Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1853-08-26

CURIOUS CAsE.-1he following remarkable case
which has just been tried in England, is almost ex-
acty coincident IN all it's particulars with the Lord
Stirling case which was tried in Scotland, in 1889.
Mr. Humphrey, the claimant of the Stirling titles
and estates, was not sent to Jail as John Provs was
but that was because the Jury were not sats6d that
he was prVy TO The iotgeries, by which he sought
to establish his claim.
An extraordinary case has been on tIal in the
Courts at Gloucester. Its features curious
anything TO be found in the records Of the causes
celebres. man calling himself Sir Richard Hugh
SmyIh, aged &c, brought action of ejectment 10
recover the estates in Worcestershire, which were
formerly the property OF Sir Hugh SmyIh, Barone,
deceased; those estates having descended, IN due
course, To Sir John Srnyth, the deceased's brother
as legal heir. The deceased Sir Hugh was known
to have been twice married, and to have had no rs
sue in either case the plaintiff claimed that Sir
Hugh had contracted third marriage, IN Ireland,
in the year 1876 with Jane, daughter OF Count
Vanderburg, which marriage was kept secret, and
that the lady died in giving birth TO him, the
plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that he
sent abroad, and that his father, SIR Hugh,
was informed that he died in infancy. The
documents put forward in support of the plaintiffs
case a register Of the alleged marriage, from
an old family bible; register of baptism from the
same source, letter from Sir Hugh to the lady Just
before her accouchment, calling her his vile, and
variety of deeds purporting TO have been made by
Sir Hugh in favor oil the plaintiff, when the former
was made aoq aited with the existence of his son,
the plaintiff, whom he had believed To be dead
Besides these there several other family recs
mourning rings, cages d'amour, seals and rmkets
inscribed with family names and notices. There
were also portraits Of Sir Hugh, of the lady, his
alleged wife, and Of the plaintiff claiming be their
Inscriptions on the portraits testified TO the
relation the parties stood in relation to each other-
If he pIa LaI,l
in his remembrance Of events that had occurred in
his childhood. The names of noble families with
whom he had Tesded, and been patronized by
freely stated. All the details Of his education and
entry at College given with minuienesS that
certainly hoie the look of truth And he stated that
on his leaving College. where DR. Goddard was his
tutor, the Nlarchluness OF Bath and Lady Isabella
Thyme who had been accustomed TO visit hun when
at schoal, communicated 10 him that he was The son
Of Sir Hugh Smyth, and handed him the SUN OF FL :,
500 sterling thai had be unged To bis mother. Alter
this he went abroad, mel with Bell and Lancaster,
assumed the profession OF a lecturer education,
at BrtIssels at the time Of Waterloo and only
recently determined Ia prosecute his claims to the
Smylh estates In 1S49 he called on Sir john Smyth
then in possession of the estates, and informed him
that he was his nephew, the legal heir. He says
that Sir John acknowledged his identity Al all
events, the shock too much for he old baronei,
and the next morning he found dead in his bed.
NOW comes tne extraordinary pant oil the case. The
signatures TO the various deeds were sworn 10 as au-
thentc, by persons who really to have believed
they speaking the truth. The deeds themselves
were accurate enough, but toae altogether mtsspct.-
One Of the notices on his seal was also misspelt--
captor instead Of cdpittr. In his cross examination,
the plaintiff was put through regular course of
spelling, and spelled the words in the same way they
were written in the deeds,-'sett dsside'' "reuy, .
&c During the trial, engraver in Oxford ST.,
London, elegraphed TO counsel that in January last,
he engraved The crest on ring that had been pro
duced as relic, and also engraved the words 'sF
Cooking" on breach that the plaintiff had sworn
had been IN his possession for years. As the exanl-
ination proceeded it becauIe evident that the plain.
tiff was certain "John Provs," whose most honest
occupation ilineran lecturer on oratorv, and
who, at the date ne had sworn that he was laid ND
for eighteen months und the care Of nubIe ladies,
was laid up in Leicester, Somerset Jail under sentence
OF death for horse stealing. AT this point the pro.
ceedings IN court were highly dramatic. The dis
covery paraysed the audience with aslonishment,
and the counsel for the plaintiff threw up their briefs
and asserted they had been grossly imposed upon
Sir Richard Hugh Smylh, alias Provis, was forth
with ndct' Tor forgery and perjury, and was borne
off in the police to Gloucester Jail.