The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-12-09 00:00:00

lllMlNiem....—__

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

The hearing of the ease Wat 3 reenmed on Monday
morning, am! it was the lifty,,eventh day that it had
occupied the attention of the judge and jury.

- -
Mr. Francis Joseph Batgrat again appeared la the Wit
mas liii, and 1113 cross-emanation was continued by Mr.
Hawkins. Ile said : The book that I printed the name of
Roger Tichborne in I have not seen !awe. It was a quarto
cook intended as a diary. I believe this occurred in Is 4. 1
do not kilOW whether he kept a diary before that time.

Id you hear from the plaintiff that he had made any
attempt to get home from klelbourne/—1 heard that on his
Oral anivel he had inquired about a passage. I did not ask
what homilies he had made, nor did he WI me. Ile did oot
toil me how it happened that his inquiries did not result
successfully. I melerstood that there were some diniculties
In getthat a passage, that he emild not gut a passage trek,
and the next day he hint the offer of proceeding to England.
The plaintiff elk hi first visit to Airesford stayed from
Friday to the following Wedmiday or Thursday. Ile had
the bells set singing the day be went to Colonel Lushington.
This would be on Tuesday, the 12th of February., I believe.
Ills letter would show the date.

Mr. Hawkins Yes, here it is. It Is dated the 1:111 of
February, 1,67. and Is ndilressed to his " Dear mama," and
he says, " Colonel LllOllllOOll is so convinced by some
questions that he asked me that he rata.; the Tieltborne bells
Its honour of my arrival." I see also that he spells Ids uncle
.eymottr's name " &own, "f-1 am inclined to think it
" more."

Did It not strike you as singular that he should not spell
his undoo name correctly —Oh no.

Jnot like Roger I—Yes:
The Lord (lief Justice Do you know any instarao o
Roger before he went away spelling the name toyas e •
—No : but he had been continually spelling it. It might o o
different if he had not written it for fifteen years.

Mr. MN kJ. 7 It would not have surprised you If he had
ot known how to write Ills own name 1-4th, yes it would.
Before the claimant went to Meat Croydon in the middle
of February, had he ever mentioned to plik the 11141110 of a
oiole ottleer lathe Carbineersh—l do not recollect.

Ito you kinw that he first saw Carter on the 2.lth of Feb.
ruary 7 bee ;I believe that was so.
Before that had he mentioned to you the name of s single
-.nicer Or RUM In the Carhincers— before he saw rank r?—
I cannot recollect. lie mentioned Major Nornury's name
very early. My memory is. blank upon the subject. Five
years have gone since the thing happened.
But pia have given minute details of conversations that
occurred, and you cannot recollect what I now ask you?—!
cannot reeollect.

Mr. Huggins Is mentioned In the claimant's letter I have
referred to as having identified him. Is he in town as a
witnees?—liot yet.
Has he 111.4 been studiously kept back I—l don't know
whether ho Is to be examined or not. Mr. Huggins was Pr.
Lipscombe's assistant, and ho saw the plaintftf before Dr.
Lipscomhe saw him. Ido not look npon him as an impor-
tant st Uness for the plaintiff. I do not know that he has
been purposely kept back. The claimant paid another visit
to Alroaford about the 211n1 of February. He then new the
Nobles, Lipsconibe, and There welt no affidavits
made then ; but I cannot say whether, any statimmits were
then taken down. I was not at Croydon on the occasion
when Carter arrived. I now from affidavits that he had a
lona Interview with the claimant. lie was taken as the
claimant's servant afterwards. I knew McCann arrived
early in March. awl saw the claimant, Clint remained on
that occasion for a day or two.

And he afterwards hoed in the plaintifTs house t—Some
months afterwards when they went to Essex Lodge. He
performed uo service. He was an invalid. I believe the
doctor said that he would not answer for liceann's life Ml-
le,kbe had a change id air, and the plaintiff said there was
a mom at the top of the house and he could stay there.

Was he molt r any obligation to Alecann I—Only as an old
and faithful servant.

SleCann's account of the matter was that thu plaintiff
asked him what he was doing, that he answered •• Nothina,'
and the plaintiff said he could do the same there. lion
heard him state that f—reople do not like to speak of their
lldhealth.

Are you aware that Carter on the 25th of March went to
Sandhurst and saw Waddington and Wilde, who bad Inter-
views with the claimant ?—I know it from the affidavits.

Do you know that it was not until months after Wad-
dington and Wilde had bon sent back to Sandhurst that
the plaintiff ventured to go to Sandhurst f—l believe he
went Just before the affidavits went in.

That was in July. Had he before July or the end of June
seen a single officer in the Carbineers? - -Yes, Major Stillman.
I don't know whether any effort has been made to bring him
here. I have never suggested that Major Stillman should
be I,ollllilled, and I have never suggested that he should be
kept back. Mr. McEvoy also saw him before July. He said
be would come and dine with the claimant, but did not. I
never heard that McEvoy slid not c, lweawe he believed
the claimant to be an impostor. I saw a paragraph In a paper
about this matter, but I never heard it. I don't remember
whether the claimant saw any other officers before July. Re
might perhaps have co. Phillips. I cannot tell. He is not
here on behalf of the claimant.

Mr. Hawkins : lie saw Ilellvoy, at all events, and him
you have not called.

Mr. Serjeant lantino: We have already been‘ found
fault with for calling too ninny witnesses from the regiment.
-

Mr. Hawkins : But you said you would call them all.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine : And if this line ,4 cross-exami-
nation is continued, you will find the number of witnesses
will be Increased.

Mr. Hawkins (to the It itoess' Was there not always some-
Nay wit the plaintiff who could bivehini infonnation about
Roger Tiehborne neither was there, Bogle was there,
and there were al,o Carter. Si Coin and myself. There was
Moore, but the plaintiff did not see hint till last January.
There was :mother Moore there, who bad liven 6:tortitati at
Tivhborne. I believe he wan no relation to the I,ther Moore.
I heard of Ulm dinner with Mr. 1:111;,itt at the Grosvenor. I
did not after Wards make further Leo irks of the plaintiff as
to Li 4 life. 1 presume that when the plaintiff went to Sand-
hurt t en the !Mit of June it was his test visd to people who
had been in the Carbineers.

In a letter of the plaintiff to his " Dear Mama." dated 27th
February, lao7, be SAYS, "lie very careful what you say, my
dear Mama. now that the bill is tiled, to anybody that calls
upan you." Did you suggest this?-IVo. Idu not recollect
having done go.
Was It just like Roger so to write to his Mama ?—lt would
be very natural for any man who had commenced a Chancery
suit.

In thy plaintiffs letter on the 30th February, 107. he re-
fers to the meeting aud says--•• To-MORON iv to he our latiy
d, 7. We have six persons coming front sainlhurat who
seen yesterday, anti about thirty that live In this neighbour-
hood I "—Yes.

Mow do you spell successful !—Really itls very unnecessary
f Mto A O such a question.
e Lord thief Justice : Still the much simpler and easier
co' rue will be for you to roamer it.
Thiess spelt the word.
Ton never began it 'Tar (Laughter. 1 Look at the
plaiutiff's letter?—! should like to see another "a" written
by the plaintiff.
t ming looked at two or three letters with an a in each,
he ail that in the letter in uueation succeeded seemed tube
sp It " sm.' Ilw meeting at Alresford was on the tat July.
1 as there. There were a good many people to be sworn to
a davits. Mr. Lillywhite was there. I did not prepare his
a davit. Mr. llolmes molested me to go and /PO it! could
be of any assistance. Idol not settle Mr. llopk ins's—
mil-
i d it. We went throuh git together, and alterations were
de. I believe Mr. Adams drew it. .
Id you mutually consider how strong you could make it?
hat was all. done before I saw it. I made some pencil
nutria in my affidavit. I don't know where the doemaent I
valtered,p riadiji
ys paw k Ltzoe one
n l,eo,fil
ew ohoLthe n wit ftfeertswt there, and
attde
plaintiff before the affidavits were sworn.

Was there any one of the local people whom you had not
previously knewn ?—Yes; Mr. 31orant Long, and, I think,
Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Cole. Very proaably Carter was there ;
the plaintiff would naturally take some servant with him.
Logic was net there.

Did you pay any of the witnesses f—No: I suppose they
were paid for their loss of time. I never told the plaintiff
the name of a single witness who came to see him.

Did you not, when witnesses came to Cn.yflon, inform the
plaintiff that a particular witness hut arrived f—Thitt has
happene,l. I was speaking of Alresford.

- -
How long did the w itness talk at Alresford ?—f4ome
hours. People were waiting about, and others had to come
again next day. The affidavits had to be written in dupli-
cate.

Pid not plaintiff tell you that Captain Polhill Turner had
ithited him to lunch at his place near ltedford. ii, July.
so that be might see if he could identify him ^—l don't
think that the plaintiff told me. I heard it. I know the
plaintiff did not go. I knew he was fond of postponing
things.

lei you know any reason why the plaintiff should not go to
Captain Turner I—No. I know no more than I have heard
in this court. The plaintiff went to Cirencester and Malvern,
and Cairns and Carter accompanied him. Ido not know of
the plaintiff having made any preparation for his examina-
tion before Mr. Roupell.

After sevend other questionu had been replied be, Mr.
Hawkins continued,—

The plaintiff, when asked in his examination as to the
vessel that picked him up, said : -" I am under the impres-
sion that It was the Osyrry," and that he thought the cap-
tains name was Owen Lea Is or Lewis Owen. Did you ever
hear the plaintiff name any other vessel as being the One that
picked him up !—I have no recollection. There was a talk a
year or two ago as to whether it was not the Themic I
heard that the plaintiff went to Liverpool sad saw the
captain and the mate.of the Thent4. I don't know that he
saw the agent of the owners.

Did you hear Mr. Holmes say that the plaintiff had laid
that be hml co doubt the Mantis had plukeil him up
lout remember those words. He thought it was likely it
might have been the Thimaa. What was said was that the
plaintiff had said he might be mistaken in the °spray and
that it wag the 1 Amis.

•
Do you not knew that the Osprey is not even mentioned In
the plaintiff's affidavit f--Tea, I diet heard the name at the
Law amtitutlen on the 30th or 31st July.
The affidavit of the plaintiff filed on the 3r.1 of July does
not locution the Osprey or the name of Owen Lewis or Lewis
Owen? -No; it was, I suppose, prepared by counsel.
Have yen any reason to believe lb was ever mentioned be-
fore the 3rd July f—l have no reason 0 believe or not to
believe It. I know Bridger. lie may be an archseelgist, but
I diornt knew It. I knew him as a collector of pedigrees. I
never knew him until September, 184.3. I never heard of
the Themis until July, 1808.
So early as November, 1807, was not Mr. Bridger em-
ployed to tram out the Themie I—l know nothing about
that.

Did yen ever hear ft a vessel called the Isabeila —No,
not in any way connected with this case.

Dl yoll eve; hear the narne of the captain of the Thera*?
—Yes I believe it was SICWile. I believe the matnra name
was Hans:rid or Ilansord. It is said the captain is dead.

And the mate In at sea ?—I don't know. I have Winfred,
and could make nothing of It.
Did ref hear that the Themia had landed a second-claw
paamengere at Melbourne with the captain, and had gone to
the mgent's office r—l heard passengers had been landed. I
did not hear that the passenger remained outside.

That the captain had advanced ale to the passenger and
taken his note?—! heard £4O. I did not hear he had
given him some clothes, nor that the passenger had dis-
appeared. I saw If the mate of the Thamis, at Mr.
Moojen's office, when Mr. Moojeu wad attorney for the
plaintiff. I had heard that the plaintiff had horn in Liver.
pool to inquire; and that the owners of the Themig had
lent Bridger the log of the Themi.R. I did not hear that it
had never been returned. I suppose Bridger is alive, but!
don't know.

.....
After two letters of the plaintiff's had been read, the wit-
nese continued I did not know until I saw Hansard, the-
mate, thst the person landed was tot a ship-
wrecked y. r3Oll but only a passenger. lie was a poor remod-
elare passenger, named Joni,. I heard corn; thing of the
sort. Mr. lb Woolf was the owner of the verse!.
••• - -

Did y hear that a plan of Melbourne was drawn or pro-
dneed, and that the plaintiff traced his way through Mel-
bourne am though he knew it well, and stopped at the ofliee
of the agent of the Themis, not said that was where the
captain took him t—l not hear of that.

Some letters were called for, which Induced a technical
argument of some length, and it was not concluded when
the Court adjourned at four o'clock.

The trial was mum don Tuesday morning, and the first
matter for consideration was one which was partly argued
the previous afternoon, and which arose out of the follow-
ing circumstances :—Mr. Holmes, when attorney for the
plaintiff, employed and paid a Mr. Bridger to make some
Inquiries In reference to matters connected with the snit,
and the Attorney-General having called for and obtained
two letters from Mr. Holmes to Mr. Bridger while he was no
employed sought to put them in evidence.

...—..„.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantino objected that they were privileged
communications, and could wit he used against the claimant;
and the question whether there was such privilege was the
Oft: to be determined.

Mr. Hawkins after some discimision said that he should not
run any risk by Insisting upon having these particular letters
In evidence . hot he should in the rase of similar documents
call for the originals, and if they were not produced h.
should seek to give secondary evidence of the contents.
The Lord Chief Jostle. expressed the Inclination of his

opinion to be that the letters would be admissible J pressed
for.
rho Attorney-Oeneral said that he thought that at preset'
they could get on without the documents.
Mr. Hawkins then called for a elpy (d. the log book of the
The ,i, or any extracts front It and Mem!. Uregory, and
itowsliffea elerk produced a 'bailment.
Mr. Serjeant hallalltillo submitted that beforetbis gentle
man produced any raper he must be sworn, to show the clr-
CUMSWICCS alld, WWI it had come into his possession.
. . .

The Lord Chief Justice said that he thought that the ole-
(mutant's counsel could not be called upon to have him
81•0111.
The Attorney-General wished to say that there was really
no inymery about the matter, because Messrs. Oregory and
Roa chile had written to both aides communicating hat the
eircumatauces wore.

Mr. haigent's cross-examination was then continued by
Mr. Hawkins. Ile said I have read all that tack place at
the Law Institution when the plaintiff was examlnial. I was
present also when thelpialutiff was examined in this court.
I either heard er 101 Iii his account of Ids landing In Mel-
bourne. I heard him state that he had given the captain a
cheque or document for sonic £l7 or LIS, 111141 had left with-
out bidding`the captain good-bye. I believe I heard him
before he was examined in court state that. I think none.
thing was said about it to Mr. Hopkins. I heard him
mention it at Alresford and I believe something of the
kind woo first said to Mr. Hopkins. I cannot say I heard
hint say it.
When did Jou first hear It front his lips S—After he came
bask from Liverpool when he had been to Inquire after the
Metal. I believe that I first heard of the Owprey at the
Law Institution. Pray don't shout, Mr. Hawkins, I dou't
want to be bullied. It you speak so loud I cannot hear.
•••

Mr. Hawkins: If you will Ammer the unestions it will
not be necessary to shout. You see sometimes you hear
and sometimes you do not. Do you know that after the
examination of the Osprey Mr. LI (Ames had got a list of
the crew of the llsprey, and fomid that there exam, Owen
Lewis or Lewis Owen on It f—Yes ; but long after. Not till
the latter part of tans. Mr. Hopkins nor Mr. Holmes
never showed one a letter from the owners of the Osprey
tu mit:venue to this matter.

Did you leant that there was no such penton as Owen Latvia
or Lewis Owen upon the crow of tho Wlprey ?-1 believe 1
did not.

The Lord Chief Justice: You just now said you did.
Witness Let the question be put again. The name was
not upon the crew of the Osprey that I saw. Mr. flolnics
has the list. It was that of a small vessel od only six hands,
the captain's mime being CarmichaeL That etas not the
Osprey that picked the plaintiff up.
. . . .

It. you know of any inquiry as to the real Otprey
It neror °celiac,' to 11ue to ask the plaintiff how he came to
give the inane of Lewia Owen as that of the captain of the
Oeprey. . "

Did the name of Peebles occur upon the list of the crew
that you raw !—Nn. We never could find au) thing out about
the large Osprey that picked the claimant up, nor about the
captain.
The Lord Chief Justice: Nor the crew.

Witness : Nor of the crew, that I heard. There was the
name of David ()wen Lewis in the crew of the Middleton. I
heard that Arthur Orton had been a passenger on board the
Middleton.
Did you make any inquiry of the plaintiff as to how he
came to hit upon this name I - Ni ;I have ascertained that
there were many captains In 1,54 named Lewis Dwen or
Owen Lewis. I saw it in •• Li l's List." I cannot give you
any instance I have not asceinttil that there was anytime!)
captain at Melbourne in ISA. Ido not know the names of
any of the crew of the larger °apes!, being advertised for. I
heard the plaintiff before he came into court any that it was
an American vessel. Be said over and over again that it
was, he believed, an American vessel that picked him up. I
heard this in 1667, I believe. . . .

Do you know that the Them is was not an American yes net
--I believe that she belonged to Liverpool.

Vol the plaintiff. in a letter I read yesterday, says It
is now beyond all doubt that it was the Tho,,ia that picked
us up." ilow do you account for that f—lle said he believed
it was an American vessel ; he did not speak positively.

- -
Do you know that Mr. Flopkina in 1567 wrote about the
crew ot the fella !—I heard he had done it In 1855. As I
'said, I saw the mate of the Thextiw at Mr. Moolen's ethos in
July, la7o. The conversation might have lasted an hour,
not twenty minutes, as I said yesterday. I don't know that
he toll me that he was going away. No steps were taken to
examise him.

The Lord ChielJustice Wai there an inquiry of him about
Roger Itchborue

_ _
Witness : There had been a story circulated about the
Thentir having picked up Sir Roger Tiehborne, and I saw the
mate in July, ISO.
•• - • - •

Mr. Hawkins 'This was two years after the plaintiff wrote
that it was beyond all doubt that the The roliar had pleked
him up?—'lea,
Did you find that the notion that the Them i4l had picked
the plaintiff up was all moonshinel—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice : But yet this moonshine lasti.d
for two yearsb -1 had had no opportunity of testing it.

Mr. Hawkins Did the plaintiff for two years adhere to it
that It was the Them is that picked him up?-1 don't know
anything to that effect or to tho contrary.
The Lord Chief Jostles Did you, between July, 1869, and
July, 1,70, bear the 'same of :my otht r vowel as having picked
lam up?---No ; I did not. There was the Osprey still sea
matter of doubt. lie had still an impression about the
o.pme. though he thought after he hoard of the /Unite that
he might be mistaken.
Mr. Hawkins Will you swear that between Ju17,134?R, and
July IS7O, the plaintiff ever wavered shiiut the Osprey !—I
do Pot think that I ever heard him mention the Thelnix
after he had nia le the inquiries at Liverpool, nor did be men-
lion the osprey.
When /111 you first hear the Onprey mentioned after July,
I,7°l—When his proof was drawn. That s. (mkt be twelve
montici aze. I should think. I did not tell hint it was no 000
alklrq of the :my more. •

Did n..t the plaintiff tell you that he pointed nut at Liver-
pool the arrangements of the Th•rnis, and where his own
cabin was heard him say It hat a round stern. Ile told
me the captain's name was Niculls; that he was dead, aud
that he had seen his brother

Mahe tell you he had recognized in the brother. strong
likeness to the captain whohad picked him upg—lie said he
was like the captain who had picked him up. I don't re-
inumber that he recognized a " atrong likenesa." .lie did
not tell me that he had seen a likeness of the dead captain.

ItMI you ask the 'Annant how on earth he could call the
captain Lewis ()wen when his name was Nicholls I—Nat, I was
no surprised at his mic akin mistakes ill names. Ile was a
cm lesa man, and always will be.

dust like Roger. (A laugh.) Suppose he had sidled the
captain Lewis lwen Plantagenet shoull have thought It
a line name for him to remember. (A laugh.) 1 made no
inattlry about the idleged note of hand.
To the Lord Chief Ji.stiee: 1 made no inquiry about the
Osprey nor about the Minis. I only saw to mate.
To Mr. Hawkins : Mr. Holmes never showed me Bridges's
letter.

M. Moline% ev, tell yon that Bridger had said he
hoped that they might do without Hansard s evidence, I .1. it
advent tender his testimony of little value to the opponents?
—No.