THE TIOHBORNE TRIAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1703, 19 January 1874, Page 4

THE TIOHBORNE TRIAL.

(from .the home news.) , The rebutting, evidence , for the prose*; cution, as Mr Hawkins explained, is not exactly closed, but i the ' court has adjourned until November 17. The ground of Mr Hawkin's application for this delay is the impossibility of completing certain inquiries now making in the United States wiih regard to the evidence of the man calling himself Jean Line, and alleging that he was steward of a ship called the Osprey when that vessel picked up Mr Tichborne and other survivors of the Bella. Luie, it will be remembered, gave very exact statements as to the time and place of the departure of that vessel from Staten Island, New York, her captain's name, her owner's names, and whereabouts; and he also gave the addresses of some of the crew of the Osprey, and stated that he himself had a tavern in Chicago and a "grogshop" in New Jersey, where his name was over the door. The late period at which he was introduced would, in the ordinary course, have rendered it impossible to inquire into the accuracy of these and numerous other statements of this witness, who had only been described by Dr. Kenealy in hi/i speech as "the mate," and again as " a seaman of the Osprey," and his name was unknown to the prosecution until he made his appearance in the witness-box, on the 14th and loth of. October. The Bench have also pointed out that no notice was given of what Osprey was referred to, except that she was the Osprey hailing from "New Bedford," which is admitted to be erroneous ; and Mr Hawkins has complained that, in reliance on this information, the prosecution have been put to expense in bringing from the United States the captain and the logbook of the New Bedford Osprey, which were ready in ample time for the rebutting evidence. It was under,, these circumstances that the Court, on the mere application of counsel, granted the delay asked for. Dr. Kenealy, however, protested, but offered no argument against the adjournment, which the Lord Chief Justice said "appeared reasonable," except that the gentleman sent out to j America—who is understood to be Mr Purcell, the barrister— ought to have left earlier than October 21, Luie having been examined on the 15th, and recalled on the 17th. Mr Justice Lush, however, expressed his opinion that no time had been lost ; and, finally, the Court rose with an almost schpolboy glee over the unexpected boon of a fortnight's release from the close confinement of the Court of Queen's Bench. On the other hand it was distinctly intimated that the fortnight is not be all holiday ; but, on the contrary, that counsel are to prepare their addresses to the jury, and expect no fnrther delay for that purpose; while, among other tokens of future progress, Mr Hawkins announced that the remainder of his rebutting evidence would occupy a short time. .'Henry Bigmore, the ex-Carabineer, added to his previous evidence the fact that he asked the defendant at the Waterloo' Hotel if he remembered a fire in the stable of the barracks, and that the latter said, that he had heard of it, and that it occurred at Newbridge through a man lighting his pipe ; whereas, according to witness, it occurred at Fermoy, and from a different cause. This was in reference to the evidence of Brittlebank, who deposed that at a latter date than the interview with Bigmore, the claimant reminded him of the fire in the stables. It Was, however, elicited from Bigmore that Roger Tichborne, though with his regiment, was not at Fermoy, at the time. Mrs Phillips, widow the late Major Phillips, was called in reference to the statement of Greenwood, the army tailor, that; he showed the defendant a photograph group of three portraits of officers, and that after looking at this a little while the defendant correctly pointed out j the middle one a3 Captain Fraser, the quarter-master. Mrs Phillips' evidence was to the effect that shortly before that. incident— namely, on the 29th March, 1867 — the defendant called on her, and that she then showed him a similar photographic group, on which he made no remark, and Mrs Phillip* then told him that the centre portrait was that of " Captain Fraser, the quarter-master." A great deal of time was then occupied in taking the evidence of the bootmakers who had been employed by the defendant on the vexed question of whether he has or has not a large foot. During these inquiries Dr. Kenealey stated that his client wished to have his feet measured in .the presence of the jury; but no definite arrangement was come to on that point. --Finally Mr Davis, the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, who has sat in court during the last and present trial, was, called upon to give evidence as to when the subject of tattoo marks was first suggested;- This. waß stated: to be in reference to the suggestion of Dr. Kenealy that the tattoo marks were an "after thought," and his observation that inquiries werejjet on foot upon that point hyfMr Bowker immediately after the claimant, in luV cross-examination, had, at the request of Sir John Coldridge, bared his left arm, and stated that he had no tattoo marks. In reference to this Mr Davis stated that in the Month of May, 1871, before 'the claimant's examination commenced, Dr. Liscombe, one of his witnesses, was questioned as to the tattoo marks by the Solicito-General. The Court then adjourned to the date given above.