The Judge—He says his attention was only called to the claimant’s ear the day before.
The Attorney-General (assenting)—But Sir William Fergusson, examined and cross-examined, goes much further in the matter:—“Is there anything you recollect as a peculiarity?—Very recently, about the lobes of the ear. What was that peculiarity?—The lobe was much larger than is the case with most people. The Lord Chief Justice: In what way larger?—Witness: It was broader and softer to the touch than is common. The Attorney-General: Do they depend much or adhere?—They depend so much that they strike one at once. When you say depend, what do you mean?—They hang down. Below the junction with the side of the face, do you mean?—Yes, they hang down. Are they free?—Yes, they are free. They are big lobes, handsome, and very conspicuous. They are, however, big, and many people would object to them on that account. Was there anything to show whether they were in a natural or unnatural condition?—Decidedly in a natural condition. Do you think any pulling would have produced the condition in which you saw the lobes of the plaintiff’s ears?—No; I think not.” Then in cross-examination by the jury, the witness was asked whether he thought a great increase in the bulk of the body generally would have affected the size of the ears, and what was Sir Wm. Fergusson’s answer? He said, No; and that it was a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear—in fact, never; but we sometimes saw tumours in that locality, which he, however, explained were very different things from fat—so distinct, in fact, that it was impossible to mistake the one for the other. Sir William Fergusson, therefore, differs from Mr. Canton about the matter of fat on the ears. Mr. Canton says that fat is deposited on the ear where it is not cartilaginous and does not adhere to the cheek or side of the face; but Sir William Fergusson says, “No, it is a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear; in fact, never, I may say.” In effect, Sir W. Fergusson says there is no appearance of any trick or pulling the ears having been practised, and therefore the fair conclusion is that what he saw in 1871 he would have seen on the same ear in 1854, and there I must leave it. Dr. Sutherland is then called and examined about the ears:—“Was your attention called to his ears?—Yes. When?—On the 9th of November. Would you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that the plaintiff’s ears are large, well-formed and unusually pendent?—Yes. Are they what you would call decidedly and distinctly detached ears?—Decidedly. Are there some ears which are perfectly lobeless?—No doubt. And others in which the lobe is detached?—Yes. Do you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that if a man has a lobeless ear it never becomes pendent?—I should think it would not. And anatomically you would say that if a man has the one kind of ear it never becomes the other?—Decidedly.” You thus perceive that Dr. Sutherland carries the matter a step further, and he says that there are for general purposes two classes of ears. His opinion is, he says, and also his experience, that an ear once attached never becomes detached and dependent. So far the scientific evidence. There are two medical gentlemen on our side—Mr. Seymour Haden, and Mr. Bernard Holt—who, as you will remember, saw the plaintiff when the rest of us saw him, and they will tell you that Dr. Sutherland is perfectly right in saying that a dependent ear never does come out of an attached one, and that Sir William Fergusson is right in saying that substantially the ear remains the same all through life. Take the Chili daguerreotypes and compare them with the photographs of the claimant. In the Chili daguerreotypes of the real Roger Tichborne, which Col. Wortley says are for this purpose to be depended upon, you will find that the ears are distinctly adhering, but in all the photographs of the claimant where the ear is shown the ear is distinctly not adhering to the face. Take the uncontradicted evidence that the one class of ear never becomes the other class of ear, and draw for yourselves the conclusion. The ears of the real Roger were of the one kind, the ears of the claimant are of the other, and as it is not contradicted or disputed that the ears never change, it is plain that they are not the ears of the same man. Therefore, the two sets of ears belong to two different persons, and that is my case. Therefore, gentlemen, if you have no objection, I should like you to pause for a moment, and look at the photographs—first, the Chili photograph of Roger Tichborne, and then one of the photographs taken of the claimant since his return from Australia.