The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-11 00:00:00

CONCLUSION OF TOE CASE

YESTERDAY.

fly this time the plaintiff bad been under examination
for eight hours, and the court adjourned. This morning,
at the sitting of the court, his cross•exernination by Sir F.
Thesiger was resumed, and continued up to 2 o'clock. In
the course of the morning he had repeatedly contradicted
his evidence in chief, but the great point on which he broke
down was when examined as to his possession of two deeds
of 1822 and 1823, purporting to be a recognition of his
claims to the estates in question by the late Sir John
Smyth, whose nephew he claimed to be. In his further
cross-examination to- day it appeared that he bad at one
time claimed to be of the family of Lord Carrington. After
prevarication he admitted ho had written a letter to Lord
Carrington, stating that he was at his wit's ends to provide
bread for his children. He denied that he had ever ad-
mitted himself to be a member of the family of Provie, the
carpenter, where be had represented that his mother was
confined. Thos. Frovis bad not called bins his son, and he
had never said that it answered his purpose better to go by
the name of Dr. Smyth. The plaintiff was cross examined
at considerable length as to a picture, on the back of which
an inscription had been made to appear (so plaintiff said)
by the application of acid. The inscription was, " Hugh
Smyth, En., son of Thos. Smyth, Esq., of Staple-
ton, county of Gloucester, 1796." This picture, it
was alleged, was a picture of one of the Provis
family, and there were two ensures on the
back. The witness was then cross-examined as to the seat
affixed to the deed of 1822 and 182.3, and as to a seal which
he had ordered of an engraver named Hoeing, of Holborn.
Ile deposed that he got the deed in question on the 17th
March last, and not before, that he then took a " rubbing"
of it, and took it to the engraver whom he instructed to
ennavo it. The engraver, however, made a mistake, the
motto baying been cut " Qui cupitcapitor " instead of
Qui capit capitur," and he then had another made. He
swore be did not see the seal before the 17th of March on
the deed.

A letter was then put in written' by the plaintiff to a
Rev. Mr. Bennett, of lita!Dundee, Ireland, in which he
said he had a eertificate of his mother's marriage at Lis-
more, with the signature of the Rev. Dr. Lovett to it, but
that he wished to verify this signature, and asked Mr. Ben.
nett to obtain for him some document with the signature of
Dr. Lovett, telling him that he was about to come into some
large estate!, on which there were eight livings all held by
1 old men, and promising to give him one of those if he
complied with his request.
This letter; it appeared, had the desired affect ;for theßev,
W. Bennett sent the plaintiff two testimonials to character,
written by Dr. Lovett; and it was inferred that from these
the plaintiff had prepared the signature of Dr. Lovett to
the entry in the Bible. Re did not deny that the letter to
the Rev. Mr. Bennett which was produced in court
was his.

This letter was dated tho 13th March, and was sealed
with the Smyth seal ; and on the plaintiff being asked how
it was that it was so sealed, when he only obtained the im-
premien from the deed on the 17th and bad to get it en-
graved afterwards, be turned pale, and requested permission
to leave the court to recover himself.

Sir F. Thesiger, however, objected, and at that moment
a telegraphic message arrived from London, stating that
the police had discovered that the plaintiff had applied to
an engraver at 361,0xford•street, in January last, to en.
grave the Bandon crest on the ring which bad been pro-
duced as a relic, and the words F. Gooking "on the
brooch, which he hail sworn he bad had in his possession as
another family relic for years.
Upon this a dramatic scene occurred. The plaintiff ad-
mitted that this was true, and Sir F. Thesiger sat down
deeply moved. The court was hushed in siliince.
After this Sir F. Thesiger rose again, and said he should
not spare his feelings longer. He then elicited that at the
time he (plaintiff) had sworn he was ill (for 18 months in
1811) the plaintiff had been lying in Ikheater (Somerset]
Gaol, under sentence for horse stealing. Ho had been
sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted.
The plaintiff was then ordered into custody on a charge
of forgery and perjury.
Mr. Bovill having thrown up his brief, and expressed his
regret at his having had anything to do with the case,
Sir F. Thesiger said he had no douht that Mr. Shadwell
and Mr. Catlin (the attorney) had been bath grossly im-
posed on.
Tne plaintiff was then removed in enstoily to Gloucester
Gaol.