7th April 1874
Reference Numbert18740407-273
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Navigation< Previous text (trial account) | Next text (trial account) >

273. CARL PETER LUNDGREN otherwise JEAN LUIE (50), was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed by him on a trial at bar in the Court of Queen's Bench, in October, 1873.

MESSRS. POLAND AND BESLEY conducted the Prosecution.

A certificate of the trial and conviction of Thomas Castro otherwise Arthur Orion otherwise called Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, Bart., was put in and read.

WILLIAM AISH DAVIS . I am a short-hand writer—I attended the trial of Thomas Castro otherwise Arthur Orton otherwise Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tiohborne, in the Court of Queen's Bench—on 14th October last the prisoner appeared as a witness—ho was sworn in the ordinary way, in

the name of Jean Luie, and was examined on behalf of the defendant—I took down the greater part of his evidence in short-hand—I have my original notes here—I have compared this printed transcript with my notes—it is correct—I took his evidence on 14th October, from the commencement of it until the mid-day adjournment at 1.30 to the bottom of page 2,261—on the following day I took from the commencement of the sitting of the Court down to the mid-day adjournment; that is to the middle of page 2,325—the printed transcript of that is correct—the next day I took from the sitting of the Court until he left the box, at page 2,418—on 4th December I took from page 3,103 to 3,106—the transcript of that is correct.

CHARLES BENNETT . I am a short-hand writer—I was present at part of the trial of Orton in the Queen's Bench and took portions of the notes of the prisoner's evidence; I have my notes here—this is a printed transcript revised by my notes—on 14th October I began at page 2,262, and took down to the middle of page 2,274—it is correct—that was all I took of Luie's evidence.

MATTHIAS LEVY . I am a short-hand writer—I was present at a portion of this trial on 14th October I commenced at page 2,274 and continued to the close of the day—on 1st December I commenced at page 3,106 to 3,107, and again at 3,108 when the prisoner was recalled, to the close of his evidence at page 3,113—I have compared the printed report with my notes, it is correct.

(The evidence then given by the prisoner was put in and read in part: the substance of it, upon which perjury was assigned was, that in 1852 he joined a vessel called the Osprey, at New Orleans, as steward; that in February 1854, on a voyage from Staten Island, New York, to Melbourne, a boat containing six men was picked up, one of whom was a person who was afterwards known as Mr. Rogers; that he (the prisoner) attended to him on board the Osprey until their arrival at Melbourne in July, when he left the vessel and went to the diggings for ten months; that he was afterwards employed on board various vessels and in different parts of the world for several years until June, 1873, when he for the first time came over to this country in the Circassia ; that he had never been in England before that time, and that then accidently hearing of the Tichborne case at a public house, and thinking the claimant might possibly be the person he had known as Mr. Rogers on board the Osprey, he made inquiries and ultimately saw and recognized the Claimant as that person; he further swore that he had never gone by any other name than Luie, and had never been in trouble in his life, and that since July, 1873, he had maintained himself out of his own money and paid his own expenses.

HERMAN THEODORE TRANA . I am in the service of Messrs. Montgomery & Co. of Liverpool, provision merchants. In 1850 and 1851 I was in the service of Messrs. Heald & Co. of Newcastle, ship brokers, at that time I knew a vessel called the Isabella—I went on board her, and saw the Captain, that was the prisoner, he went by the name of Carl Lundgren—I went on board for business, offering to become agent for the ship, but was not accepted—afterwards in 1853 or 1854 I saw the prisoner again at Hull—I was then in the service of John Lundgren & Co, ship brokers there, as corresponding clerk—I went to them in 1853 or 1854, I don't recollect which it was and remained five or six, or six or seven months—the prisoner was then a clerk in the same office, I saw him pretty nearly every day, he was water clerk—don't remember whether he was there all the time I was—I can't exactly say how long, he was there more than a month or two—I next

saw him in 1862 or 1863 at Bristol—I was trying to charter two Russian vessels and saw the prisoner on board the Russian barque Arcoot—he went backwards and forwards there, he did not belong to the ship—I spoke to him in Swedish—he is a Swede and so am I—I think he belongs to Gottenberg—he did not say so, but I know he does—I afterwards saw him in the Court of Queen's Bench.

Prisoner. I don't want to ask him anything; I don't know the man.

By the COURT. I was corresponding clerk to Lundgren and Co. of Hull, for six or seven months—the prisoner was acting as water clerk when I went there—I found him there—I suppose he was there in the office with me six or seven months, I can't remember exactly, nearly all the time I was there—I don't know where he went when he left—I went from Hull to Liverpool—I have not been with Messrs. Montgomery, of Liverpool ever since—I went into a French house at Liverpool as corresponding clerk—then I was with Pilkington Brothers of Liverpool, and in several offices as corresponding clerk, from my knowledge of languages—I only saw the prisoner once on board the ship at Bristol, but at Hull I saw him every day for six or seven months.

By the JURY. I recognised him at once when I saw him at Bristol, we spoke together—he did not talk about Hull, we talked together in Swedish—I had always been accustomed to talk to him in Swedish at Hull.

JAMES COOPER . I am clerk to Messrs. Humphreys and Son, ship-builders at Hull—I commenced with them in 1856—I had been in Hull previously—I first went to Hull in 1849, I left in 1852, and came back in 1853—in 1853 I knew the firm of John Lundgren and Co.—I knew their clerks—I knew Mr. Trana, the last witness and I knew the prisoner by the name of Lundgren, the same name as his employer—he was in the service of John Lundgren and Co. when I first knew him—I knew him at Hull, from the latter part of 1853, till about the middle of 1854—he was a Swede—I would see him perhaps every other day, sometimes perhaps there might be a day or two between; at all events, I used to see him frequently up to the middle of 1854—I was then in the employ of Hall, Reeme and Son, curriers—I had no business with the firm of Lundgren, only I was acquainted with Mr. Trana, and through being acquainted with him, I became acquainted with Lundgren's firm—the first time we ever met together was at the Minerva Hotel, we met there of an evening—I went there to see Trana, being an old friend, and so I became acquainted with the prisoner—(I have been in Sweden), he is the same man—I saw him in the Court of Queen's Bench in December last.

Prisoner. I hear what he says; I don't know the man; I don't know what to ask him.

DR. FRANCIS MORRIS FOSTER . I am a physician, and Member of the Royal College of Surgeons—I live at Hull, and practice there—I was there in 1854—I knew the prisoner there in 1854; I knew him by the name of Carl P. Lundgren, or Carl Lundgren—he was in the service of John Lundgren & Co., ship brokers—I knew him for six or eight months—in October, 1854, I lent him 30s.—this is the receipt for the money which he wrote and signed—I saw him write it, on a Saturday evening, between 7 and 8 o'clock—(Read: "Received from Mr. Foster the sum of 30s. Hull, 7th October, 1854. Carl Lundgren.")—I did not see him after that—he was water clerk to Lundgren & Co., a clerk who boards ships and vessels in the roads.

Prisoner. It is not my writing. He is mistaking me for another man; I do not know him.

Witness. I thought I was lending the 30s. to his employers—I had been accustomed to see him from time to time, and on that Saturday evening, between 7 and 8 o'clock, he came to my house and said that two ships had arrived that night, that the office was closed, that the captains wished for some English money, they were foreign captains, and that he would return it on the Monday morning—I at once gave him the 30s., and handed him a piece of paper to give me a receipt, and he wrote that out—the 30s. was never repaid to me—I asked Mr. Cooper, the witness, the following week—I did not apply to his employers for it; I was informed that he had left Lundgren's employ, and therefore I knew that I had lost the money.

JOHN HARE GIBSON . I am a general practitioner, and practice at Hull—I was practising there in the years 1853 and 1854—I knew the firm of John Lundgren & Co.—I attended Mr. Lundgren, the head of that firm—I knew the prisoner by the name of Carl Lundgren—I had an impression that he was a brother of Mr. Lundgren's—I saw him many times—I have my books here—I think he consulted me at my house; I did not visit his house—it commenced on 1st April, 1854, up to the 13th—I knew him as being at John Lundgren & Co.'s; that was all I knew about him—I thought at the time he was the brother—it is entered in my ledger, "brother so-called"—part of these entries are by my late partner, who is dead, and part of the writing is mine—the first entry is "J. Lundgren;" then the brother, as I thought, consulted me, and it was entered to the same account—the words "brother so-called" are at the bottom—that entry is mine, the rest of the entry is my partner's—in 1860 I was paid by the firm—they paid the whole—I applied to J. Lundgren for it, and he paid it—he was then living in London—I had no understanding with him at the time—when the account was to be made out I divided it with my partner; he entered the whole; and when the account was to be sent in, I divided it for him at the time—I never applied to the prisoner for his share; I lost sight of him; and in 1860 I applied to the firm, and they paid the whole—I am sure the prisoner is the man—I did not attend the clerks generally.

Prisoner. Q. What illness had the man you attended? A. I cannot tell; my memory does not serve me—this is the ledger—had I the day-book or prescription-book that was then in existence, I could have formed some idea, but that is destroyed—this is simply an entry of the visits.

SAMUEL SHIELDS . I am a shipbroker at Hull, and a member of the firm of Samuel Shields & Co.—I was in Hull in 1852, and knew the firm of John Lundgren & Co.—I joined the firm in that year, and remained till the latter part of 1853—I knew the prisoner while I was a member of that firm by the name of Carl Peter Lundgren—he was our water-clerk—he first entered the service in the early part of 1853; I can't say the month precisely—he remained during the whole time I was connected with the firm and some months afterwards—he was there about sixteen months altogether—I used to see him almost daily, and after I left the firm I knew him at Hull, still in the service of Mr. Lundgren—I missed him at the latter part of 1854—I can't say where he went to—the prisoner is the same man undoubtedly—a Swede.

Prisoner. Q. How did you know I was a Swede? A. I know you

perfectly well; I spoke Swedish to you daily—I have not spoken to you since I saw you in Hull—I know you by your general appearance, and especially by your nose; in fact, by your voice, even now; it is the first time I have heard it since that time—I saw you in December, in the other Court—of course you are altered by your hair being cut short—you had a little beard and whiskers, down to here—you were not so bald as you are now; you were slightly bald; there was a little hair on the top of the head—I saw you in the Queen's Bench—I think you had a beard then—I have not the slightest doubt about you.

COURT. Q. Did you ever see his writing? A. Yes—I could not speak positively to it; it is many years since I saw it—I could not swear that that (the receipt) is in his writing; I believe it is.

JOHN LUNDGREN . I reside at Horseferry Road, Westminster, and carry on business as a ship broker—I am a native of Finland—I have been in this country since 1848—from 1851 to 1857, I carried on business as a ship broker at Hull and Grimsby, as John Lundgren & Co.—at that time I had a Mr. Trana in my service as a corresponding clerk—he was a Swede I also had a man named C. P. Lundgren in my service at the same time—he was a Swede—he was water clerk—I saw the same man in the Court of Queen's Bench—the prisoner is the identical man—I had a conversation with him when I went to identify him—I spoke to him and said "Well Lundgren, do you know me"—he said "Even thou knowest me"—I spoke English, and those are the words he used—he was in my employment in the early part of 1853, until the latter end of 1854—of course I did not see him daily—I saw him now and then, but not daily—I might have been away—I afterwards saw him at Bristol—in 1854 the Russian war broke out, and my business was Russian business, and I discharged my clerks—I saw him in Bristol in 1862—I travelled from Bristol to Ireland, to the Killarney Lakes—I met some foreign captains in Bristol, and I wanted them to dine, and Lundgren was with them—he did not dine with me, of course not—I did not know him before he came into my service—he was introduced to me at Newcastle—I spoke to him at Bristol—he came to the hotel with the captains—I spoke to him as Lundgren.

Prisoner. Q. What time of the year, 1862, did you speak to me in Bristol? A. It was when pears are ripe in this country, and at that time I was going to the Lakes of Killarney—I should say it was in August—I know the names of the captains—there was Captain Snellman, of the Russian ship Sophia; Captain Lynman, I would not say positively the ship, but I can give the captain's name, will that do for you; and Captain Lackstraine was one.

COURT. Q. Did you recognise him at Bristol, as your late clerk? A. I did positively.

JOHANN NICHOLAS SCHERLING . I am a tailor and outfitter at Hull—I arrived there in April, 1852—I saw the prisoner after that—he was water clerk to John Lundgren & Co.—I knew him by the name of Lundgren, or by the more particular name of "Lundgren's Lundgren"—I knew him up to August, 1854, and used to see him almost daily at an hotel, where we used to take luncheon—I am a native of Sweden, and he was a Swede, and the Swedes used to meet at this hotel—I knew Mr. Shields and Mr. Trana perfectly well—I saw the prisoner in the Queen's Bench, in December last, and have not the slightest doubt about him.

Prisoner. I don't know that man.

JOHN FREDERICK GHANBEKO . I am a native of Finland—I first came over to Hull in 1853, and I am carrying on business there now as a ship broker—in 1853 I entered the service of Housemacher & Co.—I was with them from 1853 to 1855, during that time I knew the firm of John Lundgren & Co.—I also knew Trana and Shields—I knew a water clerk there of the name of Carl Lundgren, but I am not sure what time he went into the service of Lundgren & Co.—he was there from May till August, 1854—I believe the prisoner is the Carl Lundgren I am speaking of, but it is twenty years now, and I can't swear to it—he was a Swede, and I had conversations with him in Swedish—I believe he is the man, but I can't swear.

FRANCIS ALRICA LINDSTROM . I am now living at Liverpool, and am a clerk in the service of Messrs. Kelley—I am a native of Gottenberg—I have known the prisoner since we were so high—he is not much more than a year and a-half older than I—his name is Carl Peter Lundgren—I knew him in Gottenberg, when he was a child, and I was a child—I remember when he was master of a ship called the Wilhelm, and also the Isabella—I don't think I have seen him since 1852—I saw him then when I sailed from Gottenberg to England in the Isabella.

Prisoner. Q. Where did you see this man before? A. I saw you everyday in school with Mr. Yedda—I saw you last in Gottenberg, twenty-two years ago—Yedda was the schoolmaster—I have not seen you again till I saw you in Court here yesterday—I can say that it was you—I knew you perfectly well—the Isabella was an English schooner bought in Gottenberg, and your father had a share in it too—I think it was in 1850 when you bought it—your father is dead.

COURT. Q. Did you know the prisoner from the time you first knew him at school till 1852? A. Yes; I have not seen him since—I was at Gottenberg till 1860, in a broker's office—I knew him all long till 1852—I knew him when he was out as cabin-boy, and mate, and captain.

SINGER STOKES . I am the parish clerk of Melksham, in the county of Wilts, and I was so in 1855—in that year I knew Sarah Colborne and her father—he was living at Melksham, and is at the present time—I produce the original marriage certificate for April, 1855—it is entered by me—the date of the marriage is 2nd April, 1855, the entry is in my own writing, and I am one of the attesting witnesses—the marriage is between Carl Lundren and Sarah Colborne—he is described as a ship-broker of Cardiff, and his father as Elias Lundgren, deceased—Sarah Colborne is described as a spinster, of Melksham, daughter of William Colborne, plasterer—the witness is Emma Colborne—she is the sister of Sarah—I am the other witness—I believe the prisoner is the identical man who was married—I saw him at the Court of Queen's Bench on the 10th of December, but I did not then identify him, having so much hair on his face, which he had not at the time of his marriage, but seeing him now without any hair on his face, I believe he is the identical man—the parties who were married signed the register in my presence—soon after their marriage they left Melksham and, I believe, went to Cardiff—I saw the wife in December last at the Court of Queen's Bench, that is the last time I saw her; but previous to that I saw her at her father's house at Melksham about eight years ago—she was the same woman who was so married.

EMMA BLEACH . My husband is William Bleach, and is a clerk in the Pension Department at Woolwich Dockyard—am the sister of Sarah Colborne—in April, 1855, I was living at home at Melksham with-my

father—I know the prisoner, he is Carl Peter Lundgren—I was present at a marriage in April, 1855, between my sister Sarah and the prisoner—I signed the register—they left home and came to London, and resided at No. 1, Tichborne Street for nearly six months, and after that they came to Melksham for a few days, and then went to Cardiff—I don't think they lived in Cardiff many months—I saw them there—they went to Bristol after that—I saw them there very often—I visited them—I was at Bristol in 1862—they were there up to that time, but not later than that—I did did not see the prisoner after 1862—my sister is still alive and is living at Bristol.

Prisoner. Q. Are you married? A. I am—I was married in 1863 in London—Sarah is living in Bristol somewhere—I am not supposed to know the address at present—she goes by the name of Hawkins—she is living with a man named Hawkins.

COURT. Q. What was the last time you know of this man living with her? A. Seven years ago he left her—I did not see him with her after 1862, because I came to London—that is twelve years ago—they were at Reading for some few months, but how they met and came there I have no recollection, and in the end she has gone to live with another man—I have not any doubt about the prisoner.

F. A. LINDSTROM (re-called). Court. Q. Can you tell me what the name of the man's father was? A. I think it was Elias—J. E.," Johann Elias, I believe.

ELIZA GOLLEDGE . I live at Cardiff, and I was living there in 1854—know the prisoner as Carl Lundgren—I know Sarah Colborne—I first knew the prisoner about the latter part of 1854, and I knew he was courting Sarah Colborne—I heard of the marriage—her sister Eliza, who is now dead, was living with us on account of Sarah keeping company with Lundgren—they both left suddenly together, and her father wrote to say they were married at Melksham—after the marriage I saw them in Cardiff daily—they lived together as man and wife—I afterwards knew them living at Bristol for two or three years—I saw the prisoner in the Queen's Bench, and I have no doubt he is the man.

Prisoner. Q. What time in the year did you see me in 1854? A. The latter part of the year—I am quite sure of that—I can't fix the month—I remember it was that year by taking a house in that year—I took the house in April, 1854, and it was in the latter part of the same year.

Prisoner. I know you very well, and you are right in saying you know me, but you are wrong in the year—do you know what brought Sarah down to your house? A. No, I don't—she was living at Cardiff with her brother William, and he turned her out of doors because she was keeping company with you—I don't know anything about her having a child before you married her—I did hear it; I did not hear whose child it was, it was before I knew her—her sister was a barmaid, and she came down to her sister—I left Cardiff to go to Bristol the same year that you were taken, in 1862, the last time I saw you till I saw you at Westminster—I believe it was in October—I was with you the same day you were taken, when you had the three years—I have been living at 44, Sheriff Street in Cardiff for the last three years or more—I don't remember the first captain who came up to my house—I may remember if you mention it—I don't know the name of "Hiccup"—I don't remember it at all.

COURT. Q. He means a man who went by the nickname of "Hiccup,"

because he bad the hiccups'? A. No; I don't know him—I knew the prisoner from 1854 till 1862.

JOHN NICHOLLS . I am a police constable in the City of Bristol police force, and have been in that force seventeen years—I know the prisoner—I knew him by the name of Charles Lundgren—I took him into custody at Bristol, in October, 1862—he was afterwards tried at the Bristol Quarter Sessions—I produce a certificate of his conviction, he was tried for felony, found guilty, and sentenced to three years penal servitude. (This certified the conviction of Charles Lundgren, on 24th October, 1862, for stealing a bill of Exchange for 248l. 2s. 3d., sentence, three years' penal servitude).—I was present at the trial—the prisoner is the man—he was kept in the gaol afterwards—I did not see him in gaol after the conviction—I had known him about eighteen months before he was arrested on that charge—he was living in Bristol some part of the time—I knew his wife and the family, the wife's brother and sister, and so on—I was present at Cardiff, in October, 1867, when he was tried at the Quarter Sessions—I produce a certificate of that trial—I was present at the trial. (This certified the conviction of John Lundgren, otherwise called Charles Lundgren, of obtaining money by fake pretences, he having been before convicted of felony—sentence, seven years' penal servitude). I saw him at Cardiff at that time, and then proved the previous conviction that had taken place at Bristol—I saw him at the Court of Queen's Bench, in December last—I have not the least doubt of his being the man.

Prisoner. It is perfectly correct that I was tried at Bristol, and got three years, at the same time he knows the reason why I got those three years, in his own mind. Witness. I know-you were charged with stealing a valuable letter containing 248l. 2s. 3d.—I can't tell who it was upon—Captain Augustus Cornelius, Captain of the hulks, was in the case—I knew nothing about the case till the warrant came and I apprehended you, I recovered 250l. of the money.

Prisoner. He entrusted me with a bill of Exchange in a letter, I went to the Police and registered the letter—in the course of time this bill of Exchange was sent to me to pay some bills with on account of a lady who was mixed up with him in the affair—I got charged with stealing this bill, and I was convicted innocently.

WILLIAM MATHWIN . I am a member of the firm of Joseph Heald and Co., of Newcastle—I was living there in 1866, I know the prisoner—in January, that year, I was present at the Quarter Sessions at Newcastle, when the prisoner was tried there—I gave evidence against him—I produce the certificate. (This certified the conviction of Peter Peterson, of unlawfully obtaining 12l. of William Mathwin, by false pretences, sentence, six months' imprisonment). The prisoner is the person—I saw him in December last in the Court" of Queen's Bench.

Prisoner. He is entirely wrong; it is impossible, because I joined the Grace and Jane, in 1866—she was loaded with Government Stores for Ascension—we arrived there, and discharged the Government Stores in December, and took in ballast, and went to Pernambuco, and from there to Demarara and Belize, and thence to St. Thomas's and Jamaica, where we loaded with pimento log wood, and condemned Governmentstores—we finished completing the cargo in Black river, and arrived in London at the end of February, 1867—I ask the press to take notice of this, because the people connected with it know I was on board, and that I signed in the name of John Smidt, as

steward, consequently, I could never have been in Newcastle at the time mentioned, or I should have been discharged from the prison there somewhere about July or August. Witness. I am perfectly certain he is the man—he got the money from one of my clerks, I was the prosecutor—the charge against him was that he represented himself to be the captain of a ship, and that by means of that representation he got 12l. from my firm; that was what he was tried and convicted for—I gave him in custody on 14th October, 1865, and he remained in the Common prison at Newcastle, until the January Sessions—he was sentenced to six months.

DENNIS POWER . I am chief warder of Millbank Prison—I know the prisoner—in December, 1873, he was brought there—I knew him, and said "Lundgren, are you come back again?"—he said "Yes, Mr. Power I am. It is not my fault, I would not have not have done it, I would not have gone into the witness box only for Mr. Onslow and the others at the office; they persuaded me, to do it, Mr. Onslow and Mr. Baigent, but Mr. Whalley knew nothing at all about it"—he then said "If anyone comes from the Treasury will you let them see me"—I said "If they do, they shall see you"—he said "I want to see Mr. Clarke, he knows all about me, I told him all"—I said "If you want any paper to make a statement, I will supply you with some"—I conducted him to his cell and ordered him his supper, and I saw no more of him that night—I knew him in 1863—received him from Bristol in 1863, on 24th December—this (produced) is the penal record—he came to me on 28th May, 1863, and on 8th July, 1863, he was removed to Portsmouth prison—on 11th April, 1865, he came back to Millbank, and on the 13th April, 1865, he was discharged on licence—I have the book here with his signature.

Prisoner. I don't know that I ever used such words to Mr. Power respecting Mr. Onslow and Mr. Whalley—I have never disputed that I was in Millbank.

WILLIAM GEORGE WOOD . I am one of the principal warders at the Chatham convict prison—I know the prisoner by the name of John Lundgren—he was received at the Chatham prison on 7th August, 1868, under sentence of seven years—he was discharged on 25th March, 1873, on licence—I saw him frequently every day for a considerable number of months or years, I may say.

GEORGE CLARKE . I am an inspector of the detective police at Scotland yard—I was present at the Court of Queen's Bench on 11th December last, when the prisoner was ordered to be prosecuted—I afterwards went to Mr. George Pulleyn's, No. 12, Churchyard Row, Newington Butts—Pulleyn was in court, and I knew that the prisoner had been living there some time—I searched the lodging, Pulleyn went with me—I there found some clothes which are in court, among them there was a striped shirt, it has been shown to Mrs. Miller—I took possession of some papers, which I have here—I saw Luie after this at Holloway prison—I went there with the order to bring him up to the Queen's Bench—I afterwards had some conversation with him in going from Bow Street to the House of Detention, on Saturday 13th December—previously in coming from Holloway he had asked me to advise him and I declined—he said "What had I better do"—I said "I can't advise you Luie, you are old enough to advise yourself"—he said "I was first spoken to in this matter"—I could not quite follow him—he was looking out of the cab window—ho said "Mr. W."—I said "What about Mr. W."—he said "He first spoke to me about this; Mr. Whalley first

spoke to me of this matter in the spring of the year at Brussels, I was at a house of ill-fame there, and I saw Mr. Whalley in Brussels, stopping there with his daughter, and he said, Mr. Whalley, speaking of a trial that was happening in England, said it made him ashamed of his country; that he said "One difficulty is that we cannot find anyone who saved a boat of a shipwrecked crew"—he replied "That would not be very difficult I should think; I have been a sailor myself," but nothing was particularly arranged on that occasion, or at Brussels at all"—he said "I saw Mr. Whalley a time or two after that, and I had communication with him—I first saw the man (speaking of the Claimant) about 4th or 5th July at Poet's Corner—I went early in the morning and I saw a man standing at the door who asked me my name—he had something the matter with one eye—I afterwards found him to be Baigent—Baigent asked me who I was—I told him Jean Luie—he said "Oh, yes, I know all about it; it has all been arranged"—he said "Bogle, the little black fellow was there, and I showed my fingers to him and he went into the inner room, I believe to tell the Claimant, for he came out shortly after," and said "If you are the man that saved me your little fingers are crooked"—I don't think there was much other conversation on that occasion—I had some further conversation with him on the following Tuesday—he said "Since I saw you I have had a visit from Mr. Whalley's nephew, Captain Nicholson—he brought me a letter from Mr. Whalley to say that he had given 5l. to Mr. Harding for my support, and that he had got a private letter for me, but as the warders were present he could not give it to me"—I told him at that time that I would rather he told all this to the Solicitor for the Treasury—he said "Very well, if he will come I will do so"—I said "Very well, then, if you wish I will inform Mr. Pollard"—I went with Mr. Pollard on the following day and went into the cell—the principal warder said "This is Inspector Clarke, and this is Mr. Pollard from the Treasury"—he said "Not now, not now, I have been advised to hold my tongue"—this was about the 14th or 15th December last—he said on one occasion "I never intended to give evidence, I only intended to make some money; I never should have gone into the witness-box if it had not been for the violence of Mr. Onslow: he is a very violent man; I begged of him scores of times not to put me in the box"—he said "The reason I was not in the box earlier was that I could not learn my lesson sufficiently"—he said "Mr. Onslow gave me a book of evidence of the former trial and pointed out certain passages in it having reference to the shipwreck, which I was to learn, and I have sat up many a night to study the book; he also put his hand on his side to show me the position of the brown mark on the Claimant's side; he also wanted me to prove the malformation, but I refused to do that, as I was afraid of getting into a mess"—he said "I also had to see Janes, who I got the information about Australia from," (Janes was a witness called for the defence) and Captain Brown I had to see frequently to arrange about the evidence at Rio"—he said "Brown was to have the Dock Superintendant's place at Southampton for his trouble; Mr. Onslow was to have the greater share of the property, and I was to be his steward, and the witness Janes was to be put in a public house, and Mr. Whalley was to have some of the property"—he said "I was very reluctant to commence it, because I never was in Australia or America in my life"—I said "You astonish me, Luie, by what you are telling me; I cannot suppose that Mr. Whalley would have gone to America unless it was upon some information of yours"—he said "That was all a barney and a part of

the piece; it speaks for itself; if I had not been there I could not have told him"—I said "I cannot suppose that, Luie, because I found some plan of the harbour of Melbourne among your papers"—he said What paper do you mean?"—I said "A short history of your life, which I found at your lodgings"—he said "Yes; I wrote that, but I had nothing to do with the drawing at the back; you will see it is in a different hand-writing"—I am not so sure whether I asked whose hand-writing it was, or whether he told me it was Mr. Onslow's, but ho said it was Mr. Onslow's writing at the back—this is the paper (produced)—the conversation went on for hours—he said he had been staying at Pulleyn's, afterwards at Rimel's, at Finchley, where I found this plan—I also found these two letters—the envelope is addressed to Mr. Jean Luie, late steward of the Osprey, and signed in the corner "W. H. Whalley"—inside that there is a paper purporting to be signed by Mr. Whalley, M.P., and Mr. Onslow, M.P.—(Read: "This is to certify on our own part, and on the part of all who have known Jean Luie, in relation to the Tichborne case, that he has shown himself to be a man of thorough honesty, and of very great intelligence, and that he has borne himself throughout all his life as a man entitled to confidence and respect; he has been exposed to great difficulties, harrasment, and temptation, through this affair, and he has remained staunch and true, and has rendered very great service to Sir Roger Tichborne"—enclosure, addressed to Mr. E. C. Gray, Docks, Southampton—Dear Sir,—The bearer of this letter is Jean Luie; I need hardly ask you to do all you can for him, and further, help him on board a vessel to Now York; he will telegraph from New York.—Guildford Onslow, Poet's Corner, 18th October.

Prisoner. Q. Have you got those letters with you that you took away from me? A. They are the letters—I never had one from you in the cab; you told me you had torn it up.

Prisoner. I am speaking about a letter that was written to mo about making a thorough confession, and that I should be rewarded by the Tichborne family and by the Lord Chief Justice, and all. Witness. I know nothing of such a letter—I did not take that letter from you in the cab—these (produced) are the only other writings that I have belonging to you, which I found at the lodging. (The following letter, which was among these papers, was here read:" As you are now committed for perjury, I strongly advise you to make a clean breast of the matter, and disclose all you know about the evidence you gave, and also mention the names of the individuals at whose instance you came into Court as a witness. I may inform you that one of the judges who tried the case is related to the Tichborne family, and of course is strongly biassed against the Claimant. Should you make a full disclosure of all you know, you will not only obtain a full and free pardon, but you shall also receive a large sum of money, which will enable you to leave this country and go to America. On the part of the Treasury, and also on the part of the judges of the Queen's Bench, there is a strong feeling against the Claimant, and the fact of one of the judges being related to the Tichborne family will be a great thing in your favour should you make the disclosures I suggest. Write to the Solicitor of the Treasury, Mr. Gray, saying you will give every information required, and you will immediately obtain your freedom and also a good round sum. When you are at liberty you can assume another name, call yourself William Smith or Jones, and go to, Australia or America, and no one will know anything about you. You can easily regain your position in life on going to a distant

quarter of the globe, with good means and money in your pocket, which you will obtain without difficulty from the Tichborne family, as the disclosures you can make will completely defeat the Claimant, and on that occasion the judge who is related to the Tichborne family will, behind the curtain, give you every assistance. Write also to Mr. Hawkins, telling him you are willing and ready to make all disclosures. I am one who knows of the relationship alluded to and who is also a native of Hampshire.") I got that from the prisoner, but there were many thousands such; and I did not recollect it at the moment—I found this on the prisoner. (The envelope addressed "Jean Lute, a witness in the Tichborne Trial, but now a prisoner in the Metropolitan prison of Holloway." Post mark, "Charing Cross, December 12th, 1873.") That would be when he was in prison—I bad no means of making any inquiry about that letter, it supplies no address—(A post card also produced by the witness was as follows: "Woodford, December—. To Mr. Jean Luie, the prison, Holloway, London. The kindness you showed to the half-drowned man is recorded in heaven; keep up your heart, notwithstanding the array of prosecuting witnesses, large numbers of persons have strong belief in your evidence and consider you may have been sent by providence to aid in restoring Sir Roger Tichborne to his rights. Ps. 37, v. 38.") There is no other letter, that is all I have—you told me that you had been written to to meet a person at the Marble Arch, and that you went there for that purpose but saw no one—this letter was found at the lodging—(Read: "I have just returned from Margate, and was present at one of Mr. Whalley's addresses, by which I learn, you was to be a witness in the present trial of the plaintiff; I should be most happy to meet you at the Marble Arch, Hyde Park, to-morrow at 1 p.m., when something beneficial for your future shall be----C.C.D.R.R.—addressed 'John Lewis—private.'") I mean to say that you told me all the things I have now mentioned; and you told me further "I wish I had known you before I had got into trouble"—you said "You recollect my calling upon you in Scotland yard"—you did call on 13th November, between four and five in in the afternoon, and I saw you in my office there—I could not tell what you wanted—I had some conversation with you of course—I was cautious with you then—you invited me to drink with you on that occasion—you did not talk about the Tichborne trial in particular—I can't tell what you called for—you complained of being watched—I did not know that Captain Nicholson had been to the prison, before you told me—I recollect your saying "I should not have got into this trouble if it had not been for the folly of Dr. Kenealey forcing Mr. Hawkins to call rebutting evidence"—I don't know anything respecting Dr. Kenealey and all the lot turning you over—I showed you a newspaper in the cab—it contained a report of some part of the trial, you asked to see it, it was in the Caledonian Road, I think, I purchased it going along there—I don't know what part of the trial it was—I have no doubt it was the day's paper—I did not tell you that if you made a disclosure that would lead to anything respecting other persons, in my own mind they would not prosecute you—you asked mo, and I told you repeatedly that I could not tell you that—you said "What good will this do me"—I said "I know nothing about it, I can't tell you that it will be of any service"—you said. "It is no good of my getting other people into trouble if I am not to benefit by it"—you said you would have no hesitation if it was not for Mr. 'Whalley, you did not wish to get Mr. Whalley into trouble.

Prisoner. When I was up at the Police Court, I said to you "What would you advise me to say now," you told me then to say these words: "I am sorry for what has happened, but I was made and compelled. Witness. I did not tell him to say that—he repeatedly asked me "I don't know what to do in a matter of this sort," he asked me that in the station yard when waiting to go in—I said "You must consider what is best for yourself."

Prisoner. Respecting the observations I made in the Police Court about being made and compelled, it was nothing else but that I was made and compelled to tell this by the Lord Chief Justice—that was the meaning of what I said.

JOHN GRANVILLF, LAYARD . I am assistant clerk at Bow Street Police Court—when Luie was brought up there on 16th December to have his ticket-of-leave cancelled, he made a statement which I took down in writing—this is my note of it made at the time—I am very sorry for what has happened; it would not have occurred had I not been encouraged and made up to do what I did; that is all I wish to say at present."

Prisoner. It must be a mistake in taking down, because I said "made and compelled." Witness. I am certain he said what I have taken down here, I took it down from his lips.

GEORGE PULLEYN . I live at 12, Churchyard Row, Newington Butts—I was business manager for Arthur Orton before he took his trial; he made a contract with a gentleman named Nugent to go through the country, and I went for him first, ultimately I became his manager—I attended meetings—I first knew the prisoner on 7th July, that was the first time I ever clapped eyes on him; he was not introduced to me at all, I expected a letter at Poet's Corner and I was there very early one morning, and when I got there I saw this man standing there—we got into conversation—it was afterwards arranged that he should come to live at my house; that was arranged by the lawyer Mr. Hendricks and the Claimant—I saw the Claimant at Poet's Corner—the arrangement was that he was to live at ray house and they were to pay me, independent of the meetings, 3l. 10s. a week, and he was to have what pocket-money in reason he thought proper—the Claimant, Orton, was to pay me; he holds three receipts of mine now—I was paid part of the money by the Claimant from time to time, four different payments—I have given four receipts for it—he came to me on 7th July, the first day I saw him—he remained with me up to the day he gave his evidence—the last evidence he gave, I think, was on 22nd January—he lived with me all that time till he gave his evidence—I also took him about the country with me; I paid his expenses—he had his spirits and his pocket-money, I gave it him and charged it—I found him clothes, I paid 3l. for them—I should think altogether I charged 60l. or 70l. for him during the time he was living with me; that was for clothes, pocket-money, and everything—when he left me there was 11l. owing, I was paid all but 11l.; the prisoner did not pay me a penny piece—I got two 5l. notes from the Claimant, at least, I got them from my wife—I never saw the prisoner with any money of his own.

Prisoner. Q. Do you remember that I asked you and your wife how it was that you should have charged up to the amount of 8l. a week for me? A. I did hear it, and I contradicted it, and said I never charged 8l. a week for you, and I should have been very sorry to have done such a thing—sometimes gave you a pound for pocket-money, sometimes 30s., and

sometimes 10s.—you had 30s. when we were in the country and 1l. a week in London—you went to meetings and collected subscriptions—you never did work, I never allowed you to go on the platform or anything of the kind—the 3l. 10s. a week was for everything, spirits, liquors and all.

MARY ANN PULLEYN . I am the wife of last witness—the prisoner lodged with us from 7th July—on two occasions I went to Besboro' Gardens to got some money in payment of his lodging, I can't remember the number—a woman opened the door—I inquired for the Claimant—I did not see him, an envelope was brought out directed to me, it contained a 5l. note;. I gave it to my husband, and it was taken as part payment for the prisoner's board and lodging—I did the same thing on a second occasion; I got another 5l. note in the same way at the same house to pay for his board and lodging—he never paid me a farthing himself.

ELIZABETH MILLER . I live at 2, Cardigan Road, Kilburn—in 1867 I was living at Paddington—in April that year I knew the prisoner by the name of, John Smith—I know that he married Harriet Arrend—I knew him afterwards living with her as her husband in April, 1867, for some few weeks—I then lost sight of him five or sis years—about 26th or 27th April last year he came back to me, it was the day before the Derby day—I knew him then as John Smith, he lived with me for seven weeks, up to 5th July—on that day I lent him 10s., and he then disappeared—I lost sight of him until I afterwards saw him at Millbank.

HARRIET ARREND . In April, 1867,1 was living at Paddington, at No. 2, Star Street—I kept a coffee-house there—I was a widow at that time—the prisoner came to lodge there at the latter end of February or the beginning of March, 1867, in the name of Captain John Smith—he said he was partner with John Green, the ship owner in East India Road—he courted me and married me at St. Peter's, Pimlico—he lived with me till the 6th of June, he then loft me—I put him in prison for assaulting me—I have not the slightest doubt about him.

ALFRED HENDRICKS . I am an attorney—I was engaged in conducting the defence of the Claimant in the Court of Queen's Bench—I think I first saw the prisoner on 6th or 7th July; it was on a Monday—I saw him at my office, Poet's Corner—he told me he wanted to speak to me privately, and eventually he told me his name—he said his name was John Lewis, and that he wished to make a very important statement, or words to that effect—I asked my friend, Mr. O'Brien, to take his statement—I was in and out of the room the whole time—Mr. O'Brien wrote it down, and I think I saw the prisoner sign it—the signature was attested by Mr. Whalley—he was present while it was taken—this is it (produced)—it was signed by the prisoner—it looks like John Luis—after that statement was taken down I read it—and gave some directions as to the prisoner going to see the Claimant—I believe he went in a cab with Mr. Whalley and Mr. O'Brien—he then came back and made a further statement—I think that was signed by him in the same way—afterwards another statement was taken by Mr. Whalley, the last two sheets there—these two lines that are struck out are in Mr. Whalley's writing "Apply to Messrs. Funcke and Mencke, New York, also Baron Falkenberg, New Bedford"—I telegraphed to New York, and wrote a letter on 10th July to Funcke, Eadie, and Co.—I found out that they were the representatives of Funcke and Mencke—about 5th August I received a reply to that letter—I showed it to the prisoner, and read it to him—this is it (Read: "July 22, 1873: Dear Sir,—Your letter of

10th instant, and a previous cable received. Our Mr. Funcke never owned a vessel by the name of the Osprey, or did Mr. Mencke, or Mr. Falkenberg, both of whom are dead. We have, at your request, examined the Custom House records for 1854, for such a vessel, also newspaper file from January to July, but in no case can any Osprey be found. Our Mr. Funcke does not recollect anybody by the name of Jean Luie"—When I read that to the prisoner he said that they had a motive for disclaiming all knowledge of him and of the Osprey; that they had filibustered the vessel; that the vessel had been consigned to them, and she was called the Helvetia, I think he said; and that they had altered her name, and appropriated her, and that was their motive for denying the existence of the vessel, and of himself—I did not say anything to that—he did not make any further statement about it at that time, but I had repeated conversations with him afterwards—he urged me to make inquiries, and so on—on 15th August I retired from the case—I believe these two letters (produced) to be in the prisoner's hand-writing—they are addressed to Mr. Rimell—I don't quite know what he is—I think he is a silver plate manufacturer—I have seen him constantly at Poet's Corner—he was a supporter of the Claimant. (Letters read: "City Prison, Holloway, 12th December, 1873—Mr. Rimell—Dear Sir,—I have not heard from any one of you, and I fear that all are inclined to believe me to be the scoundrel Lundgren, as is mentioned by all those monstrosse witness. It is a hard thing for me to bare, and you know very well that if I can have no assistances given to me to bring Lundgren's relations here as well as Jean's, the two American ladies, and they two men now in England, who knows both the Osprey and myself, independent of that villain woman, who is a—, and living with another man than her husband Lundgren, as well as proper and independent medical men to examine me respecting rupture, I must be in a hopeless state. But this I mean to tell you: let the matter take what course it will, I shall declare openly in court that no one connected with this case, or any one else, has ever used any influence on me, nor attempted such a thing as to make me tell the fate and circumstances with Sir Roger. It is the truth, and nothing but the truth, and that it seems to me villany is practised all over the world against both Roger and myself. Harcourt asked me if I could defend myself. What does he mean? I wrote you last night a letter. I wrote also to Mr. W. Perhaps you have not received it. What am I to do? I am shut out from the world, and am starving. I must go to the criminal side to-night, as I have no means. See what Sir Roger says. I am willing to undergo any medical operation to prove that I am not ruptured, or have any cause with me.—I am, obt. fd.—Jean Luie. P.S.—If I am rendered assistance Sir Roger and all of you are saved." "December 22, 1873—Mr. G. Rimell, 29, Golden Square—Dear Sir,—by this I beg to acquaint all of you that I am here retained, and have heard nothing. This is a miserable life, and to suffer such—all for not being allowed to have my own way. But what is done cannot be altered. I refer you to my last from House of Detention. I had letter from Plas Madoc, wherein was stated that 5l. had been sent to Harding. If the same is not returned please take charge of it for me, as you will see in the printed form. I don't want to have any letters unless of the greatest importance. I conclude by wishing yourself and family a mercy Christmas, and with respect to W----, in Plas Madoc, and all friends.—Your obedient—J. L. N.B.—None of you would know me now if you was to see me")—I believe Plas Madoc is where Mr. Whalle's lives.

Prisoner's Defence. I am deprived of the means of calling witnesses—I do not see any one in Court that I can call—(Mr. Whalley proffered himself as a witness)—I have lots of witnesses to call, but I have not got them here, and I don't know what to do—there is only one gentleman here, that is Mr. Whalley, who has been over in New York and ascertained some facts, I wish Mr. Whalley to be called.

GEORGE HAMMOND WHALLEY , Esq., M.P. I went over to New York to ascertain the facts stated by the prisoner; I called on Mr. Funcke—I did not go on the prisoner's account—I went to Staten Island to the Custom House which has connection with Staten Island, where the vessels that would load at Staten Island might probably clear out—they clear out at a place called Porthamberg—I found a register at the Custom House; I did not find the clearing out of any Osprey, but I found such explanation at Porthamberg on the subject as accounted. I found in the Custom House books at New Bedford ships registered as belonging to. Baron Falkenberg, and I think one was called the Falkenberg, I forget the other one, it was not the Osprey—I found the existence of Mr. Funcke at New York—I found full confirmation there of what the prisoner stated—he gave me certain letters to Mr. Funcke which I delivered; they were not to Mr. Funcke, they were to servants of Mr. Funcke, both of whom were dead, but they were handed by me to Mr. Funcke and verified by him, and the contents of those letters were verified.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. After the prisoner had given his evidence in the Court of Queen's Bench, I gave him 5.2. on the day he was about to leave, I think it was the day after he had given his evidence—Mr. Onslow also gave him 5l., we both gave him 5l. I think it was after the second day, I think it must have been the 16th, it was the day we signed the paper, the testimonial to character; that testimonial was written by me—I have been in Court most of the time while this trial has been going on; I wrote this, "that he has borne himself through all his life as a man entitled to confidence and respect"—I ask permission to explain specifically why I used those words; they were written with great deliberation under these circumstances, we knew that the Crown had in their service a great number of detectives engaged in following up any investigation, and ascertaining the character of every person that was called, or about to be called on the part of the defence, that every circumstance of their life was in the hands of the cross-examining counsel, and we came to the conclusion that if anything whatever could be found against this man unless he was a plant by the Government, unless he was put forward knowingly as the man he turns out to be, that that undoubtedly would have become known to the Government and would have been disclosed in his cross-examination. Therefore Mr. Onslow and myself, in considering what was due to the man, deliberately stated that we believed, having passed through the cross-examination as he did, that his character was by that circumstance well established; that was the reason—it was a matter of full consideration, and not written with any haste or carelessness—I signed it "G. H. Whalley, M.P." and Mr. Onslow signed as "Guildford Onslow, M.P.;" we desired to give as much weight to the testimonial as we could—we knew that the Government had detectives who knew the whole life of every witness, by the complaints that were made by those witnesses of the extent to which they were harrassed previous to being called, one person committed suicide in consequence, so we were told, and his widow had to be provided for—am a magistrate of three counties—I live

at Plas Madoc—I have given you the reasons why we used those words "that he had borne himself through all his life as a man entitled to confidence and respect"—that was to the best of our belief; we certified it, of course, to the best of our belief—I gave him that certificate and put M.P. after my name in order that he might take it with him to America; we had the further object in it that in going to America he was to look up such evidence as he could collect and telegraph here, so that his evidence could be corroborated, believing as I did, and do, that his evidence as to the Osprey was true.

COURT. Q. What? A. That the evidence he gave in regard to the Osprey was true—I believe that now, and I can give my reasons—I have been in Court all day.

MR. POLAND. Q. Did you know that he was going to America on 16th October, after his two days' examination? A. I had no further knowledge than that Mr. Onslow and myself requested that he should go immediately, with as little delay as possible—I knew that Mr. Onslow had given him a letter of introduction to the Dock Master of Southampton to give him every assistance to get away; I concurred in that—after he was in custody, I sent my nephew, Captain Whalley Nicholson, to the House of Detention to see him—I sent 5l. to another person, if he was in the state I was told he was, for his benefit—(looking at the plan of Melbourne Harbour) I do not know the writing on this plan—I am almost sure it is not Mr. Onslow's writing; I would not be quite sure—it looks to me, so far as I remember the writing of the man, to be the prisoner's—the words are "Melbourne," "Sandridge," and "Williamstown"—I do not recognise it at all as the writing of Mr. Onslow—I could not undertake to swear it was not—I say it does not at all resemble it, but I think it does resemble the prisoner's—I believe it is the handwriting of the prisoner; that is my impression from the letters I have seen of his; but before giving a final answer I should be glad to see his writing; the letters he wrote to Mr. Rimell—I believe it is his writing—I should have said that it certainly was not Mr. Onslow's—I take upon myself to say that; to the best of my belief it is not—I went up with the prisoner and Mr. Onslow in a cab on 7th July to see the Claimant—I think I heard after that, in a general way, that he was put into the charge of the witness Pulleyn—I did not know that he was being maintained by the Claimant; I had no knowledge of any of those matters—I knew Pulleyn as one attached to the Claimant and of his services, more or less—I have had no communication with the prisoner in any form or shape before yesterday, nor had anything to do with his defence; but yesterday on coming here and finding that he was not defended, I immediately sent to Mr. Lewis, and said "Let him be defended."

COURT. Q. Do you mean that, as far as you were concerned, yesterday was the first time Mr. Lewis was retained for the defence? A. Yes—I have had no communication whatever, directly or indirectly, with this man since he was sent to prison, since I was bail for him; I was bail for him for some time alone; I mean since he was at the police-court or before—I was in Court yesterday when the clerk said what he did say—I did not quite understand him to say that Mr. Lewis had been retained for the defence here; what I understood was that Mr. Lewis was retained at the police-court, and that he was again retained yesterday.

At the prisoner's request, Charles Janes and Mr. Goodridge were called, but did not answer.

Prisoner. During my cross examination in the Court of Queen's Bench

I objected to answer the questions of Mr. Hawkins respecting the latest period of my life in consequence of a misfortune that I was really led into, but the Lord Chief Justice ordered me to answer the questions. I was compelled to do so, and I did it as it came into my mind at the time. Numbers of witnesses have been called here against me as to the period of 1853 and 1854, one, according to his account, being himself a schoolfellow of mine. How is it possible for me to contradict these men when I am deprived entirely of assistance, either legal assistance or assistance of people whom I should have been able to bring forward? If I had time I should prove that they are mistaken—entirely mistaken—in the identity. It requires, in fact, a wonderful memory for any one to distinguish one man from another after a period of over twenty years' time, and especially when you have a man only just come into Court to discern an individual Had I been able to be defended, and produce witnesses, it would certainly have substantiated my story to a great extent. Of course in the later periods of 1862 and 1867 misfortunes have fallen to my lot. That undoubtedly is true, but respecting the time of 1852, 1853, and 1854, there is no truth whatever in what has been said. I don't say that people have perjured themselves, because if they have perjured themselves a vast number of witnesses who have been brought against Roger Tichborne must be as bad as they are in that respect. But I say I have been the sole victim of prosecution from a number of people amounting to nearly 300, no matter on which side. I think it is very bard indeed that I should suffer the inconvenience in which I am placed. It can be proved, and will in time come out, that the Osprey which I joined at New Orleans in 1852, and was with her up to July, 1854, is a fact undoubtedly, and it will be found to be true. Time will tell that, and it should have been proved satisfactorily both to your lordship and the jury, if I had had that ample means given me which I now stand in need of. Had it not been for the misfortune of this bigamy affair of mine I certainly should never have given the account which I have given, because I stood in the position that whatever turn I took, when it came to the period of 1855 to 1857, whether I admitted that or made any false statement or not, it would have fallen to my lot to be punished. I am very sorry that this has taken up the time so long, keeping your lordship and the jury for such a length of time through the calling of these witnesses, since I am not in a position now to bring forward evidence in support of my story. Very sorry, indeed, I am, but I trust that the time will come soon enough to prove my story and the fact of the Osprey in 1854. At the same time, I beg his lordship to be as lenient in his punishment towards me as possible, bearing in mind that I have still eighteen or nineteen months to be under servitude.

The Prisoner expressed a wish to call James Brown and the Claimant, but subsequently decided not to do so. Guilty— One Days' Imprisonment and Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

View as XML