The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-17 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE CASE.
,

'The heating of this case was resumed on Monday morning
—the ninetieth day of the trial.
The Attorney-General, in continuing his speech, said that
in consequeuee of a question put to hint by the jury last
Thursday, he would now eummarlze what he contended in
reference to Roger's supposed visa to Melipilla. There
were, he said, but two times in the life of Roger when it
was physically possible that he could have been in Meli-
pilla : one In June and July, 1853, nod the other in December,
1853, and Jaguary, 1854. Before Mr. Roupell, and down to
the time of is appearance in the witness-boz, the plaintiff
said he was In al elipilla in December, 1853, and January,
1854. Be instructed his advisers so on the Chilian Commie-
Bien, and they examined and cross-examined upon this sup-
position. Ile did not at that time know that Boger had been
twice at Santiago, but thought that he had been there but
once, and that in December 1653, and January,
1834. Moore was called, aud letters to Roger
were read, and it was shown that Roger had been
twice at Santiago, and that on the second visit in
January, 1854, he had galloped there through the night a
distance of 90 or 100 miles in ten hours. Under these clr-
cured-fumes, the claimant put his visit In June er July,
1653. This, however, was disproved by the letters of Roger
and of Moore, that accounted for the whole time day by day,
and showed that Roger went straight to Valparaiso and stayed
loitering there waiting for the Pauline. Castro himself said that
he was not at Melipillain June, July, and August, 1653. These
facts showed conclusively that the claimant's story was not
a true one.
He would now resume his statement as to the wreck.
Ile would call before the Jury Messrs. Vining, the Liver-
pool shipowners, who owned the Bella, and they
would prove that she W3/1 built in England in
1851, her tonnage was 863 tons, her length inside
131 feet, breadth amidships 23 feet 9-10th, depth of
hold 15-ft. 6-in. She was on her last voyage chartered by
Mr. John Gallop, and her cargo consisted of 4,300 bags of
coffee, 10 bags of horsehair, 680 bags of rosewood, some
ipecacuanha, and 779 hides, and she was chartered to go
to New York direct. She had three boats, the long-boat
being on deck.
The foreman of th 3 jury asked whether her Gabble were
on deck or below.
The Attontey-General handed the jury a photograph of
the vessel, taken as she left Liverpool, and a plan of the
ship.
The foreman of the jury said that these showed that the
e.ablus were partly raised above deck and were partly below.
The Attorney-General said that he would 110 W draw attention
to the plaintiff's description of the sinking of the Bella. The
vessel drew when loaded 14ft. tin., and yet the plaintiff said
that a sailor having remarked to the captain that the vessel
was rather low, the well was tried, and 12 feet of water wan
found in her. It was utterly absurd to anybody who knew
anything of the matter, and at the time it was said
his lordship and the jury noticed it. Of course if there
were anything like twelve feet of water In her she must
hours before have goue dews like a shot. There were
three boats on the vessel, and the plaintiff said one of
them had been stove in the night before by the violence
of the weather. The captain, the plaiutiff said, ordered the
largest boat to be prepared, and provisions were put into it.
As the ship drew only lift. Sin., aud had twelve feet of water
in her, it was difficult to know where they got the provisions,
unless they dived down for them. It was difficult to believe
the provisions and water and the commute were put Into the
boat before the was lowered. The plaintiff said the other
boat was then launched, and begot into it, and the Bella went
down in about an hour or an hour and a half, though she had
12 feet of water in her before they left. The account laid be
tore Mr. Loeock Webb was that the leak was discovered, the
boats got out, and the ship went down, indeed the account
was almost AB short as that in Don Juan,
" First gave a lurch, and then a heel to port,
Then settling by the head, went down in short."
The learned counsel then went on to speak of the wreck
of the Bella, examining in detail the plaintiff's accounts of
the loss of the ship and hit rescue by the o,prey, and charac-
terizing many of them as absurd. Where, he asked, were
the survivors of the Bella ? This case has now been pub-
lished for nutey months all over the world ; and it was past
belief that all these persons could have vanished into space,
or, if living, that they must not have heard something of the
case. They knew that in 1854 there was 3 custom-house, an
emigration office, and many newspapers, and yet from none
of those sources could any reference be obtained of the saved
crew. This feature of the ease oeeupied the day, and at four
o'clock the Court again adjAlDled•

The Attorney-General, continuing his speech on Tuesday ,
morning, said that in addition to the Messrs. Liardet, there
were other witnesses who spoke of a large threcomasted
schooner, the Osprey, lying In 1851 in Hobson's Bay and
these he should not he able to contradict in the same con-
elusive manner out of their own mouths, lie, however,
undertook to show the wreck of a schooner, the Osprey, in
Lowtitt Bay, about the lath of June, 1054, and that the crew
were all saved. Even this Ovrey was less than 150 tons
burden, and therefore by no means came up to the size of
the Osprey that the plaintiff spoke of as being larger
than the Bella, which was near 440 tons. The first of
these witnesses was Mr. Lockhart, who spoke to having
seen the shipwrecked crew on board the Comet in llobson's
Bay. To suit the plaintiff's story, this must have occurred
from the 24th to the end of July, and if it were at ally other
time they must have been some other people. The witness
said that tins might have occurred in June, July, or August,
but his impression was that it was in June or July. At the
time of this examination the defendant had not found out
about the wreck of the Osprey In Lowtitt Bay in June, 1854,
but it was now extremely probable that Mr. Lockhart did
see the sailors of this awe?, going up the river in the
Comet in June, 1854. The witness did not himself men-
tion the name of the Osprey at all, but the jury were
asked to infer that the crew were the crew of the
Bella. The plaintiff's story, however, did not agree with
this, because he said that he went up to Sandridge
laneling-place with the captain, and left the crew behind,
and when he went back, found them still on board. Mr.
Sharpin was called a month later. Ile said that he went to Mel-
bourne in April, 1854 ; and in the July following he nit some
shipwrecked sailors on board the Comet. Ile further said
that with the shipwrecked one was a well-dressed man,
with whom was a young Plan who was dressed as a sailer,
but was evidently a gentleman. Tins pers, in he also said
had a foreign accent, and he lifted his brows when
speaking. Then the witness saw the plaintiff on the Grand
Stand at York races, and asserted that he recognized him as
the young gentleman whom he saw on board the Cornet.
It happened that the plaintiff's back waetowards him when
on the Grand Stand, and he looked at him through his opera
glass, lie said that ho was so struck with the likeness be-
tween the claimant and a picture of Roger that he at once
wrote to him his opinion as to the identity. The claimant
when he saw the witness said that he perfectly well recol-
lected being on board the Caw', though, singularly enough,
he had never mentioned it to any one until the fact was
communicated to him by Mr. Sharpin. The witness said
that one thing they discussed wasthe narrowness of the Terra
Terra and the breadth of the river at Rio, but it happened that
there was no river at Rio de Janeiro, though no doubt
there was the great river at Rio de la Plata. Ilr. Longlands
was the last witness upon this part of the case. He was the
man who said Ile had shipwrecked sailors with hum In 1654
at Saudrige, and that he got theni some clothes, and they
went to Callao. These were Bailors that he said he met On
board the Osprey In July, 1054 but there was no word
about the Comet in his evidence. In answer to the Jury the
witness said that the shipwrecked crew had belonged to the
Bella. Ile should submit, however, to the jury, that this
witness had been drawing on his imagination, while
probably he intended to tell the truth, and had seen the
! shipwrecked crew of the Osprey which he Mterwards fitted
. to the Bella.
_

The whole of the evidence of the witnesses ceased to be
remarkable when it became known that the Geelong and
Adelaide Osprey, not an American Osprey, was wrecked in
Lowtitt No in Juue, 1854. The certificate of the Geelong
and Adelaide Osprey said that she was 148 tons burden ; that
she was built at Bristol in 1834, and she belonged to Mori-
son am! Munson, of Geelong, In Victoria, shipowners.
She was described as having three masts, her length
was 78ft , breadth 20ft. 78n. and the depth of hold amid-
ships 13ft. In the Shipping Gaze,te of July 3, 1854, there
was an account of the loss of this Osprey, and if this vessel
were afterwards got off the reef and taken into Hobson's
Bay, the whole of the evidence would be explained. 'There
was also an account of the disaster to the Osprey lathe Argue
newspaper. The plaintiff stated that the Osprey which picked
him up was an American vessel. in America t here were record.
of all American ships, and they were accessible through the
Treasury at Washington and the Secretary of State. They
had received extracts from these records from Mr. Hamilton
Fish, and they showed that during the time from 1848 to
, 1854 there were only two Ospreys in the American marine.
' One of these was lost on the voyage from Havre to
Philadelphia in 1850, and was therefore out of the
ease, and the other was never in Australian waters in 1854 at
all. Further, it appeared that neither of these two American
Ospreys was a schooner.
fie now came to the evidence given upon the Australian
Commission, which he contended demonstrated the frau-
dulent nature of this claim. If the claimant (call him
Orton or Castro, or anything else) were recognized in
Alistralia or Tasmania earlier than April, 1654, then
undoubtedly he could not be Roger Charles Tichborne,
whoever else he might be, because Roger Charles Tich-
borne did not leave South America until April, 1854.
Now, it would be shown by evidence amounting to demon-
stration that the claimant was in Australia long before 1654.
Na doubt, many of the witnesses would say that he then
bore the name of Arthur Orton, but lie should put the wit-
nesses forward simply to show that he was not Roger
Charles Tichborne, whoever else he was. He undertook further
to show that the plaintiff never called himself Castro until
1859, though he said that he went to Mr. Foster's at If ippsland
tn 1,54 as Castro. No doubt he was at Ste. Foster's,
but Just as in the South American evidence, though he bade
been at 31elipilla, he was not there at the time he said he
was. He was at Mr. Foster's, but not until 1558, and he could
not possibly have been with him in 1854, because Mr. Forster
himself did not go to Beisdale until 1856. The learned
gentleman handed the jury maps of Australia, and asked
them to follow upon them the wanderings of the plaintiff as
stated by himself in the proceedin-s in Tichhorne r. Tich-
borne. He sahl that, having arrived at Melbourne, he
went to Boisdale in August, 1854, where he stayed till
Feb. 1856, and then went to Margo on the Mitchell river. He
remained there until August, 1057, when he went back again
to Boisdale. On this occasion he remained at this place
from August until November, 1857, when he went to Sale,
near Floddea Creek. Here he remained until May, 1.558,
, 'rhea he went to Norman 3leLeod's station on the Mitchell
river. Here he was till October, 1858, when he went to
I Oroaho diggiugs, where he was until February, 1559, when
I he went to Denillquin in New South Wales, lie was at
Deniliquhatill March, 1860, whim he went to Mayo, where
[ he was until November, when he went to Wanga-Wagga
and other ',lucre near. In August, 1861, he went to Jenkins
station at Nangus, and in August of that year he went down
to Melbourne, and from thence to Bendigo. In October,
1861, he went to Tumid, and in June, 1862. he went to
; Watara-Wagga, where he was until he took the name of
Ilichborne.
, The Attorney-General then called the attention of the
jury to the wanderinus of Arthur Orton, which ran unplea-
santly near those of the plaintiff, and he said that no
, doubt the witnesses would recognise the likeness of the
, plaintifi as that of Arthur Orton, hut he (the Attorney'
General) did not say that he was Arthur Orton, because it
I was no part of his case to say who he was; but only that a
! person whom the witnesses called Arthur Orton they recog-
nised by the plaintiffs likeness.
At four o'clock the court again adjourned.

The Attorney-General, before continuing his speech on
Wednesday morning, said, in answer to an inquiry from his
lordship as to the probable length of his addrem, that he
had yet to go through the Australian commission, but lie
did riot propose to go in detail thr aigh the evidence of the
whole 128 witnesses, but simply to give a very short sum-
mary of the evidence of the great majorhy of them. This
would probably take at least the whole of that day. Then
he must open as ranch as he thought material of the Arthur
Orton case. Beyond this he hail to deal with the question
of handwriting and the story of the" sealed packet," and
after this he must make sonic general observations, and
then resume the course of the case by ,alling evidence.
With this work the time occupied must be more than the
two dors which remained in this week.
The Attorney-f; eneral then went on with his examination
of the evidence given before the Amtralian Commission,
calling attention tint to the statements of two persons
named McGowran and Phegan, and argued from their state-
ments and the surrounding circumstances that they could
, not have known the plaintiff as 'Mortise Castro hi 1056 or
1057 at Myers's Flat, near Sandlowst, because the plaintiff's
own statement In Chancery was that lie was nut there until
1043 1. The evidence of the witnesses was quite immaterial, ex-
cept as to date, anti in reference to the date they must be wrong.
The plaintiff was obliged to make his arrival at Gippsland two
years earlier than Arthur orton arrived there in order to
square the date of his leaving Melbourne in July, 1054. It
was clear neither Orton nor the plaintiff was at Gippsland
until 1656. The plaintiff said that he went from Flodden or
Flooding Creek to the station of Mr. Smith of Lyndino,
but that gentleman, who has been there for twenty-three
years, said that no person named Caetro had been there.
The plaintiff said that Mr Smith had known him as Castro,
Mr. Smith swore that this was not so, and no attempt
was made to confirm the plaintiff Further, he said that
he was at the ()maim diggings, but he was entirely unsup-
ported in this. From thence he said that he went to Perrin-
quin, where he was from Felimary, 1050, to March, 1060,
but the only witness who supported him in this was Megan,
and he could nod speak as to Into At Castlenudne the
plaintiff fixed a date when he said that he and on-ten were
tried together lee horse-stealing, and thin was almost the
only definite statement that he had made There being
something precis, here, the defendants bad during the VIICS-

tion sent to Quitlemaine, and the jury would not be sur-
prised to hear that it was not true what the plaintiff had
stated. It was remarkable also that he never ntade any
statement of the kind until he was in the witness-box in this
court. This matter, however, would be further dealt with
subsequently.
The plaintiff then got to Wagga-Wagga, where he lived
from 1862 to 1866, anal there there was no dispute that hi-
was known by the name of Castro. The plaintiff product.'
the evidence of Mr. Feriae, a photographic artist, who mid
that he had a conversation with him in November, 1863.
The plaintiff said that lie wanted a likeness taken, but he
objected to its being exhibited through the country ; that
his family was one of the most ancient Catholic families in
England, that they thought he was dead, and that he had no
wish that they should think otherwise. Further, that In
September or October, 1864, he spoke to witness about his
attempting to take Morgan, the notorious bushranger. 11 e said
that his name wasnot Castro, that his family held high position,
and he should not wish it to be known who he was in the event
of his death. Now, if lie should perish by Morgan's hands,
his Mtllllll of identification which he always carried with him
would be destroyed, and therefore he said that he proposed
to hand to the witness a packet which could be opened in
the event of his death lie never did hand over
the packet. It was said that this man going about
Making these allusions to his connection with a high family
was strong evidence that he must be the heir of the 'rich-
borne'. ; but the first observation was that, even if this were
so, it must be remembered that the advertisements for Roger
were out in 1863, and had probably been seen by the claim-
ant, while If the date of the conversations were a little later,
they would be absolutely worthless. Another witness, Michael
Gould., a warder at Wagga.Wagga prison, and formerly a
so'dier, spoke to the claimant having alluded to hts faintly being
of high position mail to his having been a soldier, and having
learned the broad-sword exercise. One of these occasions was
when the claimant hail had a decision against him at the petty
sessions court that he made allusions to Mr. Baylis, the
magistrate who he said might touch his hat to him if lie
knew who he was. This circumstance the plaintiff alluded
to in the pocket-book that had been found during the long
vacation, and, inquiries having been made, it now turned
out that the plaintiff had been defendant hi two actions
for debts of and 01, tried before Mr. Baylis on
the 6th and 14th of September, 1605, and in these
cases the decisions were against him. 0 ulden
placed the date of the conversations earlier, but the facts
of the lawsuits fixed the date as being after the tinie when
the claimant was cutting the initials "it. C. T." upon trees
and upon his pipe "for devilry," As he said, and when he
had commenced the course which ended hi the present claim
being set up. Everything depended upon the accuracy of
the witness as to date, and he ventured to put it to the jury
how many of them would remember the lay, or even the
week, when their furenian asked those li»portant questions
about the boat of the Belie, her tiller, anal so on. (A laugh.)

The Lord Chief Justice : Probably they could not recollect
the mouth.
The Attorney-General Probably not. They would re-
member that one of the lawsuits was loot on the 14th of Sep-
tember, 1505, and in the pocket-book which had now come
over the jury would remember the claimant's entry
Lost, 15th of September, this day, lii NV agga-Wagga—those
who have found it are welcome to keep it--two cases in the
Small Debts Court, one for 4:0 and one for £3 155." This
settled the matter. As he hail said, upwards of 100 wit-
nesses were called before the Australian Commission, and of
these the plaintiff laid before the jury the eel ience only of
seven, five beiag his own and two the defendant's witnesses.
It was no answer to say that the claimant had not gone into
the Orton case yet because lie had the affirmative to prove,
viz., that he was Roger Tichborne, and he should contend
that the claimant had no right to call evidence in reply, cer-
tainly so far as the Australian case was concerned, because,
as he had said, that was founded upon an affirmative issue
which it was upon the claimant to sustain.
After reviewing the evidence of several other witnesses, and
directing attention to the places visited by the plaintiff, the
Attorney-General continued :—The next place that the plain-
tiff would be traced to was Sale. Henry Marriott Pearson,
the pound-keeper at Sale, said that he knew Arthur Orton
intimately, and be recognised all the plaintiff's likenesses as
likenesses of Orton, and as to one of them he spoke most
positively. This witness also said that he believed that there
was a tattoo ninth upon one of Orton's linger.; the mark
being that of a ring round it.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the plaintiff's fingers
should he seen.
- • •

The Foreman of the Jury saki that they thought so too,
at a convenient oppertuuity.
'' • ' "

•
The Attorney-General said that no other witness had
given similar evidence as to the supposed latter mark upon
the finger ; but, however, he agreed that the fingers should
be inspected. There were several other witnesses who gave
similar evidence as to thy plaintiff's likenesses being like
Arthur Orton.
- - •

At hair o'clock the further hearing of the case was again
adjourned.