
Did you ever lind that spelling in Roger Tichborne's letter ?
—I don't recollect that is all I can say.

The words" It hear" occurred in orton's writing In' The
Rivals," and In something by the plalistiff. Are those words
very similar in the two ? to my mind the two aro not
similar. I don't see myself that there is any resemblance. I
have had my attention called to the word " trouble," and I
have heard that plaintiff spells it without the "a."
tail Roger Tichborne spell it " trouble ?"—I have not had
my attention called to the spelling A that particular word.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the word was spelled
" trul "In several histancei in the plaintiff's letters.
• • • • ••

•
Mr. Hawkins Do you flnil many Instances in which the
spelling is different In Roger's spelling and in that of the
Witnesa Yes, but he hail been knocking about the bush
for 14 or 15 years. Dr. Livingstone says he almost forgot his
own language whilst in Africa.
- - • •

yon look upon a life in Australia and in the bush as
aimilar?-11-es. lie can now write a very nice letter. Mies
brain ha.s not been giving him lessons. Ile is one of the
readied letter-writers I know. Ile writes off at once, and
never ,
- - •

'an you account for his using large "Is' before he left
Fugland, and small '•i's" atter.eards 7—Yes; he would be
educated to write small "i's" in France. I have heard
Roster used small "la"
• •

The email "Is " In England would he a return to his
eerly education would be owing to his indifference.
is Arthnr Orton's small " s " owing to hie French educa-
tion :--To his imperfect education.
- - •

Now the plaintiff is using largo " re," and is returning to
hi English education ? Yes.

—......,—.. -
Did It occur to you that the large "TV* in the Wagga-
Watrga letter mitt have been due to Mr. liihbs having
looke4l it over ?—So, it did not.

After a few other oluestions, Mr. Hawkins said that he was
at length done with the witness

Mr. :,erjeant Bellantine : Perhaps your lordship would not
desire roe to go on now

31r. lisigeni And Ism very tired, mylord.
31r. rjeant Ballantine: Ills lordship assents% and row
. . . .

It was arranged that the re-examination should com-
mence the following ntirning, and the Court then ad-
journed.

The hearing of this came was resumed on Tuesday morning,
when Mr. Laigent's re-examination was commenced by Mr.
,e.rjeant Thdlantine. He said: Miss Plowden, whom I
had c„gio a year for her life. I never received a
phililoC of the money, and do not expect to de so. I was in-
trodueed by Mr. Hopkins to Mr. Rouse, who had formerly
been clerk to Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Rouse was formerly the
strongest partisan the plaintiff had. They, however, qnar-
relb..l about a hill in Stay, 1,449. It.anie laid claim to the
plaintiff's mare and waggonette, and thereupon they !mar-
relied. I wretch, house in perfect confidence. About two-
thirds of my letter, to Rouse have been already read. I have
receive!l dozens of letbro from Lady Tichborne, both before
and after lily Illarriag, My marriage made no difference
1., te een no! and any ne•mber of the family. .04.! letters
k-re met from Lady tqa:ghtt to the witness In answer to
his 0.,..1,,1hh; wlt:i 1.,r upon Alfred's death, and in
t!,.• ..thc-r, dated October 2.1, 1.'66, her ladyship said that the
• •!1' evidence there was L ft " mi doubt that this person
!..!Sir gager, but the circtundances altogether make it
a I doh!1 event In the family." There was also another
I, tr.•r. and the correspondence sLos..d that her ladyship
war friendly terms with the e1tu...3.) The education of
,tro as very imperfect.
Mr. !!!etlesnt flailanthie. said that I, w.-. 1111 put In a letter
. . .

rtrlt,i, by Roger la July. lAri. In t r.O h, shill he had
rec-ivel all the French educatiiiii that he over hail. Allen-
allot to the fact that ••.liiillet "vrss spelt " Jul-
•' arriver" "arrives," }Menton ' "iirettone," "t.n''
"itahlissement " "stabllainneut," nutiatifliitte "
" •• pave" " pave." erulu " " vtaipin,"
• ' ng.•or ' "haignes," " mitre" " entre,- dame,"
•• t rave " " travairsi," net " Wsterti "
I one.'iii addition to these there were a number of
similar errors.

The lord 'hie( Jwd:ce asked if there was any other letter
WI itten la I ren eh by Roger at a later 1.11.1 of hi, life.
11 r Rallanthie said that he had no other. Ile
added, that Lenished to read the original statement upon
which the witneises affidavit in Chancery had been founded,
further. he sahl that he should by-awl-by call Mr. Liwiiek
Webb, the Chancery barrister, to account for any variation,
that ,isted between the statement and theaflii la vit itself. The
..'t"t•ootlit," which was • very lengthy,document, detailed
the ,it1i,451 knowledge of the affairs of the Tichborne
family, awl his connection with it. Moat of the circuit,
stanei•l which were if consequence had been already deposed
to by the witness in the course of his evidence.
- • •• • • -

‘citnets e"ntiliutd ; The eireumatances set out in the state.
in,nt wero to the hest of my knowledge true. I handed it to
Me. Hopkins, and had no more to do aith It.
- - •

M. Aerjewit hadentine called for a letter from Carter to
in.n.o which had heLn cross-examined about yesterday, but
it ,1 not pro4lieeil.
Witte:Ba : I caw the letter and took a copy of It.
NI, Serf emit Itallitiitine proposed to react this copy, but
up", '.l.l,ctiot being rai,e4 the document was not pressed.

V. lino.: The paper I have In my hand le a bet of the
Jesuit Fathers at Stonyhurq, which I showed to the plain-
tiff, and in which he marku.l those whom he recollected. It
WOO about the 15th March, 1,..71, when I showed It to him.
At thi. dinner of Mr. Hopkins he said that the plaint:/ was
in refrejice t. 34ane deed he hail executed ; but SIIIS
he Pomoi the plaintiff waa correct though he
had h•rgotten all about it.

W:11t110 plaintiff at that time much thinner?-1 should
sa) eli,tit ten stone thinner; there has been a wonderful

alteration since, The photograph handed to me is a copy of
the daguerreotype taken in Chili. I recognise in It the
likeness if Roger Tlebborne and I also recognise the
plaintiff. There is a remarkable peculiarity in the eyes that
I have never seen in any other man's. The orbit of the eye
in round, and the eyelm ,ws stop short of the time. someway
parallel to the nose, elld are thickest Dear the nine. The
eyeballs arc peculiar in their netting, so that when the person
lisiks straightforward iii the level with his own line of
sight, a portion of the white of the eye Is viable between
the eyeball and the lower lid of the eye. This is a peculiarity
I have never seen in any other man. These peculiarities
are identically the same in the plaintiff. Home of the photo-
erupts in thia cave have been recopied and rendered quite
unlike the originals. This happens when pictures are re-
copied. The Paris photograph of the plaintiff shows well
the peculiarities I have mentioned.

Is there any other matter you wiah to point out t—Yee
the kit hand thumb in this photograph (eta the daguerreo-
type had a Ilataieu about the knuckle anti the indistinct ap-
pearance of a deformed thumb-nail. I can see the appear-
ance of the flesh protruding over the thumb-nail. There is
a1.,0 the nape:mince, though slight, of the nail being A good
way back from the cuilof the thumb.

The Lord Chief Justice : 1 cannot see it, though my eyes
are extremely strong, almost microscopical indeed, without
my triaamett I cannot even sea the thumb itself in the
damicrreidype,
Mr. Serjcant I:3111mM. The several pictures will he
handed to the jury, and they will judge of the value of the
evidence.

The Lord Chief Justice I don't see how the photographs
assist us e hen the daguerreotypes from which they were
taken are in our possession.

Witness : If I am correct about the thumb, the deformity
would appear more distinct upon the daguerreotype than upon
the photograph.

He tho-dagi- ierreotnui been altered since It was token'—
No: it has been tampered with. The thumb and the greater
part of the baud has been smudged out or wiped out.

Mr. Serleant Bs'lentil)°, in answer to hie lordship, said
that the daguerreotype had been throughout in the pusses•
slou of the ad.:lntents.

WitlICS9 : The photograph produced could nnt have been
taken from the daguerreotype in its present state.

-
Have you any idea when it was altered I—Some few days
after the trial commeneed last May. I did not when I first
saw the daguerreotype notice this defect. I think I cer-
tainly should have noticed It if it had been there.

To the Jury. I did nut then have it in my hands. I was
not permitted.

A Juryman So that being dagnennotype the light
might account for it not being noticed.
To the Lord Chief Justice The hand in the daguerreo-
type has bean rubbed out, and my impression is that it has
been done since the adjournment of the Case.

The Lord Chief Justice: I have never heard until now of
this deformity of the thumb.

Mr. Serjeant Baliantine : Nor I until lately, but it will be
a very important matter. So many charges have been made
against everybody connected with the plaintiffs can, that!,
on my part, shall not shrink front making any charge that I
may consider well founded.

Witness: I don't consider myself peculiarly qualified to
judge the handwriting, except so far as this, that I have
educated my eye by Irawing. and in other ways hare
noticed the bad spelling in i /don's and in the plaintiffs
lettcrs. 1 have found instances of bad spelling In one set
of letters that do not occur in the other set.

Are there essential differencea between the two hand-
writings ?—There is an essential difference. In (irton's letter
of the 2slli Julie, commencing " My dear friends,- the
capital M" is formed of three detached strokes ; but the
plaintiff writes the letter without taking pen from paper,
making distinct bows to the lower end of each down stroke.
The wont " friends' is spelt In I )rtun's letter " hinds," and
this occurs two or three times in his letters, and it also occurs
in other letters of his. The plaintiff always spells the word
correctly.

To the Lord Chief Justice : In Orton's letter dated "Christ-
-1:11SUI day," the word " Friends" is correctly spelt. Ibis
correct, also, in his letter of the 12th December. I must
have made a mistske as to the word being spelt "(rinds" in
the other letters of Orton. I mentioned Just now,

The Attorney-General pnelueed a letter of the plaintiff to
Mr. 11. Seymour, In which the word was spelt " (rinds.

The Lord Chief Justice: The witness has been s little rash
these statements.

Wltness In Orton's letter of .Inne 2.9, it is spelt '' itt,"
and in is "Inn. •' In a letter ut Orton s, writing is spelled
" wrlghing."
The Lord (hie( Justice: And in the Same letter " it' Is
spelled correctly.
Mr. serjeant Monolithic : Further on the spelling is
o writen."

The Lord Chief Justice: Those are various pecularities of
spelling, and they are not always consistent with one another.
It Is the phonetic system which seems to liave been pursued.

Witneis There are other errors in spelling, for instance,
oblige is spelt " ablage." I have seen Roger Tichliorne's
letters and also the plaintiff's letters.

What Is your opinion RS to the writing have no doubt
whatever they are the same writing. This was my belief
before I sdw the plaintiff's. The document now produced to
me is in Rouses writing.

sir. sorjeatit liallantine It is his statement, and haa been
referred to ; and now 1 propose to read it.

- -
The Attorney-General objected to lids doenment being
read at this period .4 the case. for tint had before called
for it and it had not !von produced.

Mr. serjettot Balkuitinei bat the other slit° hare hail a copy
of it..

The Lord Chief justice said that strictly, the paper not
having been before produced, conk! not now be read but if
its non-production could be accounted for as an accident, he
should allow it to be read, and give Mr. Ilawkini liberty to
Cross-OSAMille upon it.

lir serjeant itsllantine said that If hls learned friends
shonld under the circumstances persist in their objection, he
should not think fit to take a course which would expose the
witness to a second cross-examination.

This finished the prolonged examination of the witness so
hut as the plaintiff was c.ncerned.
The Fureman of the Jury flow did you communicate to
the plaintiff noto the test letter " that he was to send to
you and Mr. Ibmklits it—We sent a mei,sage to the plaintiff
by Mr Rouse. I was under.the Impression that Mr. Holmes
brought the letter back ; but I have since seen that it came
by post. I to not know that Mr. Rouse knew what was in
the '• teAt letter."

You said in your examination that Holmes brought you
the answer ?—That was then my impression.
Who was present when the letter was opened and read /
I don't know. Mr. Hopkins showed it to me. The allusion
in it to Miss Bellew woo not explained to me. Mr. Hopkins
accepted It non lettkr Roger might have written, And twos
bound by his opinion. I did not ask the plaintiff on the 2nd
February why he did not write to his family when he landed
at Melbourne. I did not ask him e hether ha hail a plan to
conceal himself front his family ; I saw it was done on the
moment.

At that time he had a banking account in London I—Yea
Ile hail funds then. .

Ind you ask why be never took steps to get himself Identi-
fied by the captain (,f the fk.or.•y as having been picked up
at sea —o. Be sahl he went oil suddenly without bidding
the captain good-bye.
But at the time you were testing the plaintiff —Yes. It
never occurred to me to ask any such question as that, It
appeared to me natural that the plaintiff should not get
identified when he a ent off so suddenly.

Von have said you saw Roger five or six times after he
joined the army ?..—Ves. I saw little othim alter he went into
the army.

'
lon hare conatantly said, ".Tut like Roger Tichborne "
Did you refer to the Roger before 1040, or to the plaintiff
no% I--To Roger Tiehborne before 1i63, as I knew him and
heard of Mm.

tan you give any instance of his showinu carelesmess and
Inattention to business before he went abroad?— His letters
Show it. He was very careless in his duties; he did not
write home when he should have dune so.

You have said you have no Interest in the bonds ?—Not
the slightest not a penny. I identify the plaintiff from his
knowledge of circumstances, his likeness, his words and ex-
pressions, and his general behaviour.

Ac to the photographs. You spoke of the eyebrows as
being heavier nearer the nose : is that peculiv t—The way in
which the eye vppears In the orbit is very remarkable.

•- • •
[Our space precludes us front giving more than the fore-
going outline of Mr. Balgent's cross-examination and re-
examinatinl . . _

Mrs Judith Woodman was then called. She said n I am
wifeof a clerk to a carrier's at Stroud, in Gloucestershire. id
months ago young Mr. Bowker called upon me. •I knew
Roger Tichborne when the regiment was at Cahn. barracks.
My father and mother kept a lodge at the Earl of Glengaire
Perk, and Roger frequently came there. I saw hint some-
times two or three limes a day. Voting Mr. *Wicker showed
me photographs when he came to me, anti he served me with
a subpmna. I went to his office. I saw the plaintiff. i tried
for nine days to see him, but did not see hint until the
ninth day. hooker paid my expenses during this time.
I recognised the plaintiff as MIMI as I saw hint. I went back
to Stroud the next day. Mr. Bowker asked if I wished to go
home, and I mid I certainly did. I have not the least doubt
whatever that the plaintiff is the Roger lichborne I knew
In Ireland.

The court again adjourned shortly before four o'clock.
The hearing of this case was resumed on Wednesday morn-
ing, when Mrs. Pearce was the lirst witness called. she said :
I don't exactly khow how old I sm—(a laugh)—but I am not
much younger than my sister, the last witness.

Yr. Hawkins : Tell us as near as you can ; suppose we
Start at fifteen.
Witness: fits, lam that at least. lam the wife of Mr. Pearce,
of Stroud, In I iloneestershlre. I once lived with my father
and mother, the lodge-keepers at the Earl of Glengal Cs park,
at Cahir. I was there when the Carhineers were quartered at
Cahir, but I cannot say what year that was. I knew Roger
Tichhorne. Re frequently went in and out of the park. I was
suhprenaed hy r. Bowker twice, the first times year ago, and
with my sister I came to London in My task. I (SAW the
plaintiff coming out of court and Walking to his carriage. I
came to the conclusion that he was the same Mr. lichlmrne I
knew in the Carhineers. The first thing I knew was his
walk, and then I knew him all at once, and I said, 'That is
Sir Roger Tichhorne and no one else." I have seen the
plaintiff once since, coming in and going out of court, and I
have no doubt who he is.
" '

Cross-examined I don't think I ever shall have any
doubt.

Not It you were cross-examined for a week?—! think not.
I was brought up by Mr. Honker to town to see if I knew
him. I had seen a picture before, but 1 don't understand
pictures.
James Behan, a sergeant in the 6th Hussars, and formerly
in the t'arbineers, said he was drilled for eleven or twelvo
months In the same class with Roger Tichhorne, who, after
he wa. nominally dismissed front drill, had to attend drill
still as an an kward °Meer. Ile itad not the slightest doubt
that the claimant was Sir Roger Tichhorne.

......
Thomas Rablitfe, arinourer sergeant to the Ist Sussex
Volunteers, said he was in the Carbineers nearly twenty-one
years, and re,ognisod the elaimant as Boger Tichborrie at
Brighton In Novmdwr, as soon as he saw him, although
he hal no' idea that lie WM going to see hint, or that he was
in Brighton. The witness, not having answered some of the
Attorhey•Genemia questions in cro.s-examination In the
terms in which they wore put to him, the Lord Chief Justice
toll him to pay attention to tire cross-examining counsel,
and answer him as he would a general—the learned counsel
was In truth Attorney-ceneral. The witness subsequently
caused much amusement try constantly addresshig Sir John
Coleridge as general."
John Henry Mutely, assistant warder at the convict
prison, Chatham, who was in the CAI leinevi, for twenty-one
years, .1 the claimant as Boger Tichhorne, when he
drilled on several occasions, and found him particularly
stupid at dtill.
Thomas Darner, a hairdresser at Clonmel, REIM he was in
the same ImAiless when the Carldneers were there, and
remembered a mark On the back part of 'Roger Tioir.
borne's head, similar to one which ho found on the
plaintiff's head thioc weeks ago. In cross-examination lie
sahl the sear might have been caused by a fall, a cut, or
from brine—or, as they call it in Ireland, pickle.
The Attorney-General Mr. Hawkins suggests that it might
have been at miii pickle. Ck laugh)
The Witness: Mr. Hawkins says many smart things.
(Laughter.)
Ti. the Lord Chief Jtisttce The mark was a place hare of
hair.

•
To the Attorney General The moment I saw the mark on
the claimant's head and the position, I said, " That is the
gentleman whose hair I cut In l'ahir twenty years ago." The
head was certainly trot so large then as now, I have seen
gentlemen with their heads grown larger.
-

To the Foreman of the Jury : My impression is that the
gentleman whose hair I cut had hair a shade or two lighter
than the plaintiff's. The character of the hair is the same.
Can you tell the July whether hair cut off loses its colour?
—lt gets lighter—that is my impression as a hairdresser.

Mr. Serjeant Pallantine : A professional opinion (laughter).

Captain Richard Franeis Burton : I was formerly lI.M.
consul at Damascus, angi am the well known African tra-
veller. I have travelled in Africa and In Asia. gin the
24th November, I was at BlltlloB Ayres, preparing to
cross the Pampas. I met the plaintiff at Villa Nueva. We
passed one evening together. Ile complained to me as to
his health. Ile did not Welll to be in a physicalsconditlon
flt in cross the Andes, where there is much walking as well
an riding to be done. This is the opinion I formed et the