Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-01-09


The richborne case in England recalls the
story of the Smyth-Provis contest, which took
| place IN 1858. One Thomas PrOYis claimed the
| Smyth baronetcy, but his identity was vigorous
| ly disputed, and there was searching cross-ex-
| animation by one of the leading counsel of the
| day, Sir Frederick TheSiger Lord Chems-
| lord-touching the claimants remembrance of
| personal incidents and the extent OF his educa
| tional requirements. The claimants leading
counsel was Mr. Bovill, now presiding Judge in
the Tichbone trial, and the Judge was
! Mr.. Justice Coleridge, father of the
present Sir John, the solicitor general.
The case came on at the August assizes at
| Gloucester, in 1858. The claimant protested to
be the son Of the late Sir Hugh Smyth, of Ash
ton hall, near Bristol, who, as generally sup
| posed, had died without issue, and whose title
had passed to the grandson OF his sister, minor.
| 1t was known that lie had been twice married
| but the claimant asserted that there had been a
| prior marriage in Ireland, in 1896, with Jane,
| daughter of Count Vandenberg, and that he was
| the issue OF that unicu, his mother having died
in giving him birth. His father, he alleged, kept
the marriage scorer, and shortly after the death
| of his wife Jane, married daughter the bishop
OF Bristol. The claimant had been brought up
by a carpenter named Provis, at Warminster,
and passed as his son, but had been educated at
Winchester schoo-he supposed at the expense
Of Sir Hugh. There, he asserted, he was visited
by the marchiOness of Bath, and others (since
unfortunately dead, who had recognized him as
the real heir 10 the Smyth estates-worth about
$50 900 year.
He produced in court document purporting
TO be signed by Sir Hugh acknowledging hi m
TO be his son; letters from the Irish clergyman
who had celebrated the marriage; brooch
and other iewelry, marked Jane Gooken which
he asserted was the maiden name of the mother
Of Jane Vandenbergh. An old Bible with the
name of Vandenbergh written on the fly-leaf
and an entry of the carriage of Sir Hugh was
also produced, besides large oil-painting, rep
resented as being portrait Of Sir Hugh, with
his autograph on the back of the canvass. In
the document peculiar mode Of spelling as OBJ
servabe, "set aside, being written "sett asside;"
rapid, rapid" "whom," "WhOme." Those
in court not in the secret were surprised AT the
pertnacitv with which Sir Frederick Thesger
questioned the claimant (who stated that he had
been lecturer on educational subjects as to his
mode of spelling words. His photography ex-
actly agreed with the peculiarties in the docu-
ment, aud with amazing audacity he maintained
that bis spelling was correct, and sanctioned by
al good authorities. He maintained that he had
accidentally found the document in the posses
sion Of al8wyers clerk in London.
just ~ Sir Frederick was concluding his cross
examination. one Of the most sensational Incl
denn ever witnessed IN court of justice Oc-
CURED. nessage was handed TO Sir Freder
lex, Who Immediately forwarded a reply, and
then looking steadily IN the face Of the claim
ant, said: "Dd sou, IN January last, apply to
person in Oxford street 10 engrave for you the
crest upon the rings produced, and the name of
Jane Goohen on the broochY The man, who
had already exhibited signs Of confusion, turned
deadly pale, and utterly unable to collect his
iacules TO invent another lalsehood, stammered
pgi u did" moment Of intense excitement
efisued, and then the Judge asked the claimants
cy1gsel what course they intended to pursue
vi. bJyill after a very brief conference with
bis colleagues, said: after this most appalling
eAhtpuon, after an exposure unparalleled in the
ours vi Justice, we feel II inconsistent with our
dnty, as gentlemen Of the bar, any longer to CON
tinue the contest"
Inc jury Of course, under the direction of
the Judge, returned verdict for the defendant:
the documents, iewery, Bible, and picture were
impounded, aud the claimant was ordered into
custody ON the charge OF wlful perjury. He
was tried Tor perjury at the next asses, and
| then his history was revealed He was Tom
| Proys, and not baronets son the portrait was
that of member Of the Proyis family, and he
| had himself written the name of Sir Hugh on
| the back. He had married a servant In the
| Smyth family, and so became acquainted with
some particulars OF the family history. lie had
been a school master, disgraced for abominable
| conduct and he had been tried and sentenced
| to death for horse stealing. The Bible was
| Vanderbergh, written Ia It, had suggested the
| fiction Of the irish marriage Of Jane Wander.
| befgh with her father the count, entirely inn
| aginary persons. The telegram, which was the
first step in exposing the fraud, was forwarded
| by the engraycr who had read in the Times the
report Of the first days proceedings.
! Proyis, horse stealer and worse, was sem
fenced to twenty-one years imprisonment, and
he died In goal. lie maintained in court that he
was baronet's sou, aud showed pigtail (pre-
yiously hidden in the collar Of his coat, which
he declared he was born with and which was