The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-06-09
The Disputed Earoncscy.


GreS> III the Westminster Court of Common
Pleas. and still eXctcs the greatest interest
| among all classes Of society. Our former
| observation touching the extreme difficulty
| of forming positive opinion of the merits
| OF the case is confirmed by the abundant
and highly.intercSling evidence for the
plaintiff that has now been delivered. That
evidence was preceded by some extraordi-
nary statements Of an opposing character,
| a number of which were limited at by the
press. and afterwaG,; repeated in open court
| by counsel for the defence. 1T was de-
clared. for example, that crediab!e wit
ncSScS were Forthcoming who would posi-
ltirciy swear that the plaintiff, the reputed
Sir Roger Tichborne, had been known to
them for years as butcher. This prom
i>ed testimony appeared so formidable that
many have felt it was destined to be con-
| elusive. and that the posthumous son Of
| Alfred Tichborne, and not the putative Sir
| Roger, must be acknowledged the rightful
| poSSe>Sor of the ancient baronetcy, with
its splendid rent-roll, equal TO $4,000 q
year in gold.
! 1t may be that this supposition will be
fully sustained. One side is good, ofcoursc,
| until the other is heard. But, in the mean
! while, it cannot be denied that the plain
| tit 5 case looks amazingly strong, and that
the theory Of wholesale subornation
seems out of the question. When we were
told that French, the language of the true
Sir Rogers boyhood, could not be spoken
by this Sir Roger at all; that the former
Sir Roger was short and slight, while the
present Sir Roger is big and tall that the
dark man" Boyle. had extraordinary
reasons and extraordinary means for con-
| summarizing Il successful conspiracy; and
| that such witnesses n respected and widely
| known clergymen. acquainted with Sir Ro-
ger in his youth, swear that they do not
believe the claimant to be Sir Roger-it was
hard to believe that the plaintiffs case
could be made 10 hold water, or that there
was y chance for any but Il single and Oh
yiouS termination Of the suit. But what
| are we to say to the recent evidence. eSSpc-.
| cillly that heard on the ed and sd Of
MAY: The reader will remember the long,
uGeQuivocal affidavit Of Lady Tichbornc.
the main point OF which we published May
| %. That LADY affirmed and reatfirmed in
the most absolute terms her positive belief
| that the claimant, said by his opponents to
| he butcher, is her son, Sir Roger ITCH
borne. On the heels of this now appear q
great number of persons with corrobcratve
| statements. George Allen, formerly butler
| in the 1ich6orne family, SwcarS that he has
no doubt OF the claimants identity with
the velitable Sir Roger. He cites many
| his mind such as the plaintiffs hair, eyes,
GAIT, speech, and manners. This evidence
| Is made peculiarly significant by the fact
| that there was said to be "knd Of like
ness between Allen and Sir Roger" which
| the latter dWclt upon, and seems often TO
have discussed. Thomas Garter, the body
servant OF sir Roger in 1852 is no less posi-
| I'VE. BE has "no more doubt that the
claimant is the Roger TbichbOrnc Of 1872
than he has that he, Carter, is himself"
Other people in or connected with the regi-
ment to Which Sir Roger belonged-tne
Carbinecrs. or Sixth Dragon Guards
likewise rccollect and identity him. These
persons include officers and privates,
t;ilors, bandsmen, and servants. Thus,
john LcSsware was trumpet-major TO the
regiment when I'lchbornc joined it at
pSrtobcllo Barracks, Dublin. This wit
ness. on being confronted with the
claimant, recognized him by his
heavy eyebrows, and the twitchtng
when he spoke, and also by the sound of
his voice" 1t appears that Les>waTe had
4 long talk with the claimant, extending to
three or four hours, and that reminis-
ccnscs Of what passed III the regiment
were chiefly the subjects Of discussion.
On al these subject; the claimants re-
marks we've accurate and contirmatory OF
his identity. Mrs. LesSWare, the wife Of
his witness. attestS 10 the same thing, and
| is perfectly satisfied that the plaintiff IS
| Mr.. Ilchbornc." The coachman of Sir Ed
ward Doughty, the uncle OF Sir Roger, gives
similar evidence. This man, Thomas Bus
ton. lived in the family seven years, and saw
Young Tichborne often. He, too, dWellS
on the twitchiug, the eyes, and other pecu-
liarltcs. 70 the question, after long state
mcnt, "W hat is now your deliberate luug-
mcnt:" Buston replied: q believe, on
! my oath, that he is Sir Roger Itch
borne" \ fisherman, named William
Gould, who seems 10 have once been an
humble playmate Of Roger, likewise gives
unmStakablc evidence. Roger was fond of
boating, fishing, and shooting, and Gould
with him most days" Gould adds: /" lie
! was very partial to me, and we We're great
friends" Now, in describing what passed
| between them on first meeting after the
| claimants return, Gould testified:
~ recognized him 1T once and he recOg-
niZed me at once. | could swear TO him
anywhere. His appearance and his voice
| made me recognize him. Any one who
knew SIR L. Doughty would recognize the
. pIaintitl. No one pointed him out to me.
saw him again in the evening, and we
had 4 conversation together. After l left
him went home and cut out four models
Of boats. | put them on the table before
| Mr.. Rouse, Mr.. Holmes, and Mr.. ITCH
borne. in the London Tavern Hotel, Poole.
| I asked him if he could remember the
| model OF the boat he bought for himself ut
| Poole. and he said he thought he could.
| T rhe witness here produced four small
| woodeu models of boats, which he said were
copies on smaller scale OF those he showed
| to tie Plaintiff | threw the models down
uDon the table, and the plaintiff picked up
| the right one. 1t was the model OF foreign
mnIt boat. ! talked TO him about other
thiu.s. and in regard to all he was right. L
n,kcd him what he gave for the boat, ana
he replied g3. That was right. Something
was said about truss Of hay. ms con-
yarsaLion occurred in 1867. He asked me
| II | could mind when he brought the truss
Of bay and put it on the boats bottom ana
set fire to it to dry the boat. That was
Quite true. We wanted to have 1t drled Tor
Earring. I did not mention WORD ABOUT
the matter to him until he told me-"
At this point Gould was thus addressed
NV counsel CHOW. have you any DOUBT
.,bo,lt his being Roger Tichborne!" III ne
i. moi Sir Roger Tichborne," he replied, III
| * he very old devil himself" 10 which
h.nrvcJ the Solicitor-General, ~ don't
d,snu,e that-wlich is he " Gould promp'..
" answered, "Sir Roger Tichbornc.|,
| The wife of this witness, Maria Gouid,
confirmed her husbands assertions, rs diu
also Martha Legg, who was for some Tune
T1chborue's iaundress. There are few tflals
ON record in which the evidence on both
| sides. while equally positive, and, 10 all APP
ncarance, probable, is i'll such point piahk
nnnosition. 1t is not TO be wondered III
that the Tichborne case creates much en-