Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page



THE TICHBOBHE TRIAL. The case was continued on Friday before the three Judges—the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Mellor, and Mr. Justice Lush. The Stonyhnrst head of evidence was still pursued with reference to the statements of the defendant, espfoially as to his having lived at a cottage and bis having left the place suddenly in November, 1843, whereas Roger it was proved, left at the vacation in August and never returned. Several witnesses swore that the defendant was not Roger Tichbome, and Lord Bellew repeated his evidence at the former trial as to Roger having been tattooed. (l'bh, it was announced, closed the Stonyhunt head of evidence.) The first head of evidence gone into was directed to falsify the account given by the defendant of the manner in which Roger left Stonyhurst, which he swore was suddenly, in con- sequence of some illness, the nature of which he would not disolose. The passages in his cross-examination relating to this matter were as follows :— Had you any illness that confined you to bed while yeu were at Stonyhurit r—Yes, I was in bed a few days. What w th T—I decline to answer the queston. I was not well. You were not well I know; what was the matter with you t —If you are alluding to 1849 I decline to aniwer. You left Stonyhurst in 1848, did you not J—1848? no I think it was the beginning of 1849. You left Stonyhurst in 18431—The latter part; I forget whether it was in 1848 or 1849. How came you to leave Stonyhurst 7—I decline to answer the question. On what grounds? Very strong grounds. You must state them.—I did not wish to stay any longer. Why should you object to answer that question if that is the reallon 7-1 have my reasons. Had you another reaton 1-1 have a reason why I will not answer the question." In his re-examination by his own counsel the defendant further stated all follows -— You have spoken of some illness that you had. Whom were you attended by for that illnesl1-A doctor one of the priests. 1 he doctor was a priest ?—Yes. Aad he attended you, did her-Yea. Without going at all into details, was any communication made to you after that illness, or about the time of that illness ?—Yes, there was. How soon after that did you leave the College ?—Within a month of that time. You left about a month afterwards?—Yes. Had yon intended to leave so soon, or was it Intended that you should leave so soon ?—It was not Intended that I should leave so soon." The first witness was the Rev. Walter Bridge, "Minister" or Vice-Principal of Stonyhurst, and who has been resident at the College for about 12 years. Of Roger he knew nothing, but he was called to produce books of accounts which would show when he left the College. He stated that there was no boek that he could discover giving at any time the names ef all the students. There was a book—the Minister's Journal—which recorded the dates ef the arrivals and departures of students—a book which was always kept by the Minister for the time being. The witness produced the book, and referred to an entry the 1st of July, 1845:—"Mr. Tichbome arrived, and was placed with the Philosophers." On the 5th of September, 1845, there was an entry—"Mr Tichbome returned for the vacation," whiih, the witness stated, was several weeks before the usual termination of the Philosophers' vacation. On the 9th of September there was an entry of the names of officers:—"Father Norris, Superior; Father Brownhill, Minister or Vice-Principal," &C. On the 6th of October, 1845. there was an entry-" Juniors came to the College, and the Secular Philosophers took possession of the Seminary." On the 8th of October, "Father Walmisley, Spiritual Father of the College." October 10, "Father Carroll appointed Superior of the Seminary." December 17, Father Clough left the College for a mission." January 15,1846, The late Seminary in future to be called St. Mary's. oJ January 22, "Mr. Seager returned to the Seminary." March 10, "Father Lythgoe returned." July 19, "John M'Cann returned from Belgium, and joined the Juniors. [ Lht of officers for the College :—Rector, Father Walmisley Professor of Latin and Greek, Father Mann, for the B A. Class Professor of Roman and Greek History, &c., Father Fitzslmon (examined the previous day): Professor of English and French, Father Petre Professor of Chymistry, Ac., Father Bird Professor of Latin and Greek (for the Juniors), Father M'Cann.]" October 10,1846, "Mr. Tichborne returned with Mr. John Berkeley." 17th December, Father Brownhill at the Seminary in place of Father O'Carroll who came to the College." 36th December, Monday 28th, Tuesday, 29th, plays performed-" Comedll of Errors and Merchant of Venice." Slst of August, 1847, "Officers for 1847-8 appointedFather Sumner. Rector; Father Mann, Pre feet of the Lower Students; Father O'Carroll, Pro- fessor of Greek and Roman history, &c," October 16 "Muter Roger Tichbome returned." August 1, 1843 Mr Bellew, Mr. Tichbome, and others went home to-day October 4, "Officers appointed." October, 1848, "Phi- losophers came from St. Mary's Hall to live at Stonyhurst; Philosophers to dine at the same time as the Community." There was no entry of Mr. Tichbome returning after leaving at the vacation in August. (Defendant had sworn that he "left suddenly," after returning ) There were several en- tries in the earlier part of October of other pupils returning -Sir J. Lawson, Mr. Waterton, &c.-but no other entry of Roger Tlchborne. Witness searched right through October and found no entry of his name. The Foreman Inquired if there was no entry of the ftnal departure of a student. Witness said there would be so if he left in the middle of a quarter, but not if he merely did not return after leaving at a vacation, for it was not always known whether he would return. Mr. Justice Luth If he left suddenly there would be an satryt Witness Certainly. The College Ledger was here referred to, and it was found that the account of Roger Tichborne finally closed on the 1st of August, 1848. The Ledger was then handed to the Jury, and they carefully impacted it. The evidence was then directed to meet the suggestion of the defendant's counsel that his client had been some- what demoralized by the performance of plays at Stony- hurst, such as the Castle of Andalusia, which was performed there in 1816, and in which, it appeared from a playbill, Roger had performed. It was suggested that there were rather loose characters in this piece—brigands and others who sang rather loose songs suggestive of a life of rapine, and it was lasinuated that this might have suggested to the defendant a "bush life." On the other hand, it was answered that the plays were carefully expurgated, aad evidence was given on that head. Mr. Kenealy, however, had called (or the original copies played from, and search having been made, those which were found were produced. Several of the playing copies of the dramas performed at Ston) burst were then nanded to the Judges, and Mr. Justice Mellor said they showed how the female characters were re- moved. and Mr. JU8tice Lush remarked that they showed the plays were expurgated. But the IdentIcal copy of the Cattle of Anaahuia used In Roger Tlchborne's time—in 1346— could not be found the earliest was dated 1852 Mr. Kenealy, In cross-examination, suggested that the entry as to the change of the hour of dinner confirmed his client's statement that the philosophers had dined at one. He also asked for any book of cash payments, hut the jury pointed out that the payments were entered in the Ledger and it appeared that Mr. Tichbome, according to what was stated to be the general rule, prepaid the stipend for his son. and had so prepaid in January, 1818, and there was no subsequent payment. The Lord Chief Justice alsc pointed out that, as there were two months of vacation, this would cover the five months from January to the end of July, when the vacation began, and this would be a final settlement of the account. This, he observed, inti- mated plainly that it was not intended that Roger should return after leaving in August. Mr. Tichborne had paid in January in advance for the five months from that month ex- clusive to the end of July. and paid no more. Mr. Justice Lush also remarked that this payment would cover the tuition up to the first of August. Mr. Kenealy, who had the Ledger before him for the purpose, care'ully and closely scrutinised It, but could find no other entries except for such things as music, <&c., which the Judges observed were extras. There was an entry, indeed, of £8 odd for tuition, but that, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, was to cover an extra period of five sixths of a month, during which Reger had been in the school before the usual period. It appeared that the final account was made up, as was usual, to the 31st of August. There were various items—the tuition for flye-sixths of a month, £ 8, and other items for extra music, dancing, Ac., making up £35. There was no other entry later than August; the account was then final'y closed, and there was a memo- randum that it was paid in November by check on the Joint- Stock Bank. The jury again closely examined the book, and said there was an entry for a month's tuition (the odd month) up to August, 1848; and, then, with the extras, the amount was brought up to £35, paid by check in November. The Lord Chief Justice: There is no other entry. Mr. Tichbome is not debited with any other item later than August: the account Is then finally closed, and it was paid in November. A number of plans and drawings of Stonyhurst were here produced by another Father, and were narrowly scrutinized by Mr. Kenealy with a view to confirm his client's state- ment that he had lived for some time at a cottage." The witness pointed out the cottage where the music-master had lived in Roger's time, and where it was now suggested he might have lived. The next witness was the Rev. Morris Mann, who in 1845, and until September, 1847, was at the College, and was Roger's tutor there, but whom the defendant had hardly re- membered. The witness well remembered, he said. Roger Tiohbome coming to the College with his father. He met Roger's father, and had some conversation with him. Mr. Tichbome said, "I have brought this boy over. from France to have a thorough English education. Let him be taught what he can learn at the College." The Lord Chief Justice How did you know the gentle- man was the father ?—He said so. Witness did not think that Roger could speak much English when he went to the College. At that time witness was "Minister of the Semi- nary" (the Superior being Father Sumner), and he taught Greek and Latin. Roger joined as a philosopher, but did not come to the Seminary until October. The Lord Chief Justice Do you know where on his first coming he went to live 1-1 think he went to the "philo- sophers' quarters" in the College I am pretty sure he did, though I cannot say I saw him there, as I was living at the Seminary. In October, 1815, I first came into close inter- course with him—when the philosophers came there. They had different studies, according to their objects In life some studied for the purpose of matriculation at the Lon- don Unlveraity-others, such as Tichborne, and others whp had no specific object in their studies, were not fit to be classified with then. From October, 1845, to September, 1847, witness knew Roger, seeing him dally andtaklng his meals with him; knowing him intimately, in fast. The dinner hour was 5. [Defendant had said 1.] Witness taught him a little Latin, but the direction of his studies was given to Father Petre, who knew French, and was best fitted to teach foreigners or bnys aoming from abroad. [Defendant had not remembered Father Petre.] Roger knew very little English; in fact, he knew none, not fsough to oe taught in English at first, and he knew very little Latin aad knew no Greek. The Lord Chief Justice: Did h. learn any while with you ?—Jfo. Did he know the Greek alphabet ?—Well, I hardly know, ^ere a year after I left. [Defendant said,—" f A? i £ don t know UI got as far as the alphabet," L T;"111 understood it tolerably well, and in c<ar»t a public examination called a known at the College. [Defendant ? £ d he "l able to parse the Latin, ana ne also read Euclid, and witness assisted him in th* Itudy; examination in Euclid formed part of the r "'f h?Hlld P*trot the minium. The Lord ChlefJimice •>. set OTer th. "pom Mr. Justice Mellor: Did you speak of it to him by that name as the &lsel bridge ? -1 believe I did. [The defend- ant had not known the meaning of the phrase.] Roger had some knowledge of the Latin Grammar when he came, and was taught it at the College. He also attended lectures on history. Did he ever, while you were there, live In a cottage?— Never.. Did he ever live in the music master's cottager—Nerer. Were there any othtr cottages in which he could have lived ?—None. Did he, in fact, ever live in a cottage 1-Never it was a thing unheard of. Was the discipline strict as to residence ?—It was. woui i a student be allowed so to live in a cottage If he desired it ?—Certainly not. ^Whatwere the habits of Roster?—Rather reserved at r*nH- £ 2-S6 ,nt0 the games, including "bandy." not.remembered It by the name]. He well remembered the death of one of Roger's fellow-stu- dents, Mr. John Berkeley, for whom a solemn requiem was celebrated, attended by the whole body of the community, and which must have made a marked impression on the mind of any young man. [The defendant had not re- membered it]. Roger was religiously Inclined, and attended to his religious duties, [the defendant had not remembered whether he ever attended the Good Friday- service at College, but no question was specialty asked as to this ] Roger played in private theatricals, and all the plays were expurgated before they were performer!, and nothing was allowed to remain which couli wound delicacy. Asked as to Roger's personal appearance, he described him all very thin and narrow-chested, with brown hair. You have seen the defendant before to-day f-Yes; I was present for two days during the last trial. Well, is he the Roger Tlchborne you knew so well f- Certainly not. Is his voice at all like Roger's f-Certalnly not. Or his general appearance ?—Certainly not; there Is no resemblance. [The cross-examination then followed ] The next witness was Lord Bellew, who was educated at Stonyhurst, and was there with Roger Tichbome. He resided at the Seminary, where Roger also resided, and where all the other philosophers" resided. He saw a great deal of Roger during the whole of the time he was there with him in 1847 and 1848, and he had a dhtinct and perfect recollection of him. Now, you have seen the defendant upon several occa- sions ?—I have. On the last trial and since then f-Yes. And you see him to-day. Is he Roger Charles Tich- borne l-No. Witness went on to say that he associated a great deal with Roger in his hours of recreation. He had made a sketch of Roger. (Produced). Do you remember doing anything to Roger's arm ?—Yes. What was that ?—I tattooed R. C. T. on it; that la, I did pan of it. Do you remember when It was ?—I can't say the exact time, it was during the time we were at Stonyhurst. Were there marks on his arm when you tattooed R.C.T. ? —Yes. What marks were they ?—Across, a heart, and an anchor. On what pirt of the arm were they ?—The left forearm. Where were the R. C. T. f-Lower down on the arm. Any other marks l-A slight blotch like a Not, near the wrist. H.d you learned to tatteo before thaU-No. Who taught you to tattoo ?—Roger Tiehbome. And how were the initials tattooed f- With needles fastened to a small piece of wood and dipped in Indian ink, and in- serted under the skin. I Who else was present when it waa done f-l can't re- r member. This was your first attempt at tattooing ?—Yes. How were the letters done ?—Very badly done In a line. On that occasion was anything done to your arm ?—Yes. By whom f- By Roger Tlchbor.Ge. What was done f-He tattooed an anchor on It. Would you mind showing it l-Not the least. (Lord Bellew went to the jury, bared his arm, and showed it to them. One of them asked whether it was darker when it was first done, and he said it was. He then showed it to the Judges.) After this, before you left Stonyhurst, did you see the marks on his arm 1-1 can't swear that I did, but I have no doubt that I did. Did you know him to live In any cettage ?—Nevsr. The witness went on to state tbe hour of dinner (5 o'clockl and was asked as to other details ef school life, some of which he said he dId not remember distinctly. As to the game called bandy," he said Roger was very fond of it, and a capital pl&yer, and it was always known by that name. They played cricket, he said, in a field. Roger, in person, was slight and angular looking, with long, straight, dark brown hair, which he had a habit of throwing hack off his forehead he was rather narrow-chested and turned out his feet in walking. You remember his voice f-Perfectly. Was it anything Uke the voice of the defendant f-Not in the least. Roger Tlchborne left In 1818. Did you see him afterwards f —Once or twice. Roger visited me at Barmeath, and I must haTe seen him in Dubllo, though I haTe no particular recol- lection. [Defendant had said he saw him in Dublin.] But I never saw him at Cahir (aa the defendant had stated], never having been there. Cross-examined by Mr. Kenealy, the witnsss said he was four years at Stonyhurst, and entered as a student Asked as to his studies, he said he was excessively idle," but he read Cottar and Cieero, and learnt Greek, reading Etop's Fables end JTettopAeM but he could not read Greek now. Could you write the Greek alphabet ?—Well, perhaps I could not do It correctly. I have not read Latin or Greek since I left Stonyhnrst I have already told you I was ex- cessively Idle, and I don't remember now. But you come to swear to a very remarkable thing about Roger Tichbome, and I want to test your memory.—But I had something to fix that on my recollection. Asked other questions as to his studies, the witness ex- cused himself from further answering on such subjects, and as to one question asked him the Lord Chief J ustlce observed that he may very fairly say he could not answer It, and no one could fairly expect him to do so. Asked as to a book entitled Stonyhurst, Past, and Present, he said he did not know it. Asked as to the museum at Stonyhnrst, he said he knew It, but did not know if it contained any memorial of Newton. Asked as to Hurst-green, he said he knew It. [The defendant did not] But as to anything remarkable there he did not know it. A cross there being mentioned and a tradition about it, he said he did not retaember it. Asked as to lectures on moral philosophy, metaphysics, Ac., he said he had attended none. Asked what metaphysics were, he answered, Something beyond mere physics; beyond, for instance, mere mechanics." After some furtber questions of this kind the examination proceeded. Did anybody apply to you about the tattooingf-Yel; Mr. Bowker, the country attorney for the family. Mr. Kenealy called for thia letter, and it was produced and read I understood that your lordship was at Stonyhurst with Roger Charles Tichbome, and during that time tattooed on his arm emblems, 'Faith, Hope, and Charity.' The family are well aware that he was tattooed, and if we could ascer- tain where and by whom he was so marked, it would tend to settle the question. Consequently, if your lordship would favour me with a letter by next post to this address, it may be of important service." Had you ever said anything abeut Faith, Hope, and Aarity ?"—No, not previous to that correspondence. it you had not so tattooed him ot course you could not have said anything about Itf-No. You had never told any one you bad so tattooed him f-N ot to my recollection. When did you tattoo Roger f-It was while I was In philo- sophy, which was two years. Was it in 1847 or 1848 ?—I cannot fix the date. Was any one present ?—My impression was that somebody was. but I cannot recall who it was. The following letter was here read :— "Barmeath, June 8,1871. "Sir,—I am In receipt of yours of yesterday. I was at Stonyhurst with Roger Tichbome. I remember his having a heart, anchor, and cross tattooed on his arm, also R. C. T.' I remember assisting to tattoo his arm, but I find it difficult to remember whether I tattooed the heart, anchor, and cr088 or R C. T.' The former were on his left arm, and I am not certain whether the R. C. T.' was not on his right arm, but as he had another mark on his left atm above the wriet, that may account for my want of accurate memoryon this detail." There you say you ssrfsted. Who assisted you l-Roger himself, I believe, assisted. You say you were not then certain ?—No, I was not certain at that time. What was it made you certain 1-1 had a conversation with Mr. Seymour. Ob, it was in consequence of a conversation with Mr. Seymour, was it ? The Lord Chief Justice Let the witness answer the ques- tion. His whole answer must be heard. Mr. Kenealy objected to it, as he had not asked as to a con- versation. Mr. Justice Mellor said the witness was entitled to com- plete his answer- Mr. Kenealy urged that it was not an answer to his ques- tion. The Lord Chief Justice: Yeu are going to Impute un. certainty to the witness, and he is clearly entitled to ex- plain it. Mr. Kenealy ohW.t«d to an answer being foisted upon him. The Lord Chief Justice: That 11 an Improper expression. It was not "foisted" upon you. The jury observed that Lord Bellew toad not said "In con- seqnence" of a conversation with Mr. Seymour. The Lord Chief Justice The conversation itielf would not be evidence of anything in it, but the witness Is entitled to make his explanation. Mr. Justice Mellor was clearly of the same opinion. The witness, he said, was entitled to say anything that might explain the grounds of bis belief or recollection. Mr. Justice Lush concurred. The witness was, he said, entitled to state anything that might explain the apparent discrepancy in his former statement, though the facts men- tioned in the conTtrJatlon were not to be taken as proved. Lord Bellew then stated I asked Mr. Seymour whether he remembert d the marks, and he told me, and said he re- membered the letters being done uneverly, like a school- boy's writing, and then the fact flashed upon my memory that I had only done the letters, and not the others. I re- membered the marks perfectly; the doubt was only as to what I had done. I knew at once I could not have done the heart, cross, and anchor. I never had any doubt as to the marks, but only as to the part I had done myself. Witness was then asked as to further correspondence be- tween himself and Mr. Bowker, and it appeared that Mr Bowker had written to him to know more about the marks, when they were done, etc., and Lord Bellew replied in this atter:— „ „ Barmeath, June 16. "Sir,—Roger Tichbome was tattooed at the seminary at Stonyhurst when we were philosophers there. I think Roger Chas. Tichbome was already tattooed before he came, but am not sure. I can swear to all the marks on his arms, although not accurate about their history on all points. He had a mark above his wrist on his left arm that looked like a tattoo mark that had been badly done, and merely producad a dim splotch like this ( ), but not so large quite." Can you give me any Idea how you came to tattoo Roger ? —I don't remember how it arose. Do you remember where it was done 1-1 can't swear, But I think it was In my room. Had you known him long 1-1 ean t fix the period. Did you tell anyone In the college you had done it f-I can't remember. Did you ever see It again after you had done it 7-1 don't remember any particular occasion, but I have no doubt I saw Ui. Can you tell how long It took to do It f-I can only suppose. Was there a Miss Bellew f-1 had four sisters. What were their Christian names ?—(He mentioned one of them ) Was Roger acquainted with her 7-1 suppose so. Do you remember your father leaving Ireland abcut some- thing relating to Frances and Ragerl-No; certainly not. I was in Germany when he was in Ireland. Did not yonr father go to Paris about it Mr. Hawkins objected. The Lord Chief Justice: Is your*slster alive l-Tel. Did you meet Roger in Ireland ?—Yes; at Barmeath. Was it in 18511-1 can't swear. These queitions related to an allusion to a Miss BelJew" In the" test., letter defendant wrote to Mr. HopkIns in February, 1867, soon after his arrival. You remember," he wrote, Miss Bellew." No evidence has hitherto been given about it. Were you In Ireland In 1851 l-Tes. And in 1852?-Yes. At Barmeath f- Yel; those were my head-quarters. Had you no knowledge that your father went to Paris In 1852 f-Ue went to Paris several times. I speak of 1852; are you prepared to say he did not go to Paris In that yearl-He did go there In that year, first before my marriage to buy ornaments for my mother. Are you satisfied he had no other business?—I am satis- fled. The Lord Chief Justice: Did your father ever eommuni- oate anything to you affecting the Interests of your family connected with Roger Tichbome ?—Never. Mr. Kenealy I am n Jt imputing anything wrong. The Lord Chief Justice I hope not. Therefore I used the term interest" and not "honour of the family. The witness was again asked and repeated his answers. Mr. Kenealy asked him if his family had connexions In Paris. Mr. Hawkins objected that this was irrelevant The Lord Chief Justice here alluded to the letter to Mr. Hopkins containing the sentence, "You remember Miss Beltøw. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that there was nothing in the letter about Paris. Mr. Kenealy: Did your family visit the Tichbornes f- My family were acquainted with them, but more with the Dough tys. How were the letters R. C. T. made? [Be described how —in a line down the arm, so that holding the arm up they; would read R. C. T. from the R. towards the wrist. He was then asked to describe the marks of the cross, heart, and anchor, and he drew them one above tbe other, the cross uppermost upon the heart, and the heart resting upon the flake of the anchor. It will be recollected that M. Chatillon and his wife differed as to this—one saying the three marks were one above the other the other saying they were, so to speak, entangled o- iDterlYined in each other. But all the witnesses have agreed that the marka were there, and that J the tetters were beneath them ] How far was the blotch from his wrist?—Close on to it. Was Roger knock-kneed or in-kneed 1-No but he had the appearance of it when rnnntng. Do you know Captain Harvey ?—Yes. Is he a friend of yours ?—I objeot to answer that question. The Lord Chief Justice said tows was no objection to tho question. The witness said,—He was no particular friend of mine. Have you ever stayed In hit house ?—Yea. Did you ever playa tpractioal joke on him?—Yes, seven years ago. Mr. Hawkins objected that this could not possibly have to do with Roger Tichbome. The Lord Chief Justice: I suppose it is meant to affect Lord Bellew's credibility as a witness, to induce the Jury to disbelieve his testimony as to the tattooing. If it does not affect his credibility, and is not relevant to the present in- quiry the question cannot be put Bat it is diiffcult to say beforehand whether It doel or doel not affect his credit. Did you take away his wife?—I don't see how you ought to ask me to answer such a question, which Involves other persons. Mr. Kenealy pressed his question. Lord Bellew What do you mean by taking away his wife?" Seducing her, and getting her to elope from her husband ? Lord Bellew declined to answer, as it would compromise other persons. Mr. Kenealy prelSed h1a question, and declared that he was compelled to do so by a sense of duty to hiS client. Did you, being a married man, seduce his wife and induce her to elope with you ? Lord Bellew appealed to the Lord Chief Justice Am I obliged to answer ? The Lord Chief Justice I am afraid you are. Answer "Yes or "No." Lord Bel'ew I am ready to answer as to myself, but I cannot as to others. Mr. Kenealy I am sorry to be obliged to press you for an answer, "Yes "or "No!" While in that gentleman's house did you seduce his wife ? Lord B>Uew, after a long pause, said,—Captain Harvey gave her jM to go to me. I was not then in the house. She telegraphed to me, and I joined her. That is what you mean to swear as your account of the matter ?—That is whatl swear to the best of my belief. How long before had you been in his house ?—A month. You had been a frequent guest at his hon.«e ?—Yes. You abandoned her afterwards ?—No I did not. Did yon not basely abandon that woman?—No I saw her a few days ago. You abandoned your wife?—No, she left me. Oh, she left you 1-Tel. This closed the cross-examination. Mr. Hawkins, In re-examination; You were crOll-exa. mined at the last trial by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and at some length ?—Yes. He did not mention the matter just adverted to as going to your credibility ?—No. 11 was seven years ago ?—Yes. You have no interest in this case ?—None whatever. You did not volunteer your evidence ?—No; I was applied to about It. You and Roger were intimate friends ?—Yes. You had no communication with the family until applied to by the attorney ?—No. Have you an) doubt as to the fact that Roger was tat- tooed 1-None whatever. In answer to the Lord Chief Justice, the witness said the Crol", the anchor, and heart seemed darker, as if done with gunpowder. Did you tattoo any one else at Stonyhurst ?—No. You are quite certain it was Roger Tlchborne ?—Quite. Mr. Justice Mellor: The marks on your arm are fainter now than they were ?—Yes. The Lord Chief Justice: Do you know of anything be- tween ycur sister and Roger?—No, nor ever heard of any- thing. Ooe of the Jury: Did you ever observe anything peculiar in Roger Tichborne's thumb?—No; I often saw his hands, and saw nothing peculiar in them. Mr. Hawkins hero announced tbat he had arrived at the eloae of the Stonyhurst head of evidence, and be now pro- posed to pu* in all the letters he had in his possesion. The Lord Chief Justtoe said all the letters of the undoubted Roger Tlchborne, and all the letters to him from afciy member of his family, and all letters of the defendant ought to be put in. Mr. Hawkins assented. The Court then adjourned.

[No title]


[No title]


Cm futbra Comspfoent.