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

~.'‘
. -
-;
----1'
, , ------)
/
-(---___774i.--- ,ve-..• .
• .die.. ~,t , p.,44 ...... / 7/.../
4.,1*- 1.1)-01 io.) __AIT
, c.t,,,•.,.. ~,t.,. ..._
._ ) ....
=111)
,A' *O.. '44 •:' . . 7nz-----,' 'l. ~ 4.... '-'-' ' r'qkiilAo
7.2-, it , , . .
~..'',- • • ---,< • --
4-_,, .At _irl -.........,:,, - . • ,-,,e. 0 ~_,4','. ! ,'•';4 ,- ,
\ / 4. -o.„ ‘5 - - --: - ::.14.' ' 0'f;41.-- P1r33.0 , s
.., -
g.s
, „ .9.
, / . , ---__•,„F tt....,,,
~z. ks‘ At•#."4.t4,4.
.•" r% .1, 71-, ,s• 4:StnYAit •P' ' itt
" / --. , 'l} ' /
..;..44 'Fii *,1!,, ,A 1 Di V, u ''" -. I 4.4!!,11 itn, 4 ~..2,, •`I,OI T Y :' '/. .Y. 44 ''' , ' ' • tref"..,,,, : ,

7 ordinary a termination. The report of yesterday left the
claimant, who calls himself Sir Richard Hugh Smyth,
under cross-examination by Sir Frederick Thesiger. That
cross-examination was continued until nearly nine o'clock
last night, and was resumed this morning. In the course
of this cross-examination, the plaintiff (who had lectured
all over the country as Dr. Smith, LL.D., and who said
the letters meant a " doctor learned in the law,") said he
these
elnw
words
d sw!.iscrho h
soe
spelt.)
pe set lut
.p)
spelt the word " whom" " whome," and the words " set
aside" " sett asside," and that he had authority for such
cross-examined as to a statement he had made in one of
his letters, of his having bean a prisoner under the Empe-
tiwt ont
he
sßounrczuhishsgaeel
ill
a
Ha s eim speltspelling.po r ttah(neltnwptrohoredads` e`
oer
rapid" his
ids f'
t'liBtwl2eil h two
ror Napoleon. He denied that he was confined in prison,
but an embargo was laid upon all foreigners. He was
upon his parole, and dared not leave the town. This
was in the year 1815. Was in Paris till the Emperor went
an Battleandn e
Hotel,
sle ,
Waterloo n
frequently
pfolrl
iosw ewd iht,eaoinsmi
the
gnEthcol i
nt
i, sipv
andael
ars t
to arg thl
e,
whenßf
tr Brussels
I,
theieiali ,
Paris.
.
allied Sovereigns entered Paris. The witness answered
the questions put to him by Sir Frederick on this subject
last he said the questions were so absurd that he declined
athnastwel\vinasg inan3trhemcoorren.melinceeme.anst
said he, "your lordship is aware that
then e tilBls. questioned,,n_f c byoui thescourse,"
~
learned judge, to whom ho stated that he was staving at
When the Emperor left., he (plaintiff) went to Brussels ;
there
wasa
le, c.,'.., Ltui
tr e ballsdy in,,a.t
Brussels two nights before the battle "
Sir F. Thesiger—Was you at that ball ?
Plaintiff—l was. (Roars of laighter.)
He was then examined as to his c.,nnection with Bell
and Lancaster, and stated that his former evidence, as to
those gentlemen travelling on the Continent and giving
joint
opposition
lectures,t,,
eN,,Vcahs incorrect..
other: and sit:: t
supportin g th ato they
telyi
tems of education. His former evidence had been given
under a misapprehension as to the questions. Bell and
Lancaster lectured it) English while on the Continent ;
only the English residents, and a few foreigners who un-
derstood the English language, went to hear them. Could
himself speak French pretty well, and knew some Latin.
Learnt Latin, like other boys, while at Warminster.
On further cross-examination, as to his having written
certain notes, purporting to come from the office of" Thos. 1
Rodham, steward to the estates," and addressed to a per-
son in charge of the disputed property, claiming it for Sir
Richard Smyth, he admitted that the signature of " Henry
hard pressed,had
Assufmeigend
•no. In this notice the word Somerset was spelt" Som.
signing the no • tice[This was denied.] The parchments
edanthde being
writ-
He said he had Mr. Rodham's authority for
mm
iststelr also that washe
were spelt " sett asside," as in the plaintiff's
" set aside" were
letter. The jury also looked at the portrait, and one of
them called his lordship's attention to an inscription at the
Brown,forThaoi
wait-
ing.
ethinded to the jury who observed that the words
back—" Born, 19th May, 1774 ; married, 1796."
The plaintiff was next examined as to his alleged inter-
view with the late Sir John Smyth the day .before he
i ed. He said Sir John had admitted his legitimacy, and
promised to see him righted. In his cross-examination in
chief he had said the 50/. note which Sir John gave him on
that occasion was a Bank of England note. He now, on
cross-examination, said he had stated, or unthinkingly
(Ic sh ' 8
he
eb a n
statedk .
her
said, that it was in fact one of Miles's Bank. He then
denied that he had said it was a Bank of England note,
but his lordship referred to his notes, and found that he
had so called it. Afterwards he said, if they really must
have the truth, he really did not know of what bank it
was, but that his impression was that it was one of
Itnlheatotttehhre:rrlp3lviohaiinjcethss
Majesty
yhhhee
aciclialanpdtrraoamdtiicshteeocdimthieo. himself.
Sir
Sir Frederick asked the plaintiff if he had written to her
Majesty on this subject. The plaintiff said he had ; that
the Queen had promised to be his friend, but he could not
Frederick then read from a letter written by the plaintiff
understandw3fihli
to Mr. Gore Langton, on the 12th of February, 1852, in
friend, and that he had now proceeded to "redeem " that
promise. The plaintiff stated that he had had the honour
of delivering a series of lectures on elocution before her
Majesty at Kensington Palace, and that her Majesty was
so well pleased with his remarks on a subject in which she
took a great interest, that she had placed her services at
his command at any time. He also stated that it was
prior to her Majesty's accession to the throne that he had
lectnrad before her. That he bad no doubt he had written
to the Queen the same evening.
In his further cross-examination to-day, it appeared that
he had at one time claimed to be of the family of Lord
Carrington. After prevarication, he admitted he had
written a letter to Lord Carrington, stating that he was
at his wits' ends to provide bread for his children. He
denied that he had ever admitted himself to be a member
of the family of Provis, the carpenter, when he had repre-
sented that his mother was confined. Thomas Provis ad
not called him his son, and he had never said that it an-
swered his purpose better to go by the name of Dr. Smith.
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
acids. The inscription was, "Hugh Smyth, Esq., son of
Thomas Smyth, Esq., of Stapleton, county of Gloucester,
1796." This picture, it was alleged, was a picture of one
of the Provis family, and there were two erasures on the
back.

[PRicz SD.

The witness was then cross-examined as to the seal af-
fixed to the deeds of 1822 and 1823, and as to a seal which
he had ordered of an engraver, named Moring, of Holborn.
He deposed that he got the deed in question on the 17th
of March last, and not before ; that he then took a " rub-
bing" of it, and took it to the engraver, whom he intrusted
to engrave it. The engraver, however, made a mistake,
the motto having been cut, Qui capit capitor, instead of
Qui mpg capitur, and he then had another made. He
swore he did not see the seal before the 17th March, or the
deed.

A letter was then put in, written by the plaintiff to a
Rev. Mr. Bennett, of Ballinadee, Ireland, in which he said
he had.a. certificate of his 'mother's marriage, at Lismore,
with the signature of the Rev. Dr. Lovett to it, but that
he wished to verify the signature, and asked Dir. Bennett
to obtain for him some document with the signature of
Dr. Lovett, telling him that he was about to come in for
some large estates, on which there were eight livings, all
held by old men, and promising him to give him one of
them, if he complied with his rermest.
This letter, it appeared, had the desired effect, for the
Rev. Mr. Bennett sent the plaintiff two testimonials to cha-
racter, written by Dr. Lovett, and it was inferred that
from these the plaintiff had forged the signature of 1)r.
Lovett to the entry in the Bible. He did not deny that
the letter to the Rev. Mr. Bennett, which was produced in
court, was his.
This letter was dated the 13th of 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 impression from the deed on the 17th, and had to get
it engraved afterwards, he turned pale. and requested per-
mission 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, Oxford-street, in January last, to en-
grave the Bandon crest on the ring, which had been pro-
duced as a relic, and the words "F. Gooking " on the
brooch, which he had sworn he had in his possession as
another family relic for years.
Upon this a dramatic scene occurred. The plaintiff
admitted that this was true, and Sir F. Thesiger sat down
deeply moved. The Court was hushed in silence.
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 Ilchester (Somerset)
Gaol under sentence for horse-stealing. He had been sen- '
tomcod to death, but the sentence was commuted.
Tho 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 ever having had anything
to do with the case.
Sir F. Thesiger said he had no doubt that Mr. Shadwell
and Mr. Catlin (the attorney) had been both grossly im-
posed upon.
The plaintiff was then removed in custody to Gloucester
gaol.