Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/461

 428

then left him and never saw him more. I brought the Bible and jewelry away without opening them." From this interview with old Provis in 1838 till 1852, the plaintiff made a preca rious livelihood by lecturing and what he named "teaching," and it seemed then to have occurred to him that the time had ar rived when he should claim his property and title, and to accomplish this end the action was brought., I have been unable to ascertain the name of the plaintiff's counsel, but Sir Frederick Thesiger, afterwards Lord Chancellor Chelmsford, appeared as the leading counsel for the defendant. At the trial the plaintiff gave evidence as stated above, and also produced two remark able documents, one dated the 27th of Janu ary, 1822, the other the loth of September, 1823, both purporting to have been signed by Sir Hugh Smyth, and sealed with his seal. The object of these documents was to prove that the plaintiff really was the rightful heir. He also produced in court an old Bible which he swore was the identical one handed to him by Mr. Provis at the last interview in the year 1838. It had on the title page the name " John S. Vandenburgh," and also con tained the certificates of Mrs. Smyth's mar riage in 1796, and the plaintiff's baptism in 1 797. He explained that the Bible had been his maternal grandfather's, and that his mother's maiden name was " Vandenburgh." He also produced a miniature portrait of his mother, four gold rings, and two brooches, also supposed to have been her property. One ring was engraved with the initials " J. В.," suggested to be those of Jane Bernard, afterwards Countess of Brandon, and one of the brooches with the words "Jane Godkin." This was the jewelry sworn by the plaintiff to have been handed to him by old Provis in 1838. The deeds of 1822 and 1823, and the certificates of marriage and baptism, were witnessed by several persons, all of whom were dead, and the first day of the

trial was taken up in proving the authen ticity of the signatures. The evidence, as a whole, seemed to be somewhat in the plain tiff's favor. How he must have chuckled as he heard one reputable witness after an other innocently substantiate his awful lies! When he had completed his extraordinary story, and had produced the above-mentioned articles in support of it, Sir Frederick Thesiger commenced his cross-examination, the object of which was to prove that the plaintiff was the son of old Provis, the car penter, and that his claim was a fraud from the beginning to the end, all the articles produced in support of it having been pur chased by him for the purpose of being palmed off as family relics. The plaintiff stated that he had written a letter to Lady Caroline Thynne, in which he stated that he had in his possession a mourning ring with the inscription, " In memory of Jane, wife of Hugh Smyth, Esquire; married May, 1796; died February, i 797." Sir Frederick Thesiger : " Where is that ring?" Plaintiff "Find it,: sir." "In the box." The plaintiff opened a ring box, but it was empty, the ring having disappeared. "When did you see it last?" asked Sir Frederick. "I do not remember," was the plaintiff's reply; but upon being pressed, he said that he had seen it last at the office of his solic itor. Sir Frederick then tried the witness upon the question of education. He spelt "vicis situdes "with one "s;" " LordKnox,""Nox;" "rapid " with two " p's; " " whom," " vhome." The most important part of the spelling test, however, was when he was asked to spell "set aside," which he gave as " sett asside," this being the way in which the same words were spelt in the document of the loth of Sep tember, 1823, which the plaintiff alleged was written by Sir Hugh Smyth. A curious in cident, indeed, that two persons, with an in