The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-01-24 00:00:00

o
ellluns
mull lave

tie Is Arthur Orton the Marks
every rwildve to remiNflaiir
actical to do it, aniii I summit to
Pan pin believe him when be Sakes in
-its evidence, "I can't tell you how It came, sad I did not
know I had got it until my arm wail searched tor tattoo
mares? Ile, however, gives a wild suggestion, by say.
Mg that his arm was broken, that it was a long time
In splints, and that n must have been during that time
the scar came. These IA no evidence that his arm has
been broken, and his medical gentleman, Sir W. Ferguson,
add that if it had been broken II was muvellouely woil
mended. If he did not do it, and for the purpose I suggest,
can you believe he could iv k tell you how the mark Cams
After inviting-the lazy to &comparison of the defendant's ar d
Anhui. Ortoo's handwriting and spelling the learned coulee!
said : I must call your attention to the absence of some
person. still in existence, who are well, and who might too
have been put Into the wituse. box, but who have not
been brought before yell—vie., Ccarles Orton, Moe Jury, and
Tredgett I make no complaint of Charles Orton's
absence, became in the teeth of that which *Mears in Me.
11«lmeee 1.1,er that the defendant is not hi. brother, his
evidehce would be comparatively useless In him. lies the
other hand, although It has been said I ought to call him,
it sums to me a very gib urd suggestion that I ought to do
anything of the sort. iii the part of the Crown it ism,
bounden duty not to rut before you the tenth., my of a per.
son who I think wool I Oa you testimony upon which yeci
could not pl ice reliance. Why should I put before you
Charles (Won to tell yorrthat this PVill in Lis br,ther Arthur
when I know he has told a totally different statement?
Could 1 In cammon fairness call upon you to act upon the
testimony of a man who at one time has said one thing and
at another time another thug? It is different with the
sisters. I was surprised, butt have Once heard so much
that lam like 0' d lis.le. surprised rat nothing Caught.' I
deny, as it has be* falsely suggested, that the Orton sisters
have been tampered with. it is a foul cod a wicked in
einuatlon, and those who told the defendant's counsel to
make It to:d him what they knew to be untrue. They
never ceued to be the defendant's adherent. down to
1,71, and why should I call them? The defendant shou'd
have done it. '1 bey were brought into court on the first trial
by the detendant, slid If they had been called again you
would have seen We strong family Ilka sus spoken to by
various *amens. They could have told you whether In
thilr judgment the defendant is their orother. Why should
be have hesitated to put them into the box If they
could upon their oath state that he is not their brother I
The only reason that can be assigned for their being kept
back Is that they would at once have put an end to the
cute. They could have told you if the defendant is their
brother, and what has become of Edmund, Thomas, and
Robert They could have placed the matter beyond doubt.
I challenged their production, but the defendant's counsel
did not dare to put them tube the box, not because
they had been tampered with, but becanse they would
have proved the defendant to be Arthur Ortou. The
learned counsel also cimmented on the absence of
lie. Holmes and Mr. Spoffurth to explain many matters
that required explanation, and said : If the defendant
Is not Arthur Orton, where Is Lei There tilts the men
who could have given his counsel every int elution—
the man who knows why he went to Wapping. Why, in the
name of heaven, did he not ask him 1 The defendant has
sat all along underneath his counsel. Ile knows that he Is
charged with being Arthur Orton that this roan has sworn
that he had left Arthur Orton in June, land, in Wagga.
Wawa yet he tells you that you aro to disregard the de-
fendant's oath ( that you are to treat It as so much
moonshine, wd that he does not feel it to be any
part of his duty to ask his client where Arthur
Ort,n is ; he swears it is all untruth, and why should
I ask him why he did it. Why should I say to the
defendant's cow- eel—" Fry Into hts little secrets and ask
him why he went to Wapping (laughter), or whether Arthur
Orton is dead or silver' Perhaps Arthur Orton did not like
to have these inquiries made. (Laughter 1 Very likely not.
Renewed laughter, In which the defendant joined.) The
defendant's counsel asks you to speculate upon all these
things upon DM the se little stories that passed
between Arthur Orton and his friend around the
camp fires under the canopy of heaven (laughter,. I ask
you not to !speculate upon anything, but to say by your
verdict that upon the evidence you are irreeistlbly bound to
firid the defendant giaiity. The learned counsel having
finished the Orton part of the case, the wart, on his appli-
cation, adjourned at twenty minutes put three o'clock.

On Tuesday morning M. Benealy appeared in court
for the first time since the conclusion of his speech.

-- -
Mr. Hawking' having on the previous day disposed of the
whole of the Often part of the case, now proceeded to deal
with the evidence upon the question whether the defendant,
In swearing he wee Roger Ttehboree, was also guilty of per-
jury. Bringing vividly before the jury the life of Roger
neither., with [is tastes and occupation., his voluminous
correspondence, especeilly with Lady Doughty, which
the defendant had entirely forgotten, his tender attach-
moat for hie coolant, his business habits, his last
visit to Tichborne and to l'uto his departure in
the Pauline and the wreck of the ihlls in April, 1054, the
learned counsel said that, after a dead silence of eleven
years, In a land about which Roger had never breathed •
word, and which presented no attractions for a person
merely travelling for pleasure, the defendant, a man mixing
with the lowest associates, engaged In a menial occupation,
and stet pod to the lips In poverty, begging almost the
necessaries of life from Gibber, the attorney, appeared upon
the scene, changed in all respects as compared with Roger,
end claimed to be the young Euglishmatt who had so long
been mourned by Ms friends. Cunt IStis there was no
trace of the defendant haven; done or said anything to
lead any one to believe that he was the long lost heir :
but upon the death of Str James his death was not only
chronicled, but a summary was given et the family history,
Ira the filagreed London News. In 1803 Lady neitherue
commenced advertising for lutormttion about her son and
at,the latter end of July, 18;5, there appeared in the Sidney
papers an advertisement on the sane see j at penned by
Cute tt from a letter he had recalved from her 1 olyshio, but
d Hering in some important p erticulars. Lee y fichborue
drscribt al her sou tie 'thin,' but that was left out. Sue
represented Mtn to be about thitty-two years of age,
her.' he would have been in that year thlt ta-ala and also
I said that he was rather tall sod hid very light brown hair
and Woe eyes, which could not be said to be correct.
Roger's hair was dark brown, and It could hardly be said he
was rather toll, and as to hie eyes, there was to evidence on
the still e.d. It wi.s cnriou• that these erroneous descrlptieu
corresponded in a p reat ntestoire with the defeneaut
The learned Calrillel then detailed the clreumatuces melt r
which the defendant first adnilitteri to 11r, abbe., who had
only receottly coma to use' Ou at WeggaWagga, that he was
Roger Tlchborne, and pointed out how, until he went I, Sydney
and saw Bogle, he was ig marmot of about everything connected
with the Tichborne family which Roger koew welL The
Claimant in Australia when questioned said that his Tee.
met t was the [llth, that the son 00l at whlc a belled been was
the High School at Sauthereptou, but an to the name of
the agent for the Tichborne estate, that he could not telt
Fancy R tger Tichborne not kneeing the mine of Goeferd.
When I nailer questioned upon this last point he said the
name of the fume% was Allen ; there being nu such pate a so
fares was known. Ile further said that he was • private in
the army, thet he had had no deli to sneak of, and there-
fore could act describe it, lie having early beeu in the army
r thirteen eays—Datubten—and was then bought eff Ile
did not know his supp /IA mother's name; and he was en-
tirely at sea when asked at to what kind of peraon she wee.
Ile said that she was a stout woman •, and the jury who had
veto her portrait and heard her described, would judge of the
aptness of the defendant'e acoeunt of that lady. Daring
al this early time In Australia t heeignorance of the defendant
as to Roger Tichborne'a life was absolutely perfect, and when
forced to give • name or a date It generally happened that
what was given had some connect len with his own lif o—the
life of Arthur Orton—and none whatever with thank, of Roger
Tichborne. Ile wanted some one to Inform him, and It nap-
pt tied that there were four persons in Sydney who could give
him much information as to fami•y affaire—Guilfoyle. Bogle,
and Be Ins two sons, Andrew and John. It happened also that
Lady Tichborne had written over that Eagle was there,
and Oda rendered the defendout's task a much easier one.
the first of these persons went to see the defendant In
consequence of a newspaper paragraph that Roger Tichborne
had been found ; but at that time the defendant did
not know the name of Dullfole at all; he did not know any
of the names of the family when they were mentioned; anti
he did not even know the name of Bogle. The defendant
Indeed swore that the account of Gullfoyle of Ole first Inter-
view was untrue that Guilloyle did not call to see him at the
hotel ; but that Guilfoyle and his wife recognized him when
pant: gin Leine street, Sydney. This account of the defendant
however, wog untrue, and was shown to be so udder his own
handwriting, baleause he hinthelt wrote to Lady Tichborne
Yesterday nu of Uncle Edward's old servants called on me
at my hotel," this being entirely in accordance with what
Gutlfoyle said. The defendant also swore that he never heard
Bugle'e name until be saw him In the archway of the" Metro-
politan " Hotel, while In a letter to Lady Tlchborne he
wrote: "'on ,peke of Beale In your letter to Cubitt. I
have made inquiry and cannot find him." so that it was plain
that he mast have heard the name of Bogle before he saw
him In Sydney. The defendant's object was to make it sp-
pear that in both instances the meeting was accidental, and
that instant recognition followed ; while It was clear from
his own writhe t het his statement on Oath of what happened
was untrue. Whenever and however the first interview
of the defendant with Bogle took place, it was plain
that from that moment the defendant's knowledge of
,
family matters grew with conaliderable rapidity. It was
Immaterial what the defendant knew at a later period, when
before the loterriew with Bogle there was absolute and
entire Ignorance. The Irresistible inference was that In
the meantime the defendant learned from some source or
other that of which he was before Ignorant Until Bogle
wee seen, Upton bad never been mentioned ; bat it
was Impassible that Roger eould ever have forgotten
Lipka addle he recollected Wynterlog and the pro-
le= the Ide of Wight neither of which had any
at all es Tichboine property. Old Hoc:. badd
vadaablally ban rasa e.l to as datendsaa
Isalm6l4 mama lad daaanbsd bits as the iindOubled •
at kit; bet the lass had seen blia—and what old
Ilia Mink • Ise Ogieelneen of feigned skinellett7. He did
Moe la• to abuse whole deems, bat he must say there was
• Win greggeNen et die negro esee who were not proverbial
Ea WANK* WANK* to the absolute pure truth, and, In his
old Bops bad needenesayllung that would tend to
Impreadon. (Lk) Bogle was a very useful
person for tbe defendant from his baying been for many
years In the service of Sir Idward Doughty, and for a
few months after in that of fir James Tlehborne, when,
he no longer requiring his services, he left Clobber.,
and, through the kindness of Lady Doughty, went
to Australta The learned counsel then minutely amp
lysed the evidence given by Buie of his meeting the de-
fendant In Sydney, and what occurred, pointing out the dh cre-
pandas In his and the defendant's account of it, and said fe-
What transpired at the first Interview rested solely on
Bogle's uncorroborated evidence, or the defendant's know-
ledge might have been obtained from °Mlle. and artfully
drawn from Bogle In the eourse of their conversation. Some
one must at this time have suggested Gosford's name, be-
cause In the telegrams the defendant sent from Sydney
to Gibbs before ha had seen Bogle be did not
know the name of his father's agent. Bogle must
have speedily leagued himself with the defendant,
or he was the most extra: Minery dupe ever heard of.
It be Is a knave yea will not credit his story, hut If he
Is a dupe It le not alit:limit to undentand how little by
little the detendantineldlously picked up Information from
him to enable him to proceed and feel hth way. Is it poi-
Bible that Roger Ticheorne could have met Bogleand have
been in his company any time without making imtuirtes about
the various members oh his family and, in the other hand,
Is It possible that old Bogle, meeting with the nephew of his
old muter, who was Imre teed to have been drowned and had
turned up alleging that he had escaped shipwrecc, couid have
abetained for • momeet from making all sorts of inquiries
about his adventdres. Why, one would have thought that the
days would have been • great deal too abort to recount them,
but all Bogle said that had ever been told by defendant
about the shipwreck down to the time when Bogle went Into
the witneez-be; was tb at "he had a wonderful time of it
for some days." Dees it net peas the bounds of credibility
that, couldering the relations of Bogle to the family, no more
shenld have passed between them If the defendant in Roger
Theban.. ? There could be no more woeful man for the
purposes of an impostor than Bogle, eine no sooner did
they meet than the defendant made overtures and nego-
tiated for bringing him over el England. Inc defendant's
bringing Bogle to Hugland was calculated to excite great
suspicion. Why should the defendant for no services to be
rendered volunteer to transport old Boglp end one son to
this country, when ha and his sons and relations were settled
In Sydney And why should he In Cydney, when Bogle had
a home, take him to live with him?
The Lord Chief Justice: Bogle says he never lived with the
defendant for an hour.
Mr. Hawkins There they contradict each Wier. Old
Bogle hold us that he left no Mende or relations when he
sailed from Australia to 11130/11 he was attached. Hi,
excuse is that he wanted to come back to a country
where On people are more sociable. What an absurdity.
The defudant had at this time altooll4 to beg for the
weans of his subsistence, and why should he deem to
encumber himself with a negro past ounce I I can ender-
stand hie bringing him over to render him the service he
was vatted for—to give him the knowledge that Bogle
possessed- and ean enderstand that he could use him
to great advantage, it la oleo strange that before he em-
barked at Sydney for England, the defenuont, who had never
meatlened Lady Doughty's name, an .t with whom Eager had
corresponded on most affectionate terms, got Bogie s son to
wrlte to her, %tylng that Me father waa rotas Ding to England
with the defendant- If Heger Ttchborne hai been In Aus-
tral., and had made op his mind to retneu to this country,
depend upon It be would have written himself to Lady
Doughty, and the only reason for his getting Bogies son to
write wu that, like the Wagga Wangs letter written
for him by the schoolmaster to Mr. Richardson, Of
Wapping, his handwriting should not betray him the mo.
meet It was received. When tiny arrived In the river bow
should Begot Tichborne have known about the gad of au