The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-06-28 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

The case was resumed on Monday, the forty-third
day of the trial, before the Lord Chief justice of
England and Justices Mellor and Lush.
Humour* being rife that the CI dinant had met with
a eerioue accident at Leeds, there was a contiderable
muster 14 persons at Wmtmineter Hall awaiting his arri-
val. It was said that he was much hurt, and that an ap-
plication would be made for an adjournment. The
Claimant's snug little one-horse brougham, however,
turned into Palace-yard with more than usual punctu-
ality at twenty minutes to eleven. On alighting, it
was obvious he was extremely lame, and as he entered
the court he limped very much with his left leg.

Mr. Vincent Gusford re-appeared in the witness-box, and.
Mr Hawkine, by permission of the bench, put some ad-
ditional questions. In reply to ir terrogations, the witness
I never In my life gave Roger Cichborne • watch.
I gave full detail, about that watch to Mr. Dobinson. A
common strong silver watch was ordered for Roger
Tichborne before he sailed, and It was sent out by
Glyes as his agent. Nothing was stated at the "Grosvenor"
Hotel about my leaving him at Southamptnn. As reglad*
my attempt at the hiendlicati a of the d.fendant, my con.
cluston is not mere matter of opinion, it la posttlye con.
victh.n. I have in my mind's rye the apoearance of Roger
'Claiborne as he was when he left England lam con-
vinced this maul. not Roar Tichhonie. from the isi.orance
he betrayed I everything Roger Ilehhorne knew. At the
law Institution I heart every question put to him by Mr.
Chapman Barber, and uothing could have proved more
clearly to me that be wee not Boger •flehb ,rue. I could go
through the feateres of the defendat.t from head to foot,
ant point out the difference in the two men. The aecent
et the defentant was low and vulgar, while that of Roger
Tichhorue was a!ways that of a gentleman, but Ala accent
was French. There is or more r.temblance between the
voice of the defendant and that of Rorer Tichhorne than
between my vol,e and th.t of a giggling Oa (Laughter )
it Is physically imposable that the fore, of Roger Claiborne
could ever have developed into a frame like that of the de-
fendant. When Roger Ttrhhorne went away he wee not
tall, than when he entered the army, but tie had • batter
canting, He looked like a man upon wham no amount of
feeding wend have much elf xt. To the very last the
accent was mach tile same. He never could prouounce the
letters th The upp at pert of the face is the only
part that bears any resemblance, but Roger Itch.
borne had a flat forehead, while that .f the defendant
Is round I have noticed the face of the defeillant, espe.
delis as he has often turned round to Dr. K wieldy to suggest
questious, and I have distinguished the ilidarence of hie face
from that of Roger Ticoberee There WWI no ectientricity
abut Roger Tichbottie which would lead to the supposition
ot his remaining away so long in Australia You have heard
the letters of Roger lichhorne from Smith America uo to
within a ehort time 4 his being tort. Besides, he hail E 1,060
a year. 11. was never atisent a day In his rife sailfeatt,hrs
parents knowing it. From the hour lacked the defendant
the Oontents of the sealed packet on June 6, at the Grose. nit
Hotel, until after he ascertained that I hod derri yed the
packet, a o attempt to glee me the contents was made by hire
or anybady connected with him.
The Lord Chief Justice said that Roeer's letters from the
time be left Btonyherst and went ois board the Bells fully
ace-muted for every week 01 Ma time.
_ . . . _

--5ir;76714;:c1-.1;a1 then rro,.-enamfnei by Mr [(mealy,
who drat elicited that be had been e due sted at Ssonyhurat,
hat been Intended origli aly bar the pile th l, only he had
no vocation for it, and that then he was 'levelled for
the legal profestion, tut gave it up fr.,m an Intense (Wilke
to It. lie was that employed as a lattd agent, he colt, by
Sir E. I) teddy, and he revs:red the rents of the estates
during Me time and Sir James Tienborne's, tel af'er his
death, under the Matinee, until 1865. He WWI then asked as
to the deficiencies Ia his ase dints with the trustees no to the
rents, and he gave explanations, the effect of width war thus
stated by Mr. J tetlce Lush—that air Goateed had paid the
rents into Mr Bulpit's bark, and having given a guarantee,
with security, he had drawn against it and had overdrawn
and then the guarantee being withdrawn, and pressers put
upon him by the hanker, he found himself suddenly in debt
to the t tutees. The Jury again an, again intimated, es did
the Jo tees, that the explanation was tint! e clear
Mr .Ittstlee Mellor observed that the queetl en as to these
accouute was quite irrevalent to the present action, except
so far as related to the conduct of Mr. (Studded.
He was then reeked as to hie statement that he had no in.
terest in the proceedings, and was then reminded of the
amount of his delicienciee, and of the legacy of 1.500 which
he had taken und-r Roger Tiehhorne's wild As to the
legacy he said the defendant had had the ins dance to scenes
him if "appropriating' the amount of his legacy, whi it, he
said ho had not received until 1564—ten year. after Roger
Tlehrornes death—and then under the order of thc C net of
Chancery. As to the d tielenclers In his accounts, be said he
had men up all he had to the attorneys of the trustee., who
had coi.eurred in the transaction.

The Lore Chief Justice oraerved that the liability would be
the lime whoever might be the owner of the estate
Mr henealy Oh, ye.: assuming the transaction was
bond fide • but our case is that it was not so.
'he Lord Chief Justice onserved that there wu no founda-
tion for such an imputation, and it ought not to have been
made.
Mr Justice Mellor made, similar observation.
Mr. Gosford was then cross-examined as to a suggestion
that he had some oihr name than Vincent Gosford, and had
been written to by Roger rlchborne under some other tia 11e.
and Its was challensed to produce the envelopes, which,
however, he said he had deitroyed and he positively de.
cared that Roger never addressed him by any other names
than those he now acknowledged. The litters being alluded
so.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, with much emphasis,
that he had never known two handwritings more charac-
teristic than the letters of Roger Tichborne prior to and
after the appearance of the defendant. Having seen ail the
letters prior to the embarkation on board the Bella, he
could truly say that it was the most chasacteristio writing
he had ever known. There were peculiar circumstances
which distinguished it from any other writing he had ever
. .

Gosford.. cross-exemination wito then directed to the
circumstance. &teen,' ant on the employment of Mr. Hopkins
and the making of Roger's will. He said Hopkins was Mr.
J. Tichborne's attorney, but Mr Tichborne afterwards ap-
pointed Mr. Slaughter his solicitor, and Mr. Hopkins bad •
violent quarrel with Mr Slaughter, and got much the worst
of it. Mr. Gosford stated that he was Sir James fichborne's
executor, and he had always been on terms of friendship
with L ,dy Doughty. Asked as to a plumage in one of Rag,'.
letters—January, 1850—" Write me regularly as to what is
going on at Itches vile," he said this related to the young men's
natural anxiety to know what was going on about his c lusts.
A-iced an to his answers to It nrer's letters, he said lb it they
were found in a desk of It 'ger's and were still in existence.
Asked as to whether he ha I communicated to Lady D,ughty
the c intents of Rogrr's letters, he said, " Certainly nor."
He was &eked whet, Roger first thought of g ring Upton to
Miss Doughty, and he said in 1819. He was &Aced whether
Roger had not always had • crude idea of his power of giving
Upton to anyone he piea-ed, aui he said he did not Dank
so. Ile certainly had spoken in 1849 about giving Upton to
his cousin, and he was asked if this did not show that R iger
had an Idea he had the power of giving Upton, and
he said "No, not at the time he only spoke with
reference to future intentions. His intention was that
if Upton fell in hand while he was abroad his
Cousin should have it to live in." Mr Gosford here oh'
Weed that Roger Tichborne had never called her "his
Cousin Kate,' as the defendant had done He always
ealled her " his cousin" "or Katty :" never "My
cousin Kate," Asked as to a letter of Roger's—No-
vember, 1850—There are several subjecta I wish to
to speak to yon num, which it would be difficult t explsin
upontaper," he said he thought three subjects related
to the disposition of his prope•ty by will. Ile said that
It err formed his Intentions for Memel( and well under-
et od them but the will was then in the future. (It
w I not made till 1862.1 Asked as to • passage in Roger's
he ter of the 4-h of Fehruary, 1851, "1 shall write to
Slaughter about that which I spoke to about the last elm. I
was at Udtao " Mr. Gosford said It relate Ito particulars of
tho property he desired to have, with • view to his disooal•
ti de of the property by will. (It was pointed out that Mr.
,ushter had writ..en a long 1-tier explaining the properly
It was elicited from Mr. °milord that Roger nail desired him
to keep his will secret:
, . . . . . _

nte-Viel Cnlef itirifee observed that Roger's object and
that of his uncle and father were quite opposed. iheir view
w a to keep the Doughty at d Tichborne estate, together.
wi.ile he desired to divide them. Nothing, therefore coed
have been more distasteful to them than his will, and this
would account for its being kept a secret.
Goeford went on to mention that Roger's father wished
hint to marry another young lady. Asked If he had ever
hard Riser speak of a Mia Bellew, he a AI certailly, and
he "altered sho had been at Tichborne. Ile knew from ilmrer
ti at he knew her family wed, and he remembered Lord and
iy I chew were there in 1801 this was with refer.
enae to a sent' nee In a letter of the defendant to
Hopkins, You remember Miss Bellew?'" Asked if Sir
James Tichborne's wishes had not reference to Nfiss
Hence', he said they had not. Ho wa., quite sure, he
said, Sir James had never alluded to Mks Bellew In any
fetter of his to him. Asked as to something Roger said Lady
Donahly had alleged against him, Mr. Onsford said he
bell veil alluded to hi, propensity to smoking and drinking
too iinch strong " military " For. The altos./ was being
ask• d as to Lady D ,ughty's id' without Roger, when a letter
marked " Imme ate" was ha.di, d to the witness, who, on
opening It, hand,d It to the Lor I Chief Julie,.
The Lord (lief Justice, on looking at it, said it was • most
Improper attempt to Intimidate the witness, and he wished
he hat the writer of It before him ; he would teach him •
lesson.

ii-r-.Hoeford said he had received other similar letters, but
they had no effect upon him.
Ito was then asked as to Itlger's acquaintance with a Miss
on which
Mr dustups observed that if this meant Miss Hales, of
Canterbury, ea to whom the defendant had sworn that he
used to call at her house on Sunday, when he wax mug:th-
in...UV soldiers to chapel, one of the charm of perjury
to Ws statement& me to that lady.