The New York herald., 1871-11-19

To this Gibbes replied 2ist OF April that Sir r. had
by the June mali To this Cubitt replied, enclosing
q letter from the DOwager to the claimant, Wnlch
Cubitt mad received for nlm and which Is datea @ une
2Ssn OF February In TINS letter sne Desouen' ni'n
to come home, and wrote:-
You need not be afraid about the money As the
yoa:. ass 's Roger S TcSSorns I they win the
STILL THE CLAIMANT DID NOT COME FORWARD,
and Cubltt wrote to Gibbes rather angrily that he
was pressed to advance money for the departure
evidence nave q sSisr on the 10Th Of May. 1865,
the Dowager wrote to Cubltt mentioning the claim
cognized him by the writing, for she says not
word about II. but, on the contrary wrote, IL can
does not appear to have replied to tine claimants
letter. The claimant on the 24th OF MAY wrote to
the Dowager that he had received her note OF the
lie WILL TELL HIS OWN STORY.
since sSn ss' %
not wrote before. but that win tell myself should God
Ss n
but 10 not know whether tho banker here will advance the
SAILED FOR ENGLAND.
On the 22d OF June, the claimant being then at
Sydney, CubiIt wrote to me Dowager tnat lie had
seen him. On the same day the claimant wrote 10 the
@ Dowager soat at ne nad eceveI n" letter r1m er
had received her letter, and was disappointed that
she did not acknowledge hm a. her son. In
August the DOWager wrote to GDbes that she
fancled the photographs sent her or che claimant
were like her son, but OF course after thirteen years.
the shape, as Sir Kogcr was very slm ana she sup
posed the larger clothes might make him appear
son. but % says ne must come over to England 70 be
identined. On the ~ oil September he sailed from
sydney ana Gbpes wrote tnat ne mad 1 peeG 1ent 70 NIL
family and also by one GuIl'oyle, an old gardener
70 the late baronet Before the claimant lett he gave
G1Dbes draurntS FOR f5J0, and he had also given
Cubltt draught for sum which Cubitt declined TO
disclose.
OLD SERVANTS.
In of Urtft EVfn IN a Qfal nf
GuiliOye, an old servant OF the family, had called
upon INN, and knew hlm as soon as no saw MIN,
FANNY, whom the D0wager had mentioned as being
In Australia he had inquired Tor him, but could not
who has not yet been examined, came home with
him. In this letter he enclosed a photograph Of
oud NOT raen nrs u tna end Of
September. 1t should here be stated that
PENDING THE NEGOTIATIONS THE CLAIMANT WAS
REMARkIED
and made his will. In January, 1906, he mad mar
rled, but under the name OF Castro. On the Isl OF
June, 1865, he made will in the name OF Roger
Tichborne, which was atlcsted by GiObes, as his
attorney and IN which he proposed ogive ''dower''
to his vile. whom he said he had married IN the
name Of castro and which contained several de-
yses he admitted TO be fictitious and made, he SAID.
he was remarrled in the name Of Roger Tfchborne.
ARRIVED IN ENGLAND.
In September, 1855. as already stated, he sailed for
England and on Christmas Day, 1866. the claimant
landed, and went TO Wapplng in the evening TO in
qulre alter the orton's. Next day went again 10
by the name OF stephens. And then he went 10
Grayesena &c, 20 keep ut o. me way. he said, until he
HE WENT TO ALREsFokD AND VISITED TICH-
BORNE.
He then saw Mr. Hopkins, the attorney, who alter
wards made an aifldavt in his favor. on the other
hand, while he was at Airesiord, Mr.. Bowker the
attorney for the family, saw him. but does not ap-
pear to have recognized him. The claimant re-
turned to Gravesend, and wnile he was there
ONE or ARTHUR oRroN'S SISTERS WROTE TO HIM,
claiming HIM as her brother. and On the 1th OF Janu
ary the claimant wrote to her IN feigleti nand
signing hts name Stephens, and declaring that he
was not her brother, but q friend OF his, and he
enclosed her photograph, which he described as
representing her brother's wife, Whereas In fact,
was photograph OF his own. From subsequent
an interview with Charles Orion aud Captain
Angcll who is, no doubt. the same person VINO was
examined the other day on behalf Ol tie defend
ant.
WHILE THE CLAIMANT WAS AT oRAvEsEND
on the 6tn Of January Mr.. GoSord, with q relation
oil the family Ia Mr. Plowdcn), anc another gentleman
acquainted with the family, went down to Gravescnd
to him. but he withdrew himself, aud wrote them
note that he did not wish any one 10 know where II
But Mr. Gosford came up with him from ,ravesend
tile hth, and had long conversation witt him
and the plaintin mas gwen his own account Next
CLAIMANT WROTE TO THE DOW AGER-
"ne seems to deny everything ! put nln in mind
or" and afterwards Mr.. Goslord stared THAT every
thing me claimant said was untrue, but the claim
lord ,assentcd 70 everything he said." In day or
Two the claimant
WENT TO PARIS TO SEE THE DowA6ER,
a5l ana was there Ten days, Tclurnmg % on the
correspondence between the claimants attorney,
MIR. Holmes. ana the attorney for The family in
which the latter declined 10 acknowledge hlm, but
proposed family meeting, winch was refused.
MISS DOUGHTY pES RES TO SEE HIM.
Miss Kate Doughty appears at this umo to have
been desrous OF seeing the CLAIMANT when lie was
again aI Alresford for at lie Dcgnning OF bruary
he wrote to her At that pace to say ne was sorry
he could not come ana see her, but that he WIS
coming down again In q few DAYS and tnen he would
THE powAGER swEARs He is HEe soN.
lie mentioned IN this letter tnat he was
gong to meet his mother. who was then coming
from Paris. and lived some months with HIM
favor, in which she declared positively
that lie was her son. ana she wrote 10 Sir clifford
Her affidavit was shown TO several Vi the officers
who likewise supported hlu
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAD TO SAY-NOT ACKowL-
EDGED.
On the 10th OF February, 1867, Mr.. Seymour. an
uncle OF Roger Tchoorne, went down 10 Anres ord
To see the claimant, ana the claimant afterwards
heard from MT Hopkins twno was present on the
occasioni lhat MI seymour dld not recognize him
as his nephew. In March Miss Doughty. then Mrs.
Radc lille, went wlth ncr husband and Mrs. rOwney
to see lhe claimant; ana there is m evidence
In the evidence OF the claimant. MIR.
Maae 6a. and MS w have not ys Sssn ex
they were all thoroughly convinced lie was not SIR
Roger, and that not only because tney iaed 10 re-
cOgnize MIN, hut because he did NOT recognize his
nearest relatluns.r In his own account the CLAIM
ant a'imltted That he had addressed Mrs. Towney
~ hts cousin Kate, hut ascriJed II 10 her being
veied. whether he recognized them or not !, IS
clear tnat they did not Acknowledge hlm. Tor he
siated in his evidence that Mrs. Iowney sad. al
knew my cousin wel an'i do not beilevc you The
man," and that Mr.. Radcliffe also said, IL Knew
Roger TichDorne we'll and don't believe you be
the man." To which 1t should he added that the
claimant said III his evidence he mad never seen
Mr.. kadciirie De ore IN his lie. Lady UouChty also
did not recugnlze the claimant. An Old friend OF
Roger Ticnhorne's-Colonei GreenwOod-met the
claimant IN June, 1865, and did not recognize him.
In lact
NONE OF TIE RELATIONS or THE FAMILY REcoG-
MED HIN
except the Dowager and cousin. Mr.. Bidduph,
and accordingly his claim was resisted and the suit
proceeded. In June, 1871, there was an interview
between The claimant and Ar GUsIOrd, with wnom
kOger fichD0rne nal lett the seated Tacke, aJ 10
winch Mr.. GUsur mas not beeu examined, ana OF
when the palItln mas given his own account, and
from which II appears taJ Mr.. Goslord asked hiin
Ia name me cutcnlS Ol tie packet, and lie DECLINED