The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-05-17 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.

The Tim., of Saturday gives the following short resmitO
of the previous fiev's proceedings
•••• • • •

The reading of the uinth -and tenth days' oross.ex-
amination ot the defendant was proceeded with7eater-
day. For the most part it related to recoil. ctions of
matters which were auggested to have occurred in the
youth or childhood of Roger Tichborne, as, for instance,
the intercourse with his aunts and cousins in early
years, and his visits to various placeein those year., and
as far back as 18-16 or 1847. Ile was asked et pecially as
to Knoyle, the seat of his maternal grandfather, but he
did not recollect that he was there after 1817, and
' then only for a short visit, and he cvuld not recollect
the appearance of the Owe when shown a photograph
of it. He had, indeed, gone to see his grandfather
later—not long before his death in 1849 -when he was
ill, but thee it turned out that he was wrong In
imagining it was at Knoyle, ea the gentleman lay ill at
another place—at Bath. Asked if he shot at Knoyle,
he said tie "might have shot," but had not "a regular
day's shooting "there ; and then he was taxed with •
letter of Roger's, dated at Knoyle in 1848, in which he
wrote :—" I went out shooting several times (not
saying on the grounds of Knoyle), but the birds
are so very wild in this country that I have
not been able to kill anything." He was then
challenged with a letter of hie to Mr. Henry
Seymour (his uncle), in 1867, containing this
passage :—" I am very glad you are a member for
Poole. I suppose you remember the time they wanted
me to stand for it." He was asked if he had stood for
Poole, to which he replied no, but that he was re-
quested to stand when he was at Poole in the latter
part of 1852. It was "a paper signed by many of the
inhabitants." He was shown a letter of Roger's (which
it did not appear he had seen) written in July, 1852,
from which it appeared that be had been down
to Poole at the request of Mr. Seymour, to
help him in his election, and that he had
been there, and had begun to canvass for him,
but to no purpose. Premed as to whether it was
true that he had been asked to stand for the place, he
persisted that it was, and that it was some months
later. He was asked a good deal about 'the butler's
room" at Knoyle, but could not recollect about it.
Asked how moon after he left Stooyhurat he began to
prepare for his examination, he said a few months, and
that he spent his tune while preparing for it chiefly at
Mr. Seymour's, in Grosvenor street, He had a tutor
—a professor—he said, and Colonel George Green-
wood helped him, and from true to time be saw
a good deal of hiea--generally down in Hampshire
at Tichborne or Brookwood, Colonel Greenwood's
seat. He could not recollect the name of his tutor,
and wan shown a letter of Reger's written in Sept.,
1849, which mentior ed that the tutor was a Mr.
Maberley, at Owahury, a few miles from Tichborne.
Asked who went down with hint to his examination at
Sandhuret, he paid Colonel Greenwood. In the next
day's examination, the 10th, he was asked s good deal
as to information obtained from private soldiers of
Roger's regiment on military matters. He was
asked also as to the letters of Roger to his
mother which came into the possession of the
defendant on her death, and were by him
deposited in the Court of Chancery. Then he
was asked a great many questions to test his know-
ledge of military or private matters which had occurred
in Ireland, and especially in Dublin. Asked if during
the time he wrote to the Doughtys, he said he did not
remember, but that he should think that probably he
did. Asked to explain the purport of the arrange-
ments as to the settlements, he raid he could not do so
beyond this—that the object was to raise £lOO,OOO
Asked as to a letter of Roger about altering hie will,
be said he did not remember it. These were the
principal points in the two days' cross examination
read to-day, which presented very little, if any, in-
terest.

The Times of Tuesday gives the following condensed
report of Monday's proceedings :

The 11th and 12th days' crosaexaminsUon of the defond ant
was read, anti to a grtat extont related to the Orton Case,
which was not gone Into at the forma trial, but which is
now part of the case for the prosecetion
"Vu left this eoul.try," said the Attornsy-Get coal,
"Under the name of Roger Tichborne, dna yo a re-appeared
in Australia when you lied communicated with lady Itch
horns as Thomas Cotro." To this the deUndant
assente 1, and he was thea asked how long hi went
under the name of Pllchborne. He answered, "Tilt the time
I entered the c dony —on my arrival in Aostral.."
Asked as to hie having borne other names there, he said
he had gone under the name et Morgan, but no other
name ezeept Castro. Ile swore that he never bad gone
under any other name. Asked as to the names and places
where he had net Arthur Orton. he said at Solaria& in
1556 and at Darirei, where he said they met "off and on"
tor IS months. Then he met hint in IBP6 at Strattorlon•
the-Avou, in Gippslasnd, and was with him constantly up to
the latter end of iSlit. They then creased the mountains
to Victoria, and after that, at the end of 1861 or the beg:neing
of I -62, they met ate place called Brorce, no the Menumbridge
river ; end they then went together to Wagga Wagga In 1862,
where he saw him at dlierent times. Ile eid not, he said,
see hies again until 1500, end left him there when he left
the place in June that year. Orton, he sat I, had up to that
time gone by his own name, bat was tr.en going by the name
of Alfred Smith. Asked LI he had sin, written to him, he
sal the had, and that he had written to him by the name of
Alfred Smith, care of • friend named Robin., at Wagga Wagga
—that was In It IPS " W hat induced you to write to Arthue
Orton ?-1 wrote to him to come over here and! would pay hie
expenses. Old-you get any answer—No. Do you know why
Arthur Oran went by the name of Alfred Smith f—Yes, I do.
Why 7-1 suppose because he had done something which did
not conform to the law. What was It he did contrary to law P
—I don't think haven right to say what he told me in con-
fidence, and as it might affect his character, It Is on Arthur
Ortolis account you object P—Entire ly. Are you yourself
Arthur Orton P—No, tam not." This Is one of the assign-
manta of perjury.

- -
It was then put to him that he had left this country in 1848
In the and reached Valpar•Do in 1511 that he da-
wned hie shin and went to Melllpilla ; that he left thie
country In 1852 In the ship Middleton for Hobart Town, and
that he stayed In yen Inemen's Land from 18.52 to 1854, and
then went to Melbourne that be left Hobart Town in
1055 for e place called Newburn Park, In Dippisland, and
from then to 1856 was In the service of a Mr.
Johnson there : all which he denied, declaring he was
never in Van Diemen's Land in Ma life. It We. put to him
Diet in IK6 he was eta place called Sale am Arthur Orton.
He admitted being there, but fleeted that name. It was
pu: to him that in December, 15 16, he was ensued by Mr.
Foster at Boisdale stati Gippsland, and remained in his
service until October, 1818, which he denied. it was put
to hint that he wee In 1859 ostler at an inn at Sale, which
he denied and that In WO he was at Deniligain, and that
there, having up to that time gone by the Mime of I orlon,
he assumed the name of Castro, which he also denied, and
declared that from the first he had taken the name of
Castro, Ile was examined on the corte,pondence with
Castro at 811,11011 a, which has been already printed, and In
which, writing to Cadre in 1857 by the name of Tichborne,
he recalled a visit to that place "13 years ago," to which
Cutro's son replied, saying he was well remembered there,
and that a friend hail out oil • lock of ble hair, whi,th, at the
request of hi. attorney. Mr. Delo.; was cent to him, and
acknowledged by him as " identical with his own."
This was now prAnced, and though Mr. Kenealy objected
to it as not haring been proved, the Judges thought it W.B
adroissable as part of the cross-examination of the defendant.
He was teen asked whether It wee hi., and he denied it.
He was then asked now It was, then, that he had acknow-
ledged it, and he said he presumed it was his, and
had not examined It. Ho you think it was yours ?—No,
because I have read the evidence, and find It was not mine.
You find that it was cut from the head of Arthur f irtm, don't
yon? —Yee, I do. What dbl Mr. Holm,' mean by saying it
was of considarable importance, because it wee identically
the came as your hair:— mimeo le no doubt he believed It was
my heir Did you eay a word to him to lead him to doeht
Ill—Yen, 1 did. I told him that unholy had ever out a lock
I of my halt In Chill. Witt n did you tell him that ? When he
received the letter from Castro—the letter that mention,
the hair, Attend You wrote—. I wish yea to beg her to
stud me a pardon of the lock of my hair ?-1 woo advised to
write that letter. Who Icy i—By kir. Holum. Do you mean
to say that when Mr. Holmes advised you to write that
letter you het told hlin that nobody had ever cut any hair
off your bead :—Yee, I had. That MI 111.8/01—That Tex.,
And at the time he wrote that 'the look Is of considerable
! Importance,' bemire it woe b'enticeily the lame with your
hair, he knew that some hair had been cut off ?—C,rtalnly,
he knew It In the fleet instance, when that letter first
arrived."

Be was next challenged with the letter of Mr, Holmes:—
"I have learnt that Arthur Orton won at Hobart Town in
1853 and 1851 Ile went to Anatralla In the Middleton in
November, 1852, and remained there until 1t356. Sly agents
in Melbourne have followed his track by means of a cousfn
of his residing in that Coon" (who Mr Hawkins Meted ear
Mrs. Marla .Ittry, and Is to be called for the prosecntion)
" (morn whom he borrowed some money, copy of the receipt
for which, as also his letter, are now In my poseeaslon." He
stated that his agent. at Melbourne were Measrs. Solgefieid
and Alport. " Followed hit track by means of a cousin of his
melding in that town : did you know where they had followed
him to?—No, I did not think no I do not remember
It Do you not know what the track of orton was they
possessed in Australia Yon gave us his tear*,
was that the track you furnirhed them with 7-1 gave it
to my solicitor." fie was then shown two doe-intents—
receipt, and a letter, which he rev gnixott as written by
Orton. ' Now, upon your oath, did you write those?—
Upon my oath I did not. How come Mr. Holmes by a
receipt and letter of Arthur Orton's Ito m a cousin of hi,?
110 not see how 1 Sill answer that. Yon have no ide
—I have no idea how he I.ot them °Meta he got them from
his a rent. But how Come he to go ton cousin 9—l really r:o
not know," lie was then challenged with a passage In ene
of Crattria's letters as to his having borne the name of Ortan,
and he referred to his letter in reply—" I hal never reseed
tinder the name of Orton either at Chill IC any other place."
Be was then challenged with his affidavit of June, 1868--" I
knew Arthur Orton : he was the eon of a butcherat Wapping:
I fires beerame aeonainted with him in topolaud futons 1855,
when I was at Dargo Station. lie eotared the em,loy-
meet of Mr. Foster att., r I slid. His face waa pitted
with the smallrpox. After I left I:appal/not I did not see
him again for come )earn. We were both employed by
Mr. Macho. at Wegße wage& in le6i " U was then
quest' trspecting Castro's letter of the 16th of
duly. 1868 that he had borne the name of Orion, and he was
asked whether he did not know this was salt by his friends
in Chili when he restated a conirniesion to Chill, and he
answered that he believed he did cot know it—that is, that
IS wag said by his Mends : for what Castro said IVA* mtg.
Setae& he said, by his ofrponents and he referred to a letter
of Castro:—. An agent has come over to Niellpllla on be-
half of your opponents, and he has endeavoured to make
out that you are au impoator," lie was then chat.
lensed with the letter of April, 18E5, written in his
name of Castro to one Richardson, of Wapping, to in-
quire about the Orton,. Asked why he wrote, he said
he wanted to know where Orton wns. " Wan there
anything at that time interesting or Important to Orton
that you wished to communicate 7—Yea, there was. What
was that I—l deellne to answer. Why might have
a tendency to criminate me" And again,—"U you wrote
to Arthur Orion, what %WM it about ,—I must decline
anawering tho question. Oa what ermine '—The game
as before You are not Arthur (Mph ?—Certalrly not.
Then the wieri,ou I am shout to wk you has no rele-
arn to you. Wee he ever accumei of horee-atorilino
I do te t see e by I sire ntri ',rawer that question. Why
natl.—We/1, yes : was accused of horse-lA.lonm. Wes
it In 1659 or lee° h—lt might have been In that year. Now,
on your oath, did you not en by the name of Arthur
Orton until 1853, and then cheep. your name to Cmoro ?
my c,55, I lit rut I never went try the nem,. f Orton at nil, In .Y9hr effidevi, you w.f. wi're
troth
employed by MY. lit-ran, in 1865 at Wimp) Vi'aggri ' What,
then, was the meaning of the letter of /twit, 1865, as to
Mollies Inc Orton It is a mistake in the year it tenet
be 18'16. Met is, that he waste Mr. Hi/vines emidnyment
in 1886 Yon end Orton were In his emplot ment together,
wore you not t—Yoi, l was Mill there. Yen were nih
rho re whin Orton comet—Well, no. I do not ought to
ban sact that I wan In his employment then; I was Dot

—Were yen and Orton fellow.eervants t—Nest at all. Never
—Never. What did you mean by saying In your affi-
davit that you and he were In Higgines service In 8851—
In my affidavit at that time, if I had thought of It, I might
have known he had left just previous. Were you both em-
ployed by Higgins in 18'61—Really, I cannot answer for
dates. What made you swami it r—Beeause I was under
the tmpression that it WP. so You had left Arthur Orton
alive and well in Wagga Wagga when you started for England
in 18661—Yr.. Was be tel:Daining there I—No, he was not he
was going back to Albany. Mr. Holmes says in his lettiv :
—' My agents at Melbourne have followed his track, &e.
The document, he mrintlons are dated 1855. If you had
lett him alive and well at W awls Wagga In 1865, what
was the use of going on his track 11 years before—l do
not understand. You knew where he was in June, 1866/
Yes Why do you begin tracing him back eleven years be-
fore 1-1 do not know where he commenced tracing him
from. You wanted to fin him, and knew him to be in
June, 1866, at Wagga Wages. Why did yon go hack to
Hobart Town In 1855 to search after him'—? do not know
that It was done for that purpose There to no doubt that
Mr. Holmes wanted to IMO out where he had been from time
to 'tree to prove our different existence: Te prove your
dill-rent existence I—That is most undoubtedly what it was.
That Is what he Arm In 1855 for?-1 should Imagine he had no
other reason. At all events, Mr. Holmes was perfectly aware
at that time—from you—that in 1866 you left Orton alive at
Wags, Wagca—l believe so And that he was going to
Albaby I—l do not know. You very probably told him ?—Very
probable. You knew it from Orton I—Yes. And Mr. Holmes
wanted to Mel Orton I—Yes " Hew.. then pressed a great
deal as to the stay at Melipilla, and It was suggested that he
had been a long while in Chill as Orton, which he dented.
Asked if hi had ever heard of any person there using the
name of Orton, he said, " No ." and that it was the year
previone (i r ,previous 10 1854) he was there.

The hearing of the case was resumed on Tuosday
morning, the only two judges present being the Load
Chiafg,Jusa ice and Mr. Justice Mellor. Shortly before
the sitting of the court each of the jurors was supplied
with an air cushion, an article of comfort which they
*eked some days ago might be furnished to them.
Mr. Cockburn continued his reading of the cross-
examination of the claimant on the previous trial,
commencing at the twenty•elghth day of rite proceed.
lugs. It related entirely to the career of Arthur Orion.

The hearing of the case was resumed on Wednesday
morning, the only judges upon the bench being the
Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Mellor. Mr.
Cockburn continued his reading of the shorthand
writers' notes of the croise-examination of the Claimant.
The principal points deposed to were a denial by ;:he
witnesa that some incidents said to have occurred in
the case of Arthur Orton, in connection with his
voyage to South America, were applicable to the wa-
ttage.