Arizona republican., 1914-03-05
The Trial of
 Richard Hugh Smith

In 1895, d person ealing ntiHStIl Sll Richard Hugh Smyth, laid claim to an extinct baronetcy, and brought an ac- tion of ejectment to recover possession of vast estates situated in the neigh borhood of Bristol, and valued at nearly $50, 900 a year The title in question had become extinct on the death of Sir John Smyth, who although he had been married twice, in 1907 and and 1922. had no direct heir So, although the estate went to nephew, who at the time of the trial was not of age, the title, as is the law became extinct
 Smysh brought forward facts that proved that the late Sir Hugh was sec retly married in county Cork, Ireland, in 1796. A fly leaf from Bible be- longing to the Vicar of LismOre, and written document by the deceased bar on which stated that not only was he married but his wife died at the birth of his son, whom he had placed in the care of his nurse, Lydia Reed, were produced in substantiation. Also that the son had run away to Europe, and it was as this sor that the claimant pre- scented his case. As further evidence he brought into the court various jew elry and brooches, a bundle of sealed papers, and a portrait of Sir Hugh. Some of the documents had the inn pression of seal "Qui Capit Capitor." The case seemed clear for the claim
 
 about some seals he had ordered en- graved by d seal engraVer in Holborn. and admitted giving an order for card l plate and cards, but denied that he had ordered a steel seal made to the pat I tern and motto of the Smyths Through an error of the engraVer one of the seals had been transformed into "Qui Capit Capitor," while the real motto was, "Qui Capit Capitur" Smyth said he had never seen the deed 1 by which Sir Hugh acknowledged the eXistance of son until the seventeenth of March and as he had not received l the seal until July. he could not pos sibly have placed the seal on the deed But a letter was brought into court March 13 which, he admitted, was in his handwriting, and which pore the seal with the mistake. And this same impression was on the deed The cross examining counsel then asked: Did you, in January last, ap- ply to q person in London to en- grave for you the crest upon the rings produced, and also to engraye the name 'Gookin' on the brooch? ?"
 The answer very hesitatingly given was: Yes. I did
 The plaintiff was committed by the judge on charge of perjury to which q charge of forgery was sub sequently added.
 The second trial took place at the assiZes, at Gloucester It was brief. Lut damning
 An attorneys clerk confessed to having taken the deed from dicta- jtion. The brown paper which the prisoner had sworn fofmed the lwrapper of the deed when he re- ceived it, 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 lucky, or shall we say unlucky. mistake The parchment. also 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 docu- | hn m ..tV ,t its antique appearance by artificial means, the wax was undoubtedly rev, and reference was made to Sir Hugh's wife as "The late Eliza beth Howell" whereas the lady in question was alive and in good health at the time that the deed was supposed to have been written. The | was found to be that of one John l Provis. the eldest son of a carpenter, and the prisoner was identified as Thomas Provis, the brother of the person 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 assertion, perjury, and now with forgery
 No more testimony was given, nor 1 was it needed. and for twenty years
 nothing more was heard of John | Provis, the bogus Sir Richard Hugh
 Smyth.
 Tomorrow-Trial of Joshua H. Smith | -------------------