The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-03

COUSIN, were witnesses 1Or MIN. In the course OF
the suit 1t came out that tue sealed packet had been
destroyed. The paInun subsequently sl0ned
paper, stating that u related to the possible confne
ment his cousin Kate. OWING 10 his seduc
ton OF her in JULY 1852. Being asked whether Il
was before or after the breaking or OF the engage.
january, and ne further swore that the paper was
ed III November 1852, ana deposited then, or IN
March, 1885, though the only one spoken OF by
Rogers was In January. 1852. In the result.
AFFIDAyITS BEING MADE AGAINST HIN,
Chancery 10 decide the title 10 estate on afidavit
when the the title Is disputed he was lett to pring
mis- ac ACTON IN court OF law waore the W. Witnesses
nents applied Tor commission t05 examine W.T.
nesses In Chile aud Australia. DE opposed them,
but IN VAN, and then. IN order To get postpone
uenf, made anidavits that 1t was oonsderal essen
tia that he should 80 out ana attend the exami
did go out to Chile, but he returned on the plea OF
illness, without attending the commission, and dbl
adverse 70 the pi,intin, including his letters to
Orons sisters, were after this brought before tne
pey nesr oI ns aa ne
the letters to tie hls but thev were not salts
he'd and Tor tne most part Withdrew their SUPPORT
lers, resumed his support ana the claimant allowed
hlm 10 appear as q witness Ia his laso. under me
lmpres Ion that The letters were not MS, when IN
truth, ne then admitted, they were. Mr.. Holmes.
his attorney. however, now threw mp the case.
Mar. Nolrls also withdrew hls support; and kous his
earliest friend, lost iaiJh IN MIN. and from that
tlae 1t would seem, has given his ala to his oppo-
neuts.
The case now was undertaken by another att0r-
ney, who. however before long Withdrew from It;
and then II came into the hands OF the firm OF Bax
tel, Rose X Norton and was prepared or trial by Mr.
Sponorth lie obtained The evidence OF Moore, who
had when he first saw the claimant cleared nlm
not to I've the man. but who now sali that alter see
ing him cross-examned In Chancery he believed
HIM 10 be so, ana ne became his witness. The per-
sons who mad made atfiuavits IN ohancery were
called as Witnesses except Hopkins ana the DOW
pese Observed ON the
auavlts OF the witnesses ana their evidence Al the
among these were Boge who mad come over with ths
CLAIMANT anu lived with him ever since, ana MOORE
q gentleman who saw Roger at Santiago but
never spoke to him. CAPTAIN sankey also was
the claimant took him Tor Captain Kelett. A
Mr.. Leslie, medical man. was also called IN mis- fa-
vor, but ne had only seen Roger casually twice or
thrice, and his son, VINO was IN the regiment, was
not called. A great many witnesses were called 70
give their opinion as to the CLAIMANTS identify IL
was shown that the claimant mad marx on tine
back Of his head, and o barber was called
from Clonme, who said that Roger mad
scn Been a's blea IN me the e pa marx
SUCH bleeding Is unmistakaule and indell-
might De marks Of Bleeding but night not Roger
| had once nsh-hook IN his eye, aud there was 9
minute mark on one OF the eyelids OF the claimant
| which might or might not have been caused 10y q
hook. But the surgeons could not positively say
the age OF these MARKS, and the examinations, for
claimant had been IN this country. 1t was proved
that the claimant has q .orown mark' on his SIDE,
| put 1t was not SHOWN that Roger had.
THE PLAINTIFFS CASE AS 1T STANDS.
Except as TO iden ifcatiOn. there was no
conlr matOry evidence Of the plaintiffs story unu
near the close OF the case, when, as already
mentioned, two witnesses were called 10 ontirm,
their memory the arrival Of the Osprey IN tue
summer OF 1o54, Melbourne; and three were called
| who, giving quite different account spoke O: com
| ing win the sailors to Melbourne In the steamer.
| One OF these, Sharpin, spoke from memory to the
| plaintG on board the steamer with them. No
entry at the Custom House was produced to prove
! the time oil arrival, nor were the ow1ers OIL the
Bella called, nor was there any evideuce OF the
| ness called who had known the claimant In Aus.
| tralIa and no could positively prove that lie was
there IN 1854, or at what period IN that year.
| Such Is the substance OF the case as IL has ap
peared on the part OF the claimant, and the on
| the other SIDE Is now to be heard.