Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

20 articles on this Page

THE TRIAL OF THE CLAIMANT.

News
Cite
Share

THE TRIAL OF THE CLAIMANT. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-THIRD DAY. The trial-at-bar of the claimant to the Tichborne baronoatcy:and estates was resumed on Wednesday. The Lord Chief Justice continued his summing up to the jury by remarking that so many difficulties suggested themselves to a thoughtful mind respecting the story of the defendant that it would be necessary to minutely and oritically examine the details of his narrative. No ape had ever been rescued from the wreck of the Bella exceut the defendant, if he were, as he alleged, Roger Tich- borne; therefore, no one but he could pretend to gi va them any idea as to how the vessel fouudeied. When under crow-examination at the Law Institution he did not manifest so much frankness and ■traightforwardness as might be expected from a person in his position. It made all the difference whether Roger was sober or drunk when he went on board the Bella, be- cause the defendant had assigned to drunkenness his in- ability to give any coherent account of the wreck of the vessel. He stated tnat he indiliged in debauchery at Rio, and met with Captain Birkett, of the Bella, whom he told that he had lost all bis money. The story had so much effect on the captain that he con- sented to take the young man to New York. and to detain his vessel to enable a paaapovt to be obtained. Notwithstanding this, he went on board without a passport after all. This seeded to be inconsistent; for if Captain Birkett detained ms ship to enable Roger to procure a passport, was it likely that after all he would have taken the young man away surreptitiously? The defendant's statement was in direct conflict with the evidence of Captain Gates, who affirmed that Roger did not go on board the Bella drunk, and that he was placed in the lazarette, not the after-cabin. The defendant was totally ob- livious of the existence of Captain Oates, although his own witness, "Captain Brown," said he saw Oates and Roger drunk, and playing billiards together at Rio. Brown asserted further that it was no wonder the Bella was lost, for when he went on board the morning she sailed, everybody was almost dead drunk. If they believed Brown, his testimony was in direct contradiction, not only with that of Captain Oates, but of Captain Hoskynsi also, for the latter utterly denied, among other things, that he debauched with Roger and Oates at Rio. The defendant stated that his drunkenness prevented him from leaving the cabin in which he was placed until the morning of the wreck. Then a seaman directed the attention of the captain to the fact that the vessel was very low, and, on the pumps being tried, twelve feet of water were found in the hold. A Juror With twelve feet of water in the hold, would not the lazarette have been filled ? The Lord Chief Justice replied in the affirmative, and added that the whole of the bottom of the vessel would have been filled. Therefore, that part of the story most necessarily be abandoned. The tendency of all nautical evidence was that long before that the presence of the water must have been detected, as she would have be- come waterlogged and perfectly unmanageable. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was cross-examined as to whether a story had not been afloat that the Bella had been scuttled. When a direct negative was given to this question the learned counsel ought to have rested satisfied; but instead of being so, he put further questions with the view of shewing that the captain purposely sank the Bella in order to enable the owners to realise upon the over- inaurance. Such an imputation was perfectly atrocious, and it was curious that it should have been made by the very same counsel who just before endeavoured to shew that the opening of the seams or the corrosion of the bolta might have occasioned the disaster. He knew not at whose diabolical instigation this hideous ac- cusation was made, but he did not believe there was a shadow of pretence for it. Was it probable that the captain who entertained such designs would have gone unprepared with sails for the boat in which he intended to effect his escape four hundred miles from land ? Great discrepancies existed between the statement which the defendant originally made, and the one he told in the Court of Common Pleaa. The learned counsel for the defence said he would not ask the jury to believe some parts of the story, but he con- aidered that the absurd tale of his client conclusively proved that he was not Arthur Orton, who, being a sailor, would not have told a story which to a sailor carried incredibility and falsehood upon it. But assuming that Orton was a sailor was assuming that which was very questionable. It was true that he took three voyages in some capacity on board ship. But although Orton would not tell an incredible story to sailors, he might do so to landsmen. Why should not Roger Tichbome have narrated events as they happened, he having no object to deceive any one ? Some oircumstances the defendant had deposed to never happened. Why should Roger have invented the story and represented as true that which was false ? The de- fendant alleged that it was the Osprey which picked him up and took him to Melbourne, but no corroboration of this could be obtained from any of the ordinary souroes of information. Was it probable that a shipwrecked man could remain three months on board of the vessel which rescued him without ascertaining her name ? Would he also have left the captain without thanking him for all his kindness ? Evidence had been produced to shew that an Osprey was at Melbourne in July, 1854, but it had not been shewn that that Osprey had a ship- wrecked crew on board. It was said by the prosecution, that that Osprey could not have picked up a shipwrecked crew without its being known either at the Custom House, by the persons whose business it was to ascertain the name of very person who came into the port, or by the nautica 1 eporter of the newspapers whose business it was to visit all the ships and obtain particulars of all that had oc- curred during the voyage. The evidence for the defence as to the presence of an Osprey at Melbourne was -deserv- ing of consideration, but it waa for the jury to determine whether such a vessel could have arrived without the fact that she had picked up shipwrecked men being reported in some way or the other. One of the defen- dant's witnesses swore that he saw the Baltimore Oeprey at Melbourne, but the prosecution had produced pretty strong evidence from America to shew that such a vessel hailing from Baltimore could not have been in Australia during 1854. Another witness alleged that he 8aw several seamen and a landsman leave the Osprey, but his statement was beset with some trifling difficulties. These seamen were dressed in holiday clothes, and had full bags, whereas the defendant alleged that the sea- men of the Bella lost everything but what they stood upright in. And the landsman would not have been the defendant, as the de- fendant asserted that he went on shore with the captain of the Osprey, leaving the shipwrecked sailors on board. He confessed that much of this evidence greatly stag- gered him, not that he doubted that the witnesses in- tended to tell the truth, but he was astonished at the prodigious power of memory which they exhibited. The majority of them had no particular circumstance to enable them to fix the date or the name of the Osprey on their minds. Mr. Russell and Mr. Liardet were exceptions. The latter said he remembered seeing th* Osprey at Melbourne when he was on a month's leave of absence, the granting of which was the last official act of the Governor, Sir Charles Fitzroy. Now the period of Sir C. Fitzroy's leaving Australia had been fixed in January, 1855, so that Mr. Liardet must have been mis- taken or aeen another Osprey. Three different Witnesses had spoken of three entirely different shipwrecked crews landing from three different Ospreys, yet there wasno offi- eial record of any one of them. Dr. Kenealy, nothing embarrassed by his riches, exclaimed with exultation that that signified nothing, and invited the jury to make their choice out of three ships. (Laughter.) That was easy reasoning; but, before picking out an Osprey which fiad the crew of the Bella on board, it was necessary that vessel should fit with the circumstances to which the defendant had deposed A quarantine officer stated 4hat he went alongside an Osprey as she was entering Hobson's Bay about the middle of 1854, but he had not the slightest memoranda to enable him to fix the date. No doubt the defendant laboured under considerable dif- Mculty in the last trial from his inability to trace an Os- prey as having been in Hobson s Bay m July, 1854. The simple fact of an Osprey having been there at some time or the other was not sufficient for the defendant a case it •was necessary that it should have been there concurrently with the time at which the defendant said he arrived Were the jury, therefore, satisfied upon the evidence that an Osprey was there, and that she had picked up e- fendant from the wreck of the Bella ? Mr. Child been abused by the counsel for the defendant for1 co S forward as a witness. Why a gentleman should not o called in a proseeutiott instituted by the Government o which he was a member, if he could afford usefal infor- mation and elucidate the truth, he could not conceive. A vessel might have entered the bay and escaped the vigilance of the authorities, but he could not understand bow one from which a shipwrecked crew landed coald have done so. But had the defendant always adhered to the statement that the ship which picked him up was the Osprey ? If he were an imposter he would either have to invent a name or hit upon one which he had some reason for recollecting. One of the first things he did on arriving in England was to go to Lloyd's with his legal adviser and endeavour to trace out an Osprey. That he did this was fully certain, although he steadfastly denied in cross-examination in the ejectment suit that he had ever been to Lloyd's or even knew where it was. They were told by a witness for the prosecution that during the search, two Ospreys could be found as having sai'ed for Australia in 1854, but one of these was only a 60-ton vessel, and the other was lost before she arrived at her destination. Subsequently the defendant aban- doned the Osprey, and said, when cross-examined at the Law Institution, that he was under the impression that the Themis picked him up, and he believed the captain was named either Lewis Owen or Owen Lewis. In the Oeurt of Common Heas he fell back again upon the Osprey, but accounted for his uncertainty about her same nationality, and the port she came from by saying he W".s delirious during two of the three months he was on hi- way to Melbourne. What WAS stated as positive knowledge at Melbourne melted down to a qualified an^ei ion in 1868, but his selection of the Themis shook thoii confidence in hi-* statement that it was or wai not the Opn-y that picked him up. But if an Osprey was at Melbourne In July, 1854, it did not follow that ahe a shipwrecked crew on board ef her. And if she had a shipwrecked crew on board, it did not follow that it was thp crew of the BelU. Further, if the crew belonged to the Bella it did not follow that the defendant was there as Tichborne. It was a remarkable fact, assuming th- ik-fendant'.s story to be true, that none of the persons who were alleged to have been saved from the Bella had keen found to give their evader ce, for so long had this CAof Ween pen ling, and so important had been regarded, thaJ, i was now known of all over the world. Some one U' I been discovered who said he was on board :he Oi-jVrt-v when the crew of the Bella were saved, but as had been so utterly given up, they mnst treat his evidence as false and perjured from beginning to end. Lu. had l" iine forward, either spontaneously or under the ■'nflueisc- "f '>t!.t-is. on oath tes'.iai my which he knew jierfec'y v-i; w-v, a tissue "f faWhood. He was afraid that at.*eiu:>t that was m>.le to iai- pose upon tip" jury serious consequences on the defendant. l'hat it would damage hia case there could be doubt, but it ought not to do so beyond a legitimate extent. If Luie s evidence was false, it did no J lollow tu»t the defendant was not Kosrer Tichbo-ne. b c he might have adopted the evidence, in the that it was true. The defendant hit upon ttie Themis on its being ascertained that a young man who might answered the descrip- tion of Roger Tichborn<r in her fo He correctly described the vessel, and the streel in which the agents' office was situated in Melbourne, but was obliged to give the Themis up on its being discovered that the young man was an ordinary passenger, and had not been ship- wrecked. The strangest part of the story was that when the defendant reverted back again to the Osprey. he said unable to state where the Melbourne agents' office was, and that he went with the captain, not to the office, but to the Custom House. If any trace of an American Osj)rey-it was not until lf>71 that the vessel was believed not to be British-could have been found to fit in with the circumstances of the present case, that indefatigable gentleman, Mr. Whalley, would have produced it. This concluded the remarks he had to make on the subject of the Osprey, and en Friday he would deal with the life of the defendant in Australia. The Court then adjourned until nday, their Lord- ships having decided, for the convenience of a juror, not to bit on Thursday.

jME- DISRAELI AT NEWPORT |…

Advertising

| A FRENCH "CLAIMANT." I

GARDEN WORK FOR THE WEEK.

THE COMIC PAPERS. }

[No title]

Advertising

(FROM OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENT.)

Advertising

pisttict itttellujence. .

THE IRISH AND HOME RULE.

THE LICENSED VICTUALLERS AND…

VOTING INSTKt;CTIOKS. ^

[No title]

I BRISTOL STOCK EXCHANGE.—WEDNESDAY.

latest Jtokts. --

REUTER'S MAIL TELEGRAMS.

I :J u ortt ng 3iliteltiocitce…

Advertising