The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-13 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

At the Central Criminal Court, in London, on Mon-
day, the Deputy Reaorder, in his charge to the Grand
Jury, in alluding to the Tichborne case, proceeded to
say that he found from the calendar that a gentleman
named Thomas Castro, otherwise Roger Charles
Doughty Tichborne, baronet—names familiar to them
all—was to be charged with wilful and corrupt
perjury. He had not been examined before a
magistrate, and no depositions had been returned
to the Court ; nor did the Deputy Recorder
know what the particular charge of perjury might
be that was; to be preferred against the prisoner.
Speaking quite genera ly, he would say that, suppos-
ing, for instance, the prisoner should be charged with
perjury in swearing that he was Sir Roger Tichborne,
the Grand Jury would have to be satisfied of that by
sufficient evidence before they could find a bill, and in
that case a minute investigation of the charge would
afterwards be instituted before a petty jury. So
again, if he should be charged upon any other assign-
ment with having sworn to some individual cir-
cumstance which was untrue, all they would have
to trouble themselves with would beto see that they
had prisel facie evidence that the circumstance was
untrue before they found a bill, leaving the matter to
be fought out by another jury, and probably in
another court. Further than that he could not assist the
Grand Jury, because lie did not know what the parti-
cular form I 1 the indictment might be. He under-
stood, though he had no positive information on the
subject, that an indictment for forgery was to be pre-
ferred against the prisoner in relation to the bonds
that were issued. He might, however, say that if a
man issued a bond in a name which was not his own,
and if in this case it was in the name of a person who
did not exist, that would be sufficient. The al-
leged perjury was that a name had been assumed
—the name of a man who was supposed to have
been drowned many years ago; and the Deputy
Recorder need hardly say, if a person hustled a bond
in the name of another who (lid not exist, and
mistimed that name tn. be his ewn, that would be
forgery. It was the milking a false instrument, and it
did not at all matter that any credit was given to him
under the belief that he himself was the partieular in-
dividual. It was just as much forgery as if a name
was assumed, because the whole value of the bond de-
pended on his being the person he professed to be.
Therefore, seipposing an indietnaent should be preferred,
there would be nodiffieulty at all in point of law. It was
undoubtedly a forgery if he was believed to be the per-
son he represented himself to be.
Later in the day, Mr. Montagu Williams, addressing
the Bench, said he had been retained to conduct the
defence, and had to complain that, although the defend-
ant had been confined in Newgate nearly five weeks,
and was still there, no intimation had been conveyed
to him by the law officers of the Crown as to the
charges he would have to answer, nor had he received
any copy of the indictment. He had to ask the Court
to order that a copy of the indictment should be
furnished to the prisoner in Common fairness, so that
he mi,ght know, without further delay, the charges he
would have to meet. Up to that day he was entirely
ignorant whether or no an indictment was to be pre-
ferred agaimet him at the present Sessions. It might
be the defendant was not ready to take his trial, and
should an application be made to reduce the amount of
bail it would probably be resisted on that ground; but
it was impossible for him to prepare for his trial until
he was apprised of the charges to be preferred against
him. The Crown had now had nearly five weeks to
prepare an indictment, and the prisoner had not even
had a copy of the depositions. He asked that the
Crown should be called on to furnish him, in common
justice, with the charges he had to meet and with a
copy of the indictment.
The Deputy Recordersaid no bill had been preferred
--"'-^-os replied that might be;
•-• to have notice

yet.
Mr. Montagn Williams replied that might be; but
he still urged that the prisoner ought to have notice
from the Crown as to the charges he had to answer, for,
without that, he might be detained in custody on the
assumption that he was not prepared to take his trial.
He had thought the Deputy Recorder would have had
something definite before him upon which to enable
him to charge the Grand Jury; but, instead of that,
he could only refer to the case as it appeared in the
Calendar.

The Deputy Recorder said the prisoner had been
committed after a long trial before the Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, and there was a common rumour
that the Law Officers of the Crown were about to pro-
secute He might assume they would go before the
Grand Jury at these present Sessions, and he had been
told that they would do so on Tuesday. He had so
far only been able to tell the Grand jury that "the
Claimant," as he was called, had been committed for
perjury, but what the specific charges were he had been
unable to say.

Mr. Williams saki all that waa known by him as
counsel tor the defence was that the pritoner was in
Newgale, and that he had been furnished with no
particulars a 4 to the charges. He would renew the
application on the following day.
• •

The subject was then allowed to drop.