The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-02-21 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL

ioer limited space precludes as from giving more
than the following condensed account.'

CONTINUATION OF THE SUMMING,UP.

The following enmmary LA Monday's puseeclicgs le
taken from /he Ties.—
OE HUNDRED AND EIGHTIETH DAY.

[On Monday j the L wet Chief Justice resumed his observa-
tions on the evidence as to the defendant's tdeurity with
Arthur Ort re. There warn he said, a tomb:lsola body of
wanner, who had given evidence ae to their opielons epithet
this identity, and whose evidence reqeired serious considers-
lion. But into the r Wenn of these wltte sses It was hardly
necessary to outer seriatim, dace they ell substantially con-
curred in the main bolt ts ol their evidence, which were
then—that Arthur Orton wee from his boyhood big and
be lie, and likely to prove a very large, sleut man ; that he
had large lands and feet, and inigh cheek bone, and Leavy
eyebrows and that he was in-kneed, rather from weakness
than from malformation. On these points the defeireent's
witnesses described Arthur Orton very much as his military
witnesses described Roger Tichborue, often in the
very same terms. But some of the witnesses spoke
to certain tinning facts, which, if proved, wonld cm-
thinly distinguish Arthur Orton from the defendant.
dome spoke to mark; n Arthur Orton which the defehdant
had not, some to marks on tho defetelaut which Arthur
01.'1.0 Mid not, and eurce geld that Orton wore earrings, or
had his ear pierced for earrings, welch was not, it wan said,
the case with the deter:alma ; and the evidence of these wit-
nesses required • more particular examination In order to
estimate its weight cad voice. The Lied Curet Justice then
entered into the evidegce on these heads, beginuing with the
evideace sur to the scar on lather Orton's creak Several of
the defendthVe traumas, he said, had sworn to such a
sear, though they differed greatly ite to the ditto of It,
while most of them bad dented it, or had not °Nerved it,
, and the defendant bait himself three times described Arthur
Orton without mentioning auy ricer at all. Nor had nay
of the waneses for tile prosecution been asked Aleut it,
and when called In reply, they ail denied it. Then, as to
the narks of the small,rox, which it was sold the defendant
bad not, le ma .4 the deferetent's witnesses had said that
Arthur was slightly marked or pitted, but most if them had
not observed It. out of ee.ly 0) wittiness only fin spoke
to the pockmarks, end only seven spoke to the soar—so that
the greater nen,rr of the defentiaut'e witnesses bad ob-
served neither mark nor soar on the face. Then there were
three witnesses Aho spoke to • pony-bite on the left arm of
Orton, and one of them mild he had been cauterized, and that
It had left a scar—not, it was said, to be foun I on the de-
feudent's arm. 11 this could he relied upon it would be con.
clurive, out the entoess was hardly likely to satisfy the
pity as to his eredirelity, and the other two witnesres wec,
net seek, n to the bite had trend nothing to show that it
had left au Indelible mule. Then several tf the witnesses
who had Been 0 ion bathing had stated they had Lever seen
any hr two mark upon Lim such as the dereudaut undoubt-
edly had, and one of them—Jarvis, of Bridport—had sworn
very positively that there was no such murk on Orton.
Almost all the wituessn as to (neon had agreed that he had
had St. Vlius's dance, so that tar might be taken as • fact,
and the witneues else agreed that it had lett a twitching In
the eyebrows, The witnesses called for the defend.. to
identify him with it 'ger Tichborne had eporten to a similar
twitching In him; a; d art he had dread, maned, all the
witnesses had dour bed Arthur Orton as in.kueed, just as
the Caai.loesrs had deacribed Roger Tichboine. hint, there
was a arm g body of testimony on both sides as to the
identity of the defendant with Arthur Oct. n, and if this were
all It might neve • doubt sufficient fir the defence in •
criminal case; hut then there can, also, a body of facts to
evidence which might be sufficieut to turn the Nehmen of
evidence •geimt the defpnce ou this part of the cue. It
watt an urdouoted tact that the defendant was at Mel Ole ;
end anether undoubted fact that Orton wept out to
Suuffi America In 1848, and did not rotord until early
I, tlll. if Reger Ttohborne never was at Meitipili., this
altar, although Lot conclusive, would be atone t 811011
the am thy of the defendant with Orton. Now, the
letters of Roger Molitor., which minutely described hie
travels In Smolt America, made no mention of idenpilia,
and by the dates and circumstances he mentioned appeared
to excinde the p.ulbility of a visit to If elipilla Staw•
over, the deferment had naturally appeared Ignorant of
the only joroney of Roger Tichhorie in which the
visit to Idelipilla could poesibly have occurred, and had
only mentioned it afterwards; and, oe the other hand, had
, sworn that the visit to Meat:dile was on a journey of
R gee's on which it was physically impossible, from dates,
that he could have .topped at Mellpilla. Such had hen
his seeming in his examination in Chancery in 1867;
and on his examluatiou at the trial In 1871,—Moore,
who was with It ger in South America, herring, In
the meeetime, become its wituest—he gave an sc.
count entirely thereto.. Further, it appeared from the
dab ntient's corrempondence with Caner, of Melipilla that
he must have been there long enough to make the acquaint-
alma el a number of persons after whom be ineutret, and
with whom he appeared to have bee, ma letituate. Was it
possible that all this could have occurred In the short space
of two or three week., which NM the utmost time It was
phyetcally partible Reiter Tlehborne could have been there,
: if be ever was there at all? But if Roger 11thhorne wan not
there, it wise beyond a doubt that Arthur Orton had been
there. in 1841 Arthur Orton deserted from hie ship at
Velparstro, and early In 18s1 he came back trim Valparaiso ;
and In the meantime he certainly was at Mellpilia, which is
between fifty and sixty mil. from Valparaiso. That Arthur
Orton wa, there above a year Donna Bayley, the wife of
the &VIA physician there had proved, and she positively
ideutined the defendant as the Arthur Often she had
known there during that period. This witness also stated
that a lady she named lad cut a lock of Arthur Orion's hair,
and the defendant had certalely at tint acknowledged this
lock ,d bale as Ws own. The witness was continued, said
the Lord Chief Justin, by the defendant's correspondence
I with Castro of Melipilla, tea which he alluded to the per-
sona he had become acquainted with there—aM mg others
the witness herself and Dona Ahumada—and acknowledged
the lock of hair sent to hire The witness, moreover, had
Men examined In 1868 under • commission sou; out to Chili
to take evidence glen, and had, there could be no doubt,
the tame evidence as she had now given ; and the defendant,
though he was challenged to go out there awl confront her
and ine other witnesses called, had decHnet to do so. The
crucial point on this part of the case, said the Lord Chief
Justice, Is the lon of hair, which the defendent acknow-
ledged to be his It that lock of hair, said the Lord Chief
Justice emphatically (produalug it wed comparing It with •
lock of It. ger Tichbormes cut In 1E52, and which is much
darne)—if tint look of heir was cut from the head of the
defendant then he cannot porsthly be Roger Tichborne ;
and it affords cogent tyidence that he is Arthur Orion,
The defendent, no doubt, after writing to acknowledge the
lock of hair as his, bad afterwards at the trial sworn that
it was not eo, but he a .mitted that he hod fancied, not
said, this after teeth g that it was proved under the
Chili Commiersion that the luck of hair was cut from the
, head of Arthur Orton ; and when challenged with • letter of
his in which he Mei mod the hale was hie, he admitted that
at that time he believed It was to, and that Hs attorney be-
laved it too. tithe hair was ha, the Lord Wei Justice re.
pealed, it was conclusive proof that he could not be Roger
. ichberne, and Worm evidence that he was Arthur Orion.
The Lord Cele? Justin noticed
.that 0: ton, on Ma return

!;-z-

Joseph M.," whiab he suggested meant Maria, the
Spanish equivalent for " Mary,- and he pointed out that
foreign Ceti-wiles often too& the names of Joseph Marla,
and that the Castro letters seemed t show that orton was
believed to have becom.e • Roman Cetholic. After thug
reviewing the evidence rending to the South American
part of the Cove ae to Orton, the Lied Chief Justice pi.,
eeeded to deal with the Australian part of the case. lie
Ira ei Orion from his no 'the at 11...0art Town In May,
lite, to Mr Jdiustene's, New ourmpark, Gippsiaml, where
he am until the end of 10,6, when he went Into the ser-
vice of Mr. Forster, at basdale, and remained there about
two years. Fie reminded the jury that the defendant's
story was that he never wee at llama Town at all, nor
at Mr. Johnstone'. but that he landed at Melbouree
in July, 1855, an 1 went at once to Boledale, under
the name of Castro, whereas several witnesses had
sworn that he bed koown him at Hobert roan, and two had
ovori they had known him at Mr. Jthnetone's, and that
Mr. F.,rster's widow and ids former manager—her pr, tent
husband—swore that he did not enter their service until
December, Hod, The Loge! Chief Justice here observed—
as be had obeerved before—that It wail almost appelihig t
thine how many witnemes must have o mmilted perjury If
the defendant had not, And he pointed out his denial of
having been at Mr. Johnetonee waa discredited by an entry of
ble ane and ad.iress "to the numhtetable handwriting of
the defendant," and that the evidence of Mr. F.rster's widow
end maneger, who IdentMed the defendant as Orlon, wee cOL-
Cloned by their books, which showed the engagement or
Orton lu December, lese, sal did not show the name of
Castro at all. kie also p doted out how the identity of the
defendant with Orton was eonemeed by another phew of
writing In the 0500 e of Orton, and In the bandwrithig of
ha debt dint, Lid f antler oh, d that the defendant
had while In Auotralle been chit fly occupied In the avoca-
tion of a butcher or atoctkeeper, lo which Orton wag au-
cutonsed, but to which Roger Tichborue was a stranger,
and that he had in Conversation With more than one person
elated Mal he bad bees Ocouibl up le eau bubo. dls