The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-12 00:00:00

with

THE SMYTH FORGERY CASE.

EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONER.

GLOUCESTER. TILIMIDAY.

To-day Dr. Smith, alias " Sir Richard Hugh
Smyth, Bart.," the plaintiff in the notable action of Smyth
v. Smyth," which terminated yesterday in so remarkable
and dramatic a manner, appeared before the Rey. D.
Jenne, muter of Pembroke, and a magistrate for Glouces-
tershire, on the charge of forging certain documents, par.
porting to lie deeds and certificates belonging to the Smyth
famiiy, the prosecution hawing been instituted by the di-
rection of Mr. Justice Coleridge.
_ _ _

Mr. Way, a relative of the Smyth family, deposed to the
inaccuracies in the spelling of the letters of the prisoner,
and he alio deposed to hie stating that the trinkets pro-
duced were the same that had been given to him by John
Provis.

The prisoner cross-examined Mr. Way at some length,
and continued to ejaculate, "You may hang me if you
please, but give me a fair chance." In reference to
0.6 misspelling of the word " holiday," he asked Mr. Way
if he knew the derivation of the word. Mr. Way declined
giving any explanation, and the prisoner then stated that
the wor I was derived from the holly branch by the
catholic., and that therefore it was impossible a scholar
could spell it otherwise than he had. 110 also asked Mr.
Way if from his own knowledge he could swear that he had
forged the parchments.
Mr. Mowing, engraver, 42, High Holborn, London, de-
posed that he made and engraved the steel seal now pro
duced about the 7th March last. The prisoner employed
him to make the seal, and he sent it to him in tho brow II
paper parcel produced. Ile haul examined the seals on the
two documents produced, and the impression on both T. a:
made from this seal.

By Mr. Gray (who conducted the proseention)—The
order was a written one by the prisoner (produced).
The order was shown to the prisoner yesterday while
under examination, and he admitted it to be his. Made •
sketch of the arms while the messenger waited, and in the
hurry he blurred the u in "capitur," and hence the mistake
in the engraving of the word " capitor" occurred. He en-
graved the arms and crest, and sent out the seal to have the
motto stamped on it. The words " the one before" in the
order re erred to another seal, which he had previously
made for the prisoner absut December. The seal with the
ivory handle produced is it. He had no doubt that the seal
on the document " A" was made with tho same seal as that

en the document " B." The impression on the letter
signed " Hugh Smyth," addressed to " Mrs. Smyth, War-
minster," and dated Feb. 2, 179:', was made with the seal
which witness engraved for the prisoner in December last.
This letter was produced en the trial of " Smyth v.
Smyth." No two seals could be made so much alike
that he could be deceived as to the impiessien, and,
more than that, the peculiar manner in which both seals are
engraved had only been discovered within the last three or
four years. The peculiarity was, that the seal was en-
graved by peculiar circular steel tools. It was a peculiarity
that could be seen by the eye, both by the impression and
the seal itself. He discovered that peculiarity in the docu-
ments A and B sealed. Before sending out the seal made
in March, be took an impression of it, which he had kept
ever since, awl now produced. In that impression the
word appeared " Copilot."
By tl•e prisoner—l received the handle of the smaller seal
from you, when you gave me the first order. There was a
seal upon it at the time, with a crest and motto. The
crest was an elephant's head.
The prisoner having put several other questions to the
witness, without shaking hie testimony, said—Now I have
one question to ask you touching my honour—for bad as I
may be thought to be, I have still some honour left. Did
I not call upon you after the appearance of certain adver-
tisements and handbills issued to seal engravers, respecting
the larger seal, and offering a reward of 51. for the disco-
very of the person who engraved it?

Witness—Yes, once.
Prisoner—Did I not say a person would call on you re-
specting the engraving of those seals?
Witness—You asked me if a person had called on me.
The witness went on to say that the prisoner had requested
that the porter in the shop should be sent out, and witness
having sent him out, the prisoner said inquiries might be
made respecting the seals engraved by him, and requested
him to give no information whatever respecting them. Ile
'eked witness to give no information respecting his know-
, ledge of the engruviog of seals. He did not request him to
observe secrecy when he gave the order for the seals. He
(witness) first gave information by letter to Mrs. Warring-
ton on the day the advertisement appeared. It was the day
the prisoner called upon him. A letter was produced,
bearing the Bristol post mark of March 15, 1833, and
another of the 16th of Much, 1853, addreued to the " Hey.
T. G. Bennett, Bsilinadee, Ireland." They bore a seal
which the witness identified as having been made with the
larger seal which he made for the prisoner.
. . . _ _