Truth is Stranger than Fiction. terval of thirty years intervening, should both spell two words in exactly the same way, and both be wrong! The picture, which was alleged to have been that of Sir Hugh Smyth, which was hanging up at Provis's house, was produced in court and carefully examined, and it turned out that it had always been understood to be that of John Provis, the old carpenter's son. The plaintiff was now asked if he was married at St. Michael's Church, Bath, on the gth of October, 1814, to Mary Ann Whittick, in the name of Thomas Provis. This he positively denied. Some questions were then put to him respecting the seals on the alleged deeds of 1822 and 1823, but nothing of any great importance was elicited. How the case might have ended in the or dinary course of events, nobody can tell, but a very unusual incident happened on the third day of the trial. With the single exception of the sudden collapse of the OsborneHargreaves libel suit, when the Messrs. Ben jamin's letter was received by the Judge, it has probably no parallel in legal history. It will be recollected that the plaintiff in the action had sworn that among other things, he had received from old Provis, in 1838, a brooch, .with the words "Jane Godkin " en graved upon it. On the last day of the trial, a telegram was handed to Sir Frederick Thesiger. After reading it, and still holding the paper in his hand, addressing the Judge, he said: "My Lord, I have just received a telegram from London of the greatest im portance; " then, turning to the plaintiff, who was on the witness-stand (called in England "the witness box "), he said : " Did you on the i gth of January last, apply to a person at 361 Oxford Street, London, to engrave a ring with the Brandon crest and a brooch with the words 'Jane Godkin'?" There was a breathless silence in court, and all eyes were fixed upon the plaintiff. He was, in a moment, an altered man. All his assurance had vanished, and, in a falter ing voice, he answered, " I did, sir."
429
This admission brought the trial to a close, and the plaintiff stood before the world as a self-convicted impostor. The plaintiff's counsel, of course, withdrew from the case; the Judge ordered the plain tiff's arrest, and later in the day he was charged before a magistrate with forgery, and committed for trial. Thus ended one of the boldest tricks ever attempted to defraud a family of its property. The reader may perhaps be curious to hear the sequel to this remarkable trial. At the Gloucester Assizes, in April, 1854, the plaintiff in the above-mentioned case was charged with forging the document dated 1823. The trial took place before Mr. Rus sell Gurney, who presided as Judge, Mr. Justice Talfourd having suddenly died on circuit in the midst of his judicial duties. Mr. Moring, a seal engraver, of Holborn, London, was called, and stated that in De cember, 1852, the prisoner employed him to engrave a seal from a pattern with which he furnished him. The correct motto was " Qui Capit Capitur," but by a mistake the words were engraved "Oui Capit Capitor," the "o" in the last word being an error for " u." That this was the seal which was used by the prisoner for sealing some of the documents produced in evidence by him, was clear, as the same mistake in spelling appeared on the wax seal. Mr. Moring further stated that there had been an alteration in the method of engraving seals within the previous four or five years, and the seals upon the docu ments produced by the prisoner, and which he alleged had been sealed thirty years be fore, had been sealed with a seal made in the latest style. It further transpired that the prisoner had had the audacity to call upon Mr. Moring and ask him not to give any in formation about the engraving of the seal. Rogues so herd with rogues that they do not know an honest man when they see one. It was evidently thus with this defendant. The next witness was a Mr. Cox, a jew eller of 361 Oxford street. It was from
