THE TICHBORNE CASE
Introduction by Marlyn Robinson
Born to a wealthy family in Hampshire in 1829, Roger Charles Tichborne was the son of Sir James and Lady Henrietta Felicite Seymour Tichborne. After spending most of his youth in France and several years at a Jesuit boarding school, he served in the army 1849-52, then left for a world tour. His ship was presumed lost in 1854, and eventually all on board were declared dead. His mother never gave up hope of his return and after she placed advertisements in Australian newspapers in 1865, was informed that her son had been alive all this time. She arranged for his return, and although most other family members were convinced he was an imposter, she and a number of other individuals believed his story. In 1868 an issue was directed to be tried in the Court of Common Pleas as to whether the claimant was the heir of Sir James, who had died in 1862. He brought an ejectment action against the Tichborne trustees before a judge and special jury. The trial lasted 102 days (May 1871-March 1872), and the claimant was cross examined for 22 days by the Solicitor General, Sir John Coleridge. A large number of witnesses swore to his identity, but the final cross-examination proved that he was ignorant of many facts which Sir Roger must have known, eg. how to speak French. The defense's case rested on proving the existence and parallel travels of one Arthur Orton, a Wapping man who eventually wound up in Australia, and whose path may even have crossed that of Sir Roger's. The jury found for the defendants. After the trial Orton was arrested for perjury and tried at the Bar in 1873. Even more witnesses were called this time, but on the 188th day the jury found that he was guilty, and he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. He was released in 1884 and in 1895 published a signed confession. The case was a great source of class strife at the time of the trials, and even today some authors maintain that the government railroaded the claimant.
For many years this (the two trials combined) was the longest trial in English history. In December 1996, the "McLibel" case claimed the new record, having begun in June 1994 and lasting 313 courtroom days. Two activists had been sued for defamation by McDonald's Restaurants for their involvement in the publication and distribution of a leaflet that said that eating the chain's hamburgers could cause cancer and heart disease - "McCancer, McDisease, McHunger and McDeath". The case went into the Guiness Book of Records, but it was soon surpassed by Caledonia North Sea v. London Bridge Engineering, 2000 Scottish Law Times 1123, December 1999, which lasted 391 days. One of the attorneys involved in that case was University of Texas law professor Hans Baade.
It was Professor Baade who discovered what seems to be the longest trial in English history: Srimati Bibhabati Devi v. Kumar Ramendra Naravan Roy, (1946) AC 508, (1947) LJR 26, a case which took place before Indian independence, and was eventually appealed to the House of Lords. The original trial in Dacca lasted 608 days; the appeal was argued for 28 days. Oddly, it also involved a case of a returned heir. Three brothers and their wives lived as an extended family, jointly occupying the family estate. The second brother died and his wife assumed his share. However, ten years later, a man whom some thought to be the supposedly deceased was discovered, and he sued for the return of his inheritance. The trial and both appeals courts found for the claimant.