Norwich bulletin., 1914-07-17
FAMOUS TRIALS
TRIAL OF SIR RICHARD HUGH
 SMITH.


 Tn 1853 a person calling himssif Sir Richard Hugh Smyth laid claim to an extinct baronetcy and brought an ar- tion of ejectment to recover possession of vast estates situated in the neigh borhood of Bristol and valued af near ly $150.000 year. The title in aues- ton had become extinct on the death of Sir John Smyth, who. although he had been married twice, fin 17e7 and 1892, had no direct heir. So, although the estate went to a nephew who at the time was not of age, the title. as is the law, became extinct
 Smyth brought forward facts that proved that the late Sir Hugh was secretly married in County Cork. Ire land, in 1796. A fly leaf from a Bible belonging to the vicar of Lismore, and & written document by the deceased baron which stated that not only was he married. but his wife died at the birth of his son. whom he haG placed in the care of his nurse, Lydia Reed, were produced in standardization. Also that the son had run away to Europe, and 1t was as this son that the claim idence he brought into the co',-S vaT.- our jewelry and brooc8ts. bundle of sealed papers 1nd q por6rs.it of Sir Hugh. Some of the documents md the impression of seal. "Qui Capit Cap itor'
 The case seemnd cIel- for The claim ant when he W ts 3saed sUme fi-StI)ns afout some sea.s he aa | ordered sn- graved by a seal cagrasc- in H5ib3rn, and admitted S.vilS an ord.r fr a card plate ani caris. bat denied thl: he had ordered {. st ss:, seil niatie to the pattern an1 pnor:) uf the Smyths.
 Through an error oe he enSra, er n,,e of the seals lad hesn transf )IInei int , "Qui Capit CapiIor," while the real motto was: "Qui Capit Capitur," Smytl, l -AA l>rr which Sir Hugh acknowledged th- ex- istence of a son until the 1Tth of Marcn and as he had not received the seal until July, he could not pSssibly have placed the seal ol tiIo deeI But ;st . ter was brougHt il.to court dated Maft h 13, which. he admitted was in hIs handwriting, and which bore the seal with the mistake. And this same inn pression was on the deed.
 The cross examination counsel then asked: Did you. in January last, ap- ply to a person in London to engrave duced, and also to engrave the name Goodin' on the brooeh?"
 The answer very hesitatingly given was: "Yes, I did"
 The plaintiff was committed by the judge on a charge of perjury, to which a charge of forgery was subsequently added.
 .The second trial took place at the assizes, at Gloucester. It was brief, but damning.
 An attorneys clerk confessed to hav- ing taken the deed from dietation. The brown paper which the prisoner had sworn formed the wrapper of the deed when he received 1t, was identified as the self same piece of paper that had covered the seal when sent; the self same seal on which the engraver had made his unlucky. or shall we say lucky, mistake The parchment of the deed itself was made from a process that had only been known ten years and so could not possibly have been written on by Sir Hugh exactly thirty years before.
 Various startling errors and dis crepancies were found in the docum snt itself. The ink had received it's an tique appearance by artificial means, the wax was undoubtedly new. and a reference was made to Sir Hughs wife as The late Elizabeth Howell" where as the lady in question was alive and ip good health at the time that the deed was supposed to have been writ ten. The picture disclosed Tn the first trial was found to be that of one John Provis, the eldest son; of a carpenter, and the prisoner was identified as son portrayed in the picture, and as such he was recognized by his sister
 It was also proved that he had been convicted of horse stealing. wife deser- tion, perjury and now with forgery.
 No more testimony was given nor was it needed, and for twenty years nothing more was heard of John Pro- wis. the bogus Sir Richard Hugh Smyth.