The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1874-03-19
The Tichborne Case.
A Condensed History of the Afair which
has Created so Great n Sensation in
England.

A Condensed History of the AFFAIR which |
has Created so Great n Sensation in I
England.
The following sketch of the Itch |
borne case, the claimant of which has |
just been sentenced to fourteen years
transportation, will be read with inter-
est at this time
In March, 1853, Roger Charles Dough-
ty Tichborne, born January 5, 1929,
sailed for Valparaiso, Chill. In March,
1854, he embarked at Rio Janeiro for
New York in the Bella, which was sub
sequently lost at sea, all her passengers
and crew having been drowned. Roger
Roger Tichborne had he lived, was re-
garded as dead by all his family and
friends with the exception of his
mother, the Dowager Lady Tichborne.
Sir James, Rogers father, died, and
was succeeded by his second son, AL
fred, in the title and the estates. In
the year 1865 Lady Tichborne inserted
an Notwithstanding in an Australian paper,
which met the eye of Mr.. William
Gibbs, an attorney of Wagga-Wagga,
who fixed upon a man named Thomas
Castro, with whom he was acquainted,
as the missing Roger. Castro was
stock-keeper by occupation, and when
Gibbs called his attention to the Itch
borne inquiry he declared himself to be
the lost Roger. His story was that
after the wreck of the Bella he had
been picked up-being the only sur
vivor--by passing vessel, the Osprey,
bound for Australia, which had con-
veyed him to Melbourne. He had re-
mained thenceforth in Australia. en-
ploying himself, under the name of
Thomas Castro, as keeper of stock, as
before related.
Lady Tichborne, in Europe, was i'm
mediately informed of the important
discovery that had been made, letters
passed between her and Castro, and in
September, 1866, the latter sailed for
Europe, accompanied by his wife and
by an old negro, Andrew Boyle, for
mer servant of the Tichbornes and
resident of Sydney, whose acquaintance
he had made, and who recognized in
him the missing Roger.
Lady Tichborne received Castro joy
fully and recognized him as her son /;
but none of the other Tichbornes
identified him. Roger, when he disap-
peared, was a slight, effeminate looking
person, while Castro was very Falstaff
in physique. When Castro made his
appearance in England Sir Alfred Itch
borne, Rogers brother, was dead. Lit
tie time was lost by Castro, fortified by
Lady Tichborne's recognition and ad-
vocacy, in preparing to lay proof be-
fore the courts of his identity with
Roger Tichborne. Commissions were
sent to Australia and Chill to take evil
dence in all that concerned the wander
ings and fate of Roger and the Austria
liam life of Castro. who, the Tichborne
side maintained, was an imposter and
n man named Arthur Orton, son of the
late George Orton, a butcher of High
street, Mapping, who had once spent
several years in South America and had
afterwards gone to Australia, where he
had lived until his return to England
falsely to assume the name of Roger
Tichborne.
A suit in Chancery for the recovery
of the TichbOrne estates was the pre-
liminary to the first great trial in which
Castro, now the claimant, figured.
This cause was the ejectment action in
the Court of Common Pleas, the late
Lord Chief Justice Bowl presiding, of
Tichborne VS.. Lushington, the latter
representing the Tichborne family. In
the course of the trial, which COM
menced in 1870, and lasted for about
nine months, running far into 1871, in
terrupted by occasional adjournments
of the Court, hundreds of witnesses
were heard on either side, about half of
whom averred that he was Roger Itch
! borne and the other half that lie was
not. He himself was subjected to a
| long and arduous examination and
cross-examination The claimant proved
| himself to be deficient in educational
requirements which Roger Tichborne
had possessed. Although showing an
extraordinary knowledge of numerous
episodes in Roger Tichborne's life he
also displayed in a more marked degree
gross Ignorance of many persons,
places, and events with which Itch
borne was undoubtedly familiar.
The close of this case was as re-
markable as had been its continuance.
The jury had been restive for some
time, and finally, before the Judge had
delivered his charge, they announced
in court that they had made up their
minds, and that they did not need to
hear any more on the subject. AS this
was equivalent to verdict against the
claimant, had the case gone to the
jury, his legal advisers consented to q
non-suit, and the Lord Chief Justice
Immediately committed him for trial
on the charge of willful and corrupt
perjury.
He was imprisoned for five weeks,
and at the expiration of that time he
was released ON bail. Lord Rivers,
Messrs. OnslOw and Whalley, members
of Parliament, and one other going his
sureties. He was himself also required
to give bail in $4,000. The claimant
passed many of the following months
in visiting various towns of England
accompanied by Messrs Onslow anC
Whalley, and making public addresses
to hear which an admittance fee wa:
charged. This money was intended tc
assist in defraying the expenses of hi
coming trial, even as the " Tichbornt
bonds," so called, had been sold previ
Gus to the first trial. Crowds attended
at these meetings, and much enthusi
asm was manifested by the populace il
his cause.
The trial for perjury, which has jus
closed with the conviction of the de
fendant bepan on Anril % 1873 ThI