« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
the back of his head, and a barber was called from Clonmel, who said that Roger had such a mark in the same position. Roger had been bled in the foot-the mark of such a bleeding is unmistakable and indelible. The claimant had marks on both feet which might be marks of bleeding, but might not. Roger had once a fish-hook in his eye, and there was a minute mark on one of the eyelids of the claimant which might or might not have
caused by a hook. But the surgeons could not positively say the age of these marks, and the examinations, for the most part, were made four years after the claimant had been in this country. It was proved that the claimant has a “brown mark" on his side; but it was not shown that Roger had.
Thirteen days were occupied by the examination and cross-examination, by Mr. Hawkins, of Mr. Baigent, the son of a drawing-master at Winchester, who described himself as connected by marriage with the Tichborne family. After the loss of the “Bella” in 1854, he had had repeated communication with the Dowager Lady Tichborne on the subject of her son, whom she expected would reappear some day. On the arrival in England of the claimant, he was not at first disposed to believe in him, but professed himself entirely convinced on his first interview with him of his identity, and from that time was very active in the business of promoting his claim.
Except as to identification, and the facts relating to the "Osprey," there was no confirmatory evidence of the plaintiff's story; neither was any witness called who had known the claimant in Australia, and who could positively prove that he was there in 1854, or at what period in that year.
On the 70th day of the trial, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine announced that the claimant's case was terminated, and the court adjourned till the 15th of January, 1872.
THE BOULTON AND PARK TRIAL.
The trial of Ernest Boulton, Frederick William Park, Louis Charles Hurt, and John Safford Fiske, the young men charged with frequenting theatres and other places of public resort in women's clothes, was commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, on Tuesday, the 9th of May. Since the case was first brought before the public, Lord Arthur Pelham Clinton, who was originally included in the indictment, has died, while William Somerville, Martin Luther Cumming, and C. H. Thompson have eluded the vigilance of the police.
There was an unprecedentedly large attendance of the bar, the counsel engaged being the highest in the profession. For the Crown, the prosecutor
-The Attorney-General, The Solicitor-General, Mr. H. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. H. James, Q.C., Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Poland were retained. For BoultonMr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. Besley. For Park—Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Straight. For Fiske- Mr. Henry Matthews, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, and Mr. Purcell. For Hurt-Sir John Karslake, Mr. F. H. Lewis, and Mr. W. Ballantine.
The outline of the case for the prosecution was this :-For some two or three years certain persons, alleged to have been some of the defendants principally, it was said, Boulton and Park—had exhibited themselves at public places, dressed sometimes as women and sometimes as men, and supposed by the police to be women. They were seen at the Alhambra, at the Surrey and Strand Theatres, at the Casino in Holborn, in the Burlington Arcade, in Regent-street, in the Haymarket, and at the Oxford and Cambridge boat-race. As early as 1867 Boulton was seen walking in the Haymarket with one of the defendants who had absconded, dressed in women's clothes, and with painted face. Disturbances ensued, and some of the parties were taken before a magistrate, and bound over to keep the peace. But again they were seen at various places—at the Alhambra, for instance,—where their conduct gave great offence, and whence they were three or four times turned out; nevertheless they returned again and again ; and so they were seen in the Burlington Arcade, and were there also turned out. They promenaded Regent-street and the Haymarket at night until late hours in the morning, and made acquaintances. Their head-quarters appear to have been at 13, Wakefield-street, Regent-square, where they had an extensive wardrobe of female attire and female ornaments. In April, 1870, a young gentleman named Mundell made their acquaintance at the Surrey Theatre, and took them to be women. He was taken into custody with them,
one of the witnesses for the prosecution, and the first witness called. The lodgings at Wakefield-street were searched, the female dresses were found, letters were discovered, and inquiries were made which led to the present prosecution. Lord Arthur Clinton was found to have been closely connected with them, and from the letters it appeared that other persons were implicated. It appeared from the letters that Boulton and Park had been to many places--to Chelmsford, to Devizes, to Abergavenny, to Newport, to Aberdare, and to Edinburgh, and that at some of these places they were taken for women. The letters led to the apprehension of Hurt and Fiske, the latter of whom was taken at Edinburgh, where other letters were found. In the result this prosecution was instituted. The AttorneyGeneral remarked on the extreme sorrow he felt at being compelled to take part in such a prosecution. But he was without any choice in the matter, the revelations in the Police Courts having rendered it imperatively necessary that the public apprehensions in respect of the charges involved should be satisfied. The defendant Boulton had been for some time in the office of his uncle, who is a stockbroker in the City; and subsequently he had been a clerk in a bank. In 1866 or 1867 he renounced his post; and since then he has been without an occupation, and with but little or no means of livelihood. This last was a very important feature of the case. Park, who was the son of a Master in the Superior Courts, had been educated for the law, and was an articled clerk to a solicitor. Hurt was a clerk in the Post Office. For some time he had been quartered in London, but was afterwards transferred to Edinburgh. It must be admitted that he had always borne a most excellent character. Fiske, the fourth defendant, was an American, who had carried on business as a merchant at Edinburgh, and had acted as American Consul for the port of Leith. Having explained the general nature of the charge against the defendants, the learned Attorney-General said it would be admitted that Boulton and Park had frequently worn women's
clothes for the purpose of taking part in private theatricals, still it would be for the jury to say whether persistent conduct such as that with which they were charged could be explained away by the theory that they had been guilty of a mere foolish freak.
The previous examination began on April 29 last year, and after a month Boulton and Park were committed for trial. It appeared that Mr. Hurt was not then brought before the magistrates, nor was he charged until afterwards.
A detective who had taken Boulton and Park to the Police-station proved that they offered him money to let them go. The charge on which they were taken was that of going about in women's clothes, and he had stated this. It appeared that at the station the prisoners (Park and Boulton) said they were men, and were sorry for their folly.
At the trial a number of witnesses were examined on the part of the prosecution, their evidence being for the most part a reproduction of that taken before the police magistrate. The evidence for the prosecution closed on May 11. Sir John Karslake and Mr. Matthews, on behalf of the defendants Hurt and Fiske, submitted that there was no case against their clients; but in each instance the Lord Chief Justice declined to withdraw the testimony from the consideration of the jury.
Mr. Digby Seymour addressed the jury on behalf of Boulton :
He urged that the Crown, by withdrawing the felony, had thrown a doubt on the value of the evidence to sustain the charge against Boulton. It would be a dangerous precedent to find the prisoners guilty on the evidence that had been produced. He hoped to be able satisfactorily to show the innocence of his client. Boulton, when a child, showed great talent in per. sonating female characters, which won the applause and admiration of his friends and those who witnessed their delineation. That talent he en. couraged; and in after years he performed female characters with great talent in private theatricals for charitable purposes. It was in the pursuit of that taste that he became acquainted with Lord Arthur Clinton and Park, and it was the circumstance of their performing so often together in private theatricals that accounted for the peculiar and familiar expressions to be found in the correspondence. The dresses and articles of wearing apparel and ornaments produced were used by them in private theatricals, and had been the accumulation of years. Folly was not crime, and culpability was not legal proof. The evidence given by Mr. Mundell was in favour of the prisoners, and it had been confirmed by other witnesses. In the course of his observations, the learned counsel said Lord Arthur Clinton was in his grave, but his name was still in the indictment; and from the stillness of his grave he appealed to and invoked the jury not to blast his memory for ever. However culpable it might be for men to go about in women's clothes, it was not for that the prisoners were now being tried. To do so might be a foolish joke-an outrage upon decency if they liked,—but there was no evidence of the conspiracy that was charged in the indictment. He would prove out of the mouths of certain actors he would produce the taste that existed for private theatricals, and the fact that it was common amongst performers to use, both off and on the stage, the language they had used when on it, and also assume the names of the characters in which they had appeared when they met or communicated by writing; and as Lord Arthur Clinton and
Boulton had performed on the stage the parts of husband and wife, that fact would account for the expressions in the letters, such as matrimonial squabble," and the like. He would also produce the person who supplied the dresses, and give evidence of the purpose for which they were bought. He would also call the photographer, and show that Lord Arthur Clinton and Boulton were photographed in the parts they had taken in private theatricals. He appealed to the jury to divest themselves of all prejudice, and act solely on the evidence.
Mr. Serjeant Parry addressed the jury for Park.
The first witness called for the defence was the mother of Ernest Boulton. She said her husband was at present at the Cape on business. --From an early age my son showed an extraordinary taste for personating female characters. That penchant showed itself almost from his sixth year. Sometimes he would dress as a parlour-maid. He had done that, and even waited upon her own mamma at table without being recognized ; in fact, when he left the room, she said, “I wonder, having sons, that you have so Hippant a girl about you." (Laughter.) My son subsequently performed in private theatricals. His taste that way was encouraged. My son and myself first met Lord Arthur Clinton at dinner at the house of a relativea Mr. Richards, a stockbroker. Lord Arthur said he was fond of amateur theatricals, and his intimacy with my son increased very much. Lord Arthur once acted in private theatricals at my house; it was during the time that his lordship sat as member for Newark. My acquaintance with Lord Arthur continued until he died. He slept at my house at Dulwich as a guest from time to time. I called at Southampton-street on two occasions whilst Lord Arthur and my son were stopping there. My husband was with me. We had refreshments, and all went to the theatre together. The first public performance in which my son appeared was at the Egyptian Hall. He played a female and Lord Arthur a male part. My son's name appeared on the bills as Ernest Boulton. He subsequently performed at Scarborough, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend, &c. I was always rather opposed to his acting, but I did not actually forbid it. He had such a penchant for it, that I was almost compelled to give my consent. At this time he had not adopted acting as a profession. My son was successful as a singer; he has a fine soprano voice. My son left the London and County Bank owing to ill. health. I knew my son had a nickname—“Stella.” Ernest was always a most devoted son, his only fault being a love of admiration, which was fed by the flattery of foolish people. I knew nothing of the Wakefield-street address, nor of their walking about London dressed as women. son no stated allowance of pocket money, but I should say he had an average of about 1l. per week. I don't know whether the provincial amateur performances of Lord Arthur and my son were for profit. I have heard that they took money at them. I have known Mr. Hurt for three or four
years. I cannot tell where Hurt was living at the time. Park, Thomas, and Cumming have visited at my
house. Many other witnesses were called, and the case ended with a verdict of “Not Guilty" against the defendants.
When the Lord Chief Justice summed up, he expressed his disapprobation of the form in which the case had been brought before the Court. “We are trying the defendants," he said, “ for conspiring to commit felonious
I made my
crime, and the proof of it, if it amounts to any thing, amounts to proof of the actual commission of crime; and I am clearly of opinion that where the proof intended to be submitted to a jury is proof of the actual commission of the crime, it is not the proper course to charge the parties with conspiring to commit it. For that course manifestly operates unfairly and unjustly and oppressively against the parties concerned. The prosecution are thus enabled to combine in one indictment a variety of offences which, if treated individually, as they ought to be, would exclude the possibility of giving evidence in one case to the prejudice of defendants in others, and they are thus deprived of the incalculable advantage of being able in one case to avail themselves of the evidence of defendants in others." This view, his lordship observed, was held by Lord Cranworth. Coming to the actual facts of the case, the learned judge remarked that what had been proved against the defendants Boulton and Park was sufficient to stamp them with the deepest disgrace, although they might not have had any felonious intention. Their going, for example, to the ladies' rooms at theatres and other public places was an offence which the legislature might justly visit with corporal punishment. His lordship subsequently remarked that Hurt and Fiske should have been tried in Scotland, if at all. “It is easy, however,” he continued,“ to see how all this happened. The police had taken up the case, and the whole course and conduct of it confirm the opinion I have always entertained as to the necessity for a public prosecutor to control and to conduct criminal prosecutions. The police seized the prisoners' letters, and found those of Hurt and Fiske, and then went to Edinburgh and, without any authority, searched their lodgings, and then arrested them, and put them on their trial here along with Park and Boulton, without taking them before a magistrate at all, and thus they are tried with the two other defendants for an alleged offence having no connexion whatever with their conduct.
The jury took about an hour to consider their verdict, and when it was delivered there was a burst of applause in Court.
The defendant Boulton fainted on hearing the verdict.
A second indictment against the defendants for outraging decency by going about dressed as women was left to stand over, and in the meantime they were liberated on their recognizances.
THE DIAMOND ROBBERY.
Martha TARPEY, aged twenty-eight, a married woman, was charged at the Central Criminal Court, in March, 1871, with a very remarkable crime. She was indicted for a robbery with violence from James Unett Parkes, a shopman in the employ of Messrs. London and Ryder, jewellers, and stealing from him a diamond necklace and other goods, value 25001., the goods of William Henry Ryder. She was also charged with applying to James Unett Parkes chloroform with intent to assist her husband, Michael Tarpey, in robbing Parkes of the jewellery.
Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. She appeared in the dock carrying a baby.