« PreviousContinue »
wife of an English physician resident there, for the compensation of one thousand dollars and her expenses, had come across the ocean to testify in this cause. She perfectly remembered the arrival of an English lad at that town in 1847, or a little earlier ; apparently about sixteen years old. [Arthur Orton was about this age, but Tichborne would have been at least five years older.] He gave his name as Arthur Orton, son of George Orton, of London, butcher to the Queen. He was dressed as a common sailor and said he had been badly treated by his captain. He mentioned his sisters, Mary Anna and Margaret Anne, and a third whose name had escaped Donna Clara's memory. - [Orton had three sisters, Mary Anne, Margaret, and Elizabeth.] — His hair was light, with a reddish cast (rubio). He showed her two letters on his arm, about midway between the wrist and elbow, occupying a space as large perhaps as a shilling, and which he told her meant Arthur Orton. He was a Protestant, though once he had told her that he was not a Christian at all. While at Melipilla he had been baptized as a Catholic, a fact which made much stir in the village.
Mrs. Jury, a connection by marriage of Arthur Orton, knew him well in Hobart Town, said he had A. O. tattooed on his arm, and unhesitatingly identified him with defendant.
Gibbes, the Australian attorney, was called. He said that Orton at some time between July and September, 1865, had applied to him to be put through insolvency, bearing then the name of Castro, but asked whether he would be obliged to disclose certain property to which he was entitled in the south of England. Witness told him that he would ; that the penalty for a concealment in the event of discovery would be very heavy. This apparently deterred defendant from proceeding further in the business. This witness saw Cubitt's advertisement in the “Sydney Morning Herald,” and for a while believed that he himself had perhaps " spotted” the missing man; but he felt no absolute certainty. The defendant had shown to this witness the famous pipe with the initials R. C. T.; but upon interrogation had acknowledged that he had not preserved it ever since the shipwreck, but had cut the letters a year or fifteen months before. It was this pipe, in connection with the advertisement, which first aroused Gibbes's suspicions, and caused him to communicate with Cubitt.
This witness it was who wrote the will in Australia. It was written, as he said, only in order to have executors appointed, because defendant wanted to borrow money, and witness advised him that no one would lend him money unless some provision in the way of executors were made to provide for the contingency of his death. But there was no idea that it would ever be really used as a last testament.
Witness had received a letter from the Dowager Lady Tichborne, in which she said that her son had been educated at Stonyhurst, and had been in the 6th regiment of Carabineers. Pushing his investigation as to identity, witness then went to Sydney, found the defendant at that place; took him before a respectable solicitor there and questioned him. Defendant then said he was born in Dorsetshire, and that shortly after her confinement, his mother went to Cherbourg. That he had two sisters born in Paris. He distinctly denied that he was ever at Stonyhurst; said he was in the 66th regiment of Light Dragoons; that the uniform was blue and the arms were a sword and carbine; that he was a private ; that he ran away and joined the dragoons ; that he was forthwith, after the lapse of only thirteen days, bought off by his father, and that he was thereafter kept under careful surveillance till he went abroad ; that the cause of his joining the army was a card case at Brighton, in which he had been swindled out of several hundred pounds. Afterward, being taxed with the glaring discrepancies between many of his statements and the accounts given in his mother's letter, he exclaimed: “I never was an officer and by God I've a damned mind never to go near her when I go home.”
In the will the defendant had given his mother's name as Harriet Frances. When it was suggested to him that his mother's name really was Henriette Félicité he only said: “I've a notion that she was called Lady Harriet.” Mr. Hawkins remarked that she was not called “ Lady” at all till long after Roger left home. But Henriette Félicité seems to have proved quite too much for the butcher's son from Wapping; and in an affidavit made a little later he gave her yet another alias, an approximation to accuracy, -“Harriet Felicia.”
Defendant had thrown out hints and mysterious statements to this witness as to his being entitled to property in England, and that his family had a title, and that his name was assumed; and all this had taken place, as Gibbes averred, before
witness heard of Cubitt's advertisement and of the missing Tichborne heir.
Divers small incidents which led witness to believe in defendant's identity with the lost heir were: his recognizing a street in Paris from a photograph; his being visibly affected on hearing of his younger brother Alfred's death; his recognition of his mother's handwriting ; and his gentleman-like air and behavior in many respects.
Defendant told witness that the reason he was not married by the Catholic ceremonial at first was because he was not on good terms with the church. This, however, turned out to be not for any thing he had already done, but because he meant to cut off the Tichborne dole, which he said was three shillings in the pound of the income. In fact, the dole was only a few loaves of bread.
Mary Anne Loder, the quondam inamorata of Arthur Orton, was called, and with a “ faint smile,” admitted that defendant was the person who used to “keep company” with her under that name; the same in voice and figure, save only that he was now a little stouter. She had no doubt: if she had the slightest, di fendant should have the benefit of it. She also testified to the twitching of the eyebrows of her lover; but she could not be brought by any urgency to admit that her old admirer was a “raw-boned ” man. She said his hair was light, and being shown a lock which was cut from the head of the defendant in Chili, she said it was like that of Orton.
A great number of witnesses, chiefly from Wapping, testified to their belief that defendant was their old acquaintance, Arthur Orton; some of them being more and some less positive. It is needless to reproduce their evidence categorically; but it should be noted that whereas it had been made a point by the claimant that Arthur Orton was pock-marked, and had his ears pierced for ear-rings, each and all of these Wapping witnesses said that he was not pock-marked, or, at least, not so much so that they had ever observed the marks. Some, however, said that he had had the small-pox, but had escaped substantially unscarred by it. Also they all agreed that they had never seen him wear ear-rings, and had never seen holes for rings in his ears.
With a view in some measure to discrediting the seduction story, the prosecution sought to show that Roger's training had been such as to leave him singularly pure-minded and unsophisticated in such matters. Accordingly the Rev. Christopher Fitzsimon, chaplain at Stonyhurst during Roger's term there, was summoned, and told about the Christmas plays in which the boys were wont to act. In these, female characters were never allowed to appear: but were changed into male characters, or else were ruthlessly eradicated altogether. Often enough, this singular process ruined the drama. How a love plot could be carried out the witness was unable to explain ; he could not tell how Romeo and Juliet could be played without a Juliet. But he clung to his statement. Mr. Hawkins then came to bis aid, and said that he himself had a number of the school-playbills, from which it appeared that “ Box and Cox” had been acted without a Mrs. Bouncer; “Hamlet” without an Ophelia ; “ Macbeth” without a Lady Macbeth ; and the “ Merchant of Venice” without a Portia.
Mr. Gosford, friend, confidant, executor, trustee, and the custodian of the sealed packet, was called. Respecting the packet, he said: I recollect having a long conversation with him [Roger] in my room at Tichborne, - I think on the 1st of January, 1852, - upon the subject of his attachment for his cousin. He knew there would be no recognition of it by Lady Doughty, Sir Edward, and his father, and he determined to give expression to his feelings in his own way. He appeared very low and disspirited. He jumped up, and saying, “I'll tell you what I'll do," he went to the desk, wrote on a piece of paper, showed it to me, and said, “If I marry my cousin, that's what I'll do.” Every syllable of it has been in my memory ever since. I told him that such vows should not be lightly made, and that he had better think it over. He however said that was his intention, folded over the paper, put it in an envelope, and sealed it with wax, using his own seal. He then wrote on the outside : “Memorandum. Private and confidential,” handed it to me, and asked me to keep it. I put it in my desk, thinking no harm would come of it, and kept it for years, but ultimately destroyed it. Roger never gave me any other document. The writing was this: “If I marry my cousin within two [or three years ” — I can't recollect which — “I promise to build a church at Tichborne to the Blessed Virgin.” Lower down he wrote: “I also intend to build a house at Tichborne.” He signed it Roger Charles Tichborne, Tichborne Park.
Lady Radcliffe appeared well in her answers. She said that, on June 22, 1852, at one o'clock in the afternoon, Roger gave her a letter, saying, “ This is a promise I have made ; and I have given a similar one to Gosford.” They read it over together. Two hours later, at three o'clock that afternoon, Roger left Tichborne, and she had never seen him since.
Mr. Hawkins. Was there any familiarity between you and Roger, other than that you have told us of to-day?
Lady Radcliffe (emphatically). No, never — never!
Mr. Hawkins. Is the defendant's statement at the last trial, that Roger seduced his cousing perfectly false ?
Lady Radcliffe. Utterly false - utterly false! Roger would never have thought of such a thing.
The claimant's narration of Roger's meeting with his cousin alone one day in Tichborne village, in November, 1852, dismounting from his horse and talking with her “about her condition," was repeated, and the witness was asked, " Is there one syllable of truth in these details ?”.
Lady Radcliffe (in firm audible tones). Certainly not! not one single word! And God knows I am speaking the truth.
Mr. Hawkins, in re-direct examination, asked :
It is not suggested that any act of impropriety ever took place between you and Roger. But I ask you, as a matter of fact, was there ever any Buch'act ?
Lady Radcliffe. Never! never! never! in the whole course of my life, I solemnly protest.
The case for the prosecution being closed, Dr. Kenealy, on the twenty-second day of July, arose to open the case for the defendant. He obtained leave to remove his wig on account of the excessive heat ; and forthwith plunged into an harangue which was in many respects so extraordinary as to show that this precaution for keeping his head cool had been neither superfluous nor altogether effective. As he appears in this cause, he is indeed a most singular person. He possesses an unrivalled audacity and almost an unrivalled insolence in his manners towards the bench. The acerbity of the temper of the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn is well known on both sides of the Atlantic. But it was reserved