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

LIS you fiver lee a copy of the log of the Vie.. !—No.

_
An extract from it ?—No.
DM you ever see the original I—Yes.
And in the interest of truth and Justice, you wish to give
all the information you can.
The Lord Chief Justice: I think that It would have been
better if you had done this in answer to the first question.
Sir. Hawkins: Did you see in the log any writing about
picking up anybody /—Not that I saw, lint! only looked at
a page or two about the time of the wreck of the Bella. I
saw the log at Mr. Holmes' Mike. This was about August,
li6S, or it might be September.

Do you remember about July, 1.,118, receiving or seeing.
letter I,f eight paged from hi ilia Brain about the Therni,l?-1
don't remember it.

Idd the plaintiff in July, ISCS, talk about the mate of the
The mis S—l stout re 1110131.er.

Did he say, " Yes, Hansard was the mate of the vessel "
I don't recollect. some troops that arrived at Winchester
had come over in the Derision, 41 which 1111118111 it was mate,
and thvy told a tale about Hansard having picked Tiehborne
up.

Aftermany other questions had been replied to, Mr. Haw.
klna continued:—

Will you swear you did not tell Mr. Roue that the plain-
tiff had said it WM the Jemie Miller who took him from
Barre to Valparaiso b—To the best of my recollection, I did
not. I heard of the Joasie Mider, but I don't think that the
plaintiff mentioned her.

Will you pledge y, dtroath whether he did or did not mention
her ?—I cannot ; but I believe he did not.

‘Then did you hear the Jessie Miller named ?--We talked
the matter over a great deal. I think I must have heard of
her two or three months before the examination at the Law
Institution. It has been aseortained since then that the
Jessie .Miller was the name of the vessel which Orton was
on board--Joreph M. Orton.

Did you make Inquiries to ascertain this I—Mr. Holmes
showed me a crew list. I don't think that he said he was
satisfied that Arthur Orton was on board her. He might
have Bald Arthur Orton was on board, or I might have
Jumped to the conclusion that It was Arthur. When I saw
the crew list I saw it was Joseph.
Did you first mention the Jessie Mist., to Holmes 1-1
believe he mentioned it to me, aud I said I thoneht I
had heard the name before. To the best of my knowledge I
did not hear it from the plaintiff. I cannot undertake to any
that I did not.

Did you know on what voyage Orton was on board the
vesselll—Joseph same in her from Valparaiso to England.
This was in 1652, or about that date.

Did you before the examination in Chancery notice that
the plaintiff had a remarkable forgetfulness of names of
places t—f might have noticed it. I read the examination
In print.
Do you know that he was then advised to go to every
place in Rngland, Ireland, and France that Roger had been
tot—There was sonic advice of the kind.

Was it ist October, 1667?—it was after the examination.
Was it not brought about by the utter forgetfulness of
names and places ?—I don't know. Ido not know that down
to that time the plaintiff had visited any places but Aires-
ford and Stonyhurst.
Did he exhibit reluctance to go to the different places
Roger had been to; and make excuses from time to time?—
! dares*, be did make excuses at times. lie hal to depend
upon Mr. Holmes a good deal.

Did not you and 'lr. Holmes urge him again and again to
go ?—I have urged him to take journeys. lie never liked
moving about at all, and his mother ale aye Interposed, and
said my evidence is sufficient.

you mean to amear he aaslgned that mason? -lie dhl
aislgn It. Ile used to get her to Interfere.

. -
OH she ever interfere on her own account to prevent his
going aniwhere, in accordance with her advice cannot
bring to my mind a particular occasion, hot I know she did.

You wrote on the ffiol December, when the plaintiff was
going to Bath and Worcester, that he should take a copy of
the affidavits and the bill. Why did you do that I—l thought
that it might be as well. I did not wish them to he used to
ufluence the opinions of people.
- - - - - - - -

- - -
Then why should they he shown ?-1 thought we ehould
take them in ca. they should be called for. I only wieheil
the bill in Chancery to go, because it would show that the
plaintiff was enforcing his right.

Do you mean that, Mr. Itaigent.—l do, Mr. Hawkins; you
can Bee that I mean It.

The Lord Chief Justice: Some men's minds are not consti-
tuted like yours.
Witness I wish there were more like mine.

On the sth December, 1867, you wrote --" Thanks for the
copies of the affidavits. lam glad you have sent for Mr.
Morley. I like to see people secured.'' Did you prepare Ida
affidavit I—Vet. The draft was destroyed years ago.
• • -

You know how to make an affidavit tell -To speak the
truth is the best way. A laugh.)
On the 22nd December, 1067, you wrote to Rouse I
hope there is a screw loose, and not a little one, lot a kreat
.me. It Dosford don't come up to the scratch, it will he
sell for Bowker and the rest Id them." What did you refer
to- Gosford's answer? -Possibly. I hoped at the time that
he would not go so far as to swear that the plaintiff was not
Sir Roger. I was not thee making endeavours to get him to
swear on our side.

You Fay In a letter, "There are some expellent witnedea
to Inn, got there—llrcland.j" But they had never al vin the
plaintiff, and how could you know what they would Ray
when they eaw the plaintiff ?—1 never knew any important
person who had a recollection t,t Roger who ,Ild nut recog-
nise the plaintiff. No one could proceed more cautiously
than I did to investigate the matter.

---
Was it "cautious " in you to tell him to stick to the matter
about the coat ?—1 have no doubt those words have been
misinterpreted. I meant simply that the plaintiff should
rely upon his own recollection. The plaintiff did not go to
Ireland. t wished that he should go. I pressed him on two
or throe occasions to go.
And he would not got—Ho did not go.
Was there any legitimate excuse for his not facing the
people of Ireland ?—No doubt it was put off It was a long
and expensive journey. Mr. Rouse and Mr. Holmes went
with the plaintiff on his journey to Peale I did not prepare
the affi•lavits , but I did read them afterwards.
In the same letter you say, " I am glui to hear that you
have liven to Poole, but regret to lean; that the aMdavits
are aa poor."—l have never seen them; it was only what
Mr. Rove told me.

The neat day you wrote : " I have not seen the Auskalian

affidavits ; I have seen the tools ones : they are all lifeless
and without spirit. It Is a pity to waste materials like this
when the most should be made of everything."—Rouse had
led me to expect great things from the affidavits. I have
brought Itowie's letters up to town.
Mr. Hawkins An I I glee you notice that I shall want
them to-morrow morning.
W itneas Mr. Coillngridge, the priest, saw Mns. Greenwood
about this matter.

nett he suy Interest at all In the 'natter r—Yes ; to see
right done, ungl to prevent the lawyers (rum robbing the
estate. (A laugh).

Did pa think he could, as a "cautious and learned
priest, influence Mrs, Greenwoo•l —I only wanted hint to do
what he could in the Interests of truth and justice. •
Ai fur o'clock the Court again adjourned.

On Wednesday morning the trial was resumed, when Mr.
Laigeut, iii answer to Hr. Hawkins, said : The letter handed
to me Is, I Wilk, tho " test letter " the plaintiff sent to Mr.
Humans.

The letter Is addressed to '• E. Hopkins, Esq., Aires.
ford, Hants," and the postmark to the Isl. of February, lebi,
and Is as follows :
" Essex Lodge, Thornton Heath, Croydon.

My dear Friend, —You will no doubt think it strange
that I did not toll on you when at Alresford. I should have
dune so with pleasure hal I not been under a promise to
mania never to converse with anybody I knew until I had
seen her. I now know her reasons, and I am very glad I
keeped my promise. I suppose you have beard how I nave
been served by Gosford and others stmt., I have novll away.
should not have gone to Alresford, only I thought nobody
would know me, I had grown no stout ; 8.1 I thought I would
have a quiet look round. I know you and Or. Lipscombo
are old friends, no perhaps you will kindly tell him the
reavm I. did not call on him, likewise if Mama does not send
for me to meet her, most likely I will come down with Mr.
Holmes to-morrow. Hoping, Illy dear Hopkins, that the
old fri.neship that once existed between us may again be re.
mwed, and timt I may have the pleasure of again basing
your advice how to act. I suppose you remember having
heard eta Miss hollow In Ireland. Rumour only. Moping
to have the pleasure of meeting you before long, I remain,
yours faithfully, IL. C. ID. Ticutionag:.
The letter was handed to his lordship and the Jury, and
was inspected by them.

Witness continued :1 do not know of Alias Bellew. I lied
heard her name, but not in connection %nit Ireland, until
the letter.

Mr. Dawkins : Von Said in your elimination in chief on
the "teat letter," that if it was snob, letter as Roger 'rich-
borne would write, and if it should contain .1111, iILCE
biting to former days known to Mr. llopicine and Roger
Tlchborne, Mr. hopuins would see him and not otherwise.
Did this letter satisfy those condi/nuts i—lt satisited Mr.
llopkins. Ile said the letter was correct. lie noticed tile
wind 'pleasure " uccuring twice hi It. Miss Brain lint saw
the claimant in January, 1000. I hail nut before been in
communication with her. In December, In67,Carroli one of
the soldiers, came to Croydon. I do not know whether
klecaun saw him before he came. McCann was at the time
staying hi the plaiuttlEs•hoinic. Carron raoroed to his
quarters at Colchester. I had learned two or three menthe
before that Marks, Moody, and Itubluson were at Col-
ch“ter also. I had been in communication with Colonel
Swinfeu.

Ind you hear of any Kuwaiti to go down to Colchester
until a month after Carrot had seen the elaituantl- - lee;
believe before that. When we knew the men were at Col-
chester it was thought that the claimant should go there.
lie did net go until a month after he had seen Carrel. In the
Interval Carrel had been at Colchester.

Volt were emit for expressly from Winchester to go to Col-
chester watt the cluinetel:—liee I believe ta, Mr. Holmes
could not go. Rouse went with the claimant awl me. We
met at Croydon or Loudon ner.lre ,tatting. Mr. Mohacs
wrote to rue, and he said Sir huger sits quite ready to °Main
Wither evidence II I Could come up. I might have thought
Sisal Like perevy le 01h:1e:bier had been a little umleete-
letilly delayed. We started on the 2olli of January, and the
mune evening the claimant and I bitw the bullion. I delft
allow whether Carroll Cent 111 to the claimant before the
others. I think they acre altogether.

Did he nut ...lain with the piniutitt before he went in for
half an hour think not. lieiore we started from Croydon
lknew the 1141.1.114 of the 111011 we were going to see.

- -
Robinson stated that they were sent for one by one to go
into the plaintiffs ruin, and that Michael Carroll went in
gulii think that is eurre,t. I should Like to know
what the other three men sny.
Will you nu car that it tenet correct 1-1 don't think It Is.

The Lmil Chief Justice : Just sumer the question.
Wituess : 1 deut think that it was MO.
Will you swear it was not so r ; still, I believe it was
Hut So.

Mr. Hawkins; Were you there when Carroll went in l—Yea.
1 don't believe that Carroll nun there by himself for hall an
hour talking about the regime:at, and I think that the ethers
were w ith ham. The talk as about the luau and the onbiere
lu the Carbtueeri.

Were they the very things that had been talked about at
Croydon I don't know 1 never heard it. Au one made
minutes utthe conversation.

Robinson swore there were three gentlemen there, and
One of them took down what was said. This one was thin
and had stieetwoles. bid any hod) hut )uu there wear spa,
taeles

I ask you, upon your with, wiuther you did not write down
what aas said. Carrol In his tvideuee said that Mr. Maigeut,
he thought, waii the 111011110.1 Wrote down Moat NUB jail.--
(Si roll said it wad Si titten demi the next day. I have Hut
got wka, I WtoW (100 11. I have dvatroyed klt I,p
drafts. They nerd willttell iii ind/cIL They were deldrOJed
Si lieu the aslidavits were made.

The tullow irk• day you welitro Yarmouth, because litre is
a lettrr from the plaintiff /Intel the !Lull t I Jaimary,
In a hitch he 10)13 ,-, Sly near Mania—Wo came here 1.111
Colchrster today. I was very fortithate in getting four
tight:tens this mottling !tame me lot. They ii tie itiatM by
men In the all Dragoon Guards. The poor iellews is ore very
glad to tee me. 'they made their =davits very strung.'
And again: •• A hate riot heard at the gentleman I have
come to see here yet." Who was that Y.—Captain Fraser. 1
du not know if the plaintiff failed to recognise hint at the
Law litstitutiem. Idu not knew that he made at* attempt
for six months after we went to Yarmouth.
Here ia a letter of the clainiaht addressed to 'Dear
Fraser," in which he says
"Ac I was at Colchester 1 thought I would run down thus
far to see you. I have slatmy trivial Mr. /Louse with a note
to see if pm have any objection to Celtic anal ace It I um
zoselt er net. Sly friend will show you Churstoria affidavit,
nod you will see by that that he did fait know tile at brat till
he couversed with the a little. llopisig to see pm lwfure 1
start.-1 remain, yours thicerely, OIL C.l). Twine:l:NE.-

•
Did you have with you algu a bundle .4 the Castro papers?
—I du not know that 0.0 haul. Captain Fraser did m d recog-
nise the claitneut. I cannot say whether they shuuk hands.
I &lit think that Captain Fraser refused to shake hands.
Captain F racer Mid beeh r 1,. the carldneers.
ine claimant hdd We he could hut remember what Captan
Fraser asked him..

Did he aftv-rwards tell you what It was ?—A day or two
afterwards he told me it was something about a sou& box,
and I said he had better write to the captain. We went
from Yarmouth to Leeds and Bolton to see incu in this Car-
lancer.. We then went to -Freston and Liverpool.
On the 2nd of nbruary ihe plaintiil wrote from Bolton :
•• Dear Fraser, I have been thinking ever since to try and
lint or bring to my memory about what we were speaking.
Da you mean the time I gave you a silver sfildf-bos. If so, I
remember that very lien. I should like to hear from you if
that is so." Did captain Fraser answer that letter t—lie
did not. This co:dinned toy impression that he load no in-
tention of recognizing the pluhlttif.
Even if he were the right man I—lle had no Intention of
recognising him. 1 came to this conclusion from his appear.
alive and manner and behaviour. Ile thought he had better
go to the other Me with fashionable people. Mr Box her
having got hold of him first, he went to that side.
Do you impute that at the interview Captain Fraser would
Ind recognise him even if he were the light man ?—dhat was
ruy impression.

Is it to now f—lt is. I was not anxious to get a reply from
Captain Fraser Si. as to be able to show that lie recognised
him--not for that purpose.
Many other questions intervened, tiler which, Mr. Haw-
kins continued ; —ln a letter of yours I have referred to you
say, '' 1 really don't know what they are going to do in Ire'
tool, and really after the snubbing alsmt Stonyburq, I am
not inclined to take the Initiative." What .Ities that mean ',—
lather Guy asked permission for the plaintiff to go over the
place and they would nut give it. I did not apply to the
fath, rs to give evidence. I tried to "open negotiations." I
SIM lather Fit4dmon about the '2Oth Marc),, 1067. Ile had
known Roger. The ',Militia never went to niiii)hillat either
inside 00 out. 1 tioVur illilleil town). one who had been at
stonyhm,t with Roger to give inform:Won. Idu not know
that Father Fit,linon saw the plaintiff, lie declined to
see him. Ile told me he recollected Roger at ston)hurat
because he was a regular character there. 1 asked 111111 to
see the plaintiff, and he said, "I cannot have anything to
do with him." Ile said he did not recollect any conifer.
lotion with Roger, others knew him better, and they gore
forbidden to mix themselves up in law. He gave me no in-
h.rmation.

Would not the plaintiff, if be were Sir Roger, have been
the best person to give 3ou information ?-11e mentioned
Father litninoon. He did this %lieu 1 placed a list of the
fathers before him.

He never mentioned him in his examination at the Law
Institution or in court!, It shows how imperfect his memory
is, recollecting at line time and not at another. The plaintiff
mentioned other fathers, but what was the use of my inquiring
when it was contrary to their regulations to give any Mild.-
mutton.

What does the "snubbing " refer to?—The refusal to let
us into stonyburst. 1 don't know more particularly what it
meant. I can not say whether the plaintiff snubbed me when
I wished him to go to atonyhurst.

When you urged him to go to Stonyhurst did he tell you
to mind your own business don't know, lie was Just this
man to use those words, lie said, "I am Sir Roger, and
don't mire a !A laugh.)

That Is just like Sir Roger? -Yes ; I never knew a Tick-
borne but could swear well.
Then why did he go to Yarmouth, Colchester, Leeds, and
Preston ?—At his solicitor's request. I did not know that
Mr. Holmes wanted him to go to Stonyhurst.

Did you not urge hiin to go to Sionyhtirst, and did he
not alisolute.y retest, don't know; there was no inten-
tion of going without pennissiou. I don't think I pressed
him to go without permilision.

then, what were on snubbed about ?—I have told you
again and again, I dou't recollect.

Was there a proposition by Mr. Holmes in March to go tco
Stony tarot 'e
—To go to the North : perhaps, to Stonyhurst.
Here is a letter of yours, in which you my,—' Ile (Mr.
1101i5.10 now sos that he will go with Sir Roger himself to
Stonyhunt 7"— Yes. I don't know that when at Preston I
urged the plaintiff to go to Stony burst.

la a letter read yesterday, the plaintiff, it appear!, was
advised to go to Paris as well as ellnr places. Did he go?—
No. I did not urge him to go. I did not know myself that
there were people th,re who could recognize him. I never
asked him whom he would refer to in Paris. I never
troubled myself about it. I know John Wyatt rater, of
Peutenville, baker. Ile had known the plaintiff in A ustralls.
did not draw his affidavit. I never saw it until it was in
print. Ido not know that it was shown about to persuade
people that the plaintiff was n“t. Arthur Orton.

_
Ile says—"l lived in the town of Wagga-wagga. New
South Woks, during the year Isiiriand until May, twin, when
I left to return to England. During the time Ino resided at
Wagga-Wagga I carried on business nail baker, and there
knew, and was perfectly well acquainted with the above-
named plaintiff, who was the passing by the name of Tom
Castro. I served him with bread daily for twelve months,
lie was during the greater part if the time employed as
manager •rty Richard Iliggins, who then carried on business
there as a butcher and hotel keeper and in the same employ
at tile sate: time there wan another man whom I well knew by
the name of Artintr orton, and whose face was pitted with
the small-pos. Since my return to England I have frequently
seen and conversed with the above-named plaintiff, and I
say he is the genie person whom I knew under the name of
Tom Castro in Wagga Vagga no aforesaid, and another and
totally different person from the said Arthur Orton." Cater
has left this co nn tryl yes, he left 15 or In months age Sir
Roger tried to get hint to stay to give evidence, and offered
him somuch a month to do so. Ile was wanted to give hie
evidence in court.

To prove the statements in Ids affidavit 7—There was an
over statement in his affidavit.

yon not know that all Cater could prove was that the
plaintiff was the same person as he who was called t'astro
Watnfa Wazga?—t do not know that. I suppose he was
to he called to prove that the plaintiff 1,11.3 not Arthur
Orton.

Did you not know that the affidavit was alaolntrly untrue
In its statement as to Arthur Orton I—All that I know Is from
• letter of Caters, in which Ito says he thought he was
wrong In mentioning Arthur Orton, for all he knew was that
the other name was ealled " Arthur" or " Arty.-

Ind you not know before Cater went away that the state-
ment was absolutely untrue in the affidavit? -Only that he
was not aware of the surname. Cater nor the plaintiff ever
told me there was a person at Waage Wagga named }Meld.
Ohl you heir from Cater that the person he had caned
Arthur Orton was Meld Y—certainly not.
flit lint he tell you that the plaintiff had himself Ilrst
mentioned the name of Arthur Orton ?—No, I only anew
what I saw In Mr. Holmes's letter.

A great number of questions followed in connection with !
tater a affidavit, after which Mr. Hawking wahine.'
now go to another point. Mr. Holmes wrote to Sir Rouse
the 11th March. 1867, " SS ill you be good enough to ob-
tain from the gentleman a description of the supposed
mark, awl then let as know Ids name and address. It is
perfectly r 'reset that Rir Roger Ints a mark tin his shle,"
Who was the sentient:in ?- I tian't know. I hail. berth,
what that mark was The mark upon tile ',UMW( eat the
lirown k upon his Bid°.
Ni filch Ids mother did tiot recolh;et, but still sahl he might
have? I don't know of any other mark or sear tile idaintiff
has There was he scar on the I lark of the head. I heard
that very early. Mr. Holmes raid chathl in said that Royal
had a scar on the back of the head front a fall ~/1 the rocks,
and when the limber came I, • af it I cannot say
whether I saw it. I bail never bet - ...rd of it.
Von knew at that tittle that be loot seen Chatlllon ?
Holmes told me sw I did not hear that the plaintiff de-
clined to have another interview with him, though thatillon
desired it. I have heard of Mr. Heysham. I never saw
his forte spelt Asham. Roger often spelt names strongly.
Roger Tlebborne was a distant connection of Mr. Heysham.

_
The plaintiff wrote—.• I met a gentleman the other day,
who chaffed me about my examination. I asked him where
lie had seen it, MIA found that Ashain had lent it to Ion"
Was that just like Roger to spell Ile) sham as Asham es,
I was not aurprised Roger dill not spell itomes correctly. lle
put a final "e" to his colonel's mime when it should not hat e
been there.
The visit to Mr. T. Constable was the subject of the cross-
examination until four o'clock, when the Court again
adjourned.
- - •

11'01011A to the rictus of the (Joint in answer to bin lord-
ship, It was said that the plaintiff's ease would probably last
until Christmas ere.
[Our space precludes us from Owing more tham the
foregoing outline of Mr. Maigent a cross-examination.]