keep the peace for two years, after his discharge in
August 1850; in November 1851 he brought an action
upon the same document against Miss Coutts, the costs
of which, for not proceeding to trial, form the judgment
upon which the insolvent is now in custody. The
commissioner said it would be an insult to common sense
to discuss for a moment whether the stanzas were
written or not by Miss Coutts. Up to the present
moment the insolvent had never seen Miss Coutts write,
nor ever heard her voice, except in a court of justice,
and never received a letter from her in his life, but she
had received letters from the insolvent of the most
impertinent and unwarrantable character. He had
looked through the whole evidence, and there was not
a fragment of fact or substance to justify the insolvent
in persevering in the belief that he was right. The
commissioner made some very severe remarks upon the
conduct and proceedings of the insolvent, and said the
case was one of much aggravation, and concluded by
announcing that the insolvent would be discharged as
to his other creditors, but with respect to the judgment
upon which he was detained he would not be discharged
until he had been imprisoned for ten months. The
insolvent thanked the commissioner for the sentence,
and applied for the return of the alleged authority
which had been taken possession of by the court. The
commissioner refused to part with it. The insolvent
was then re-conveyed to Whitecross-street prison.

A Trial of an Extraordinary Character, ending in
the disclosure of a deep-laid conspiracy, has taken place
at the Gloucester assizes. The case was tried before
Justice Coleridge and a special jury, and occupied three
days, the 8th, 9th, and 10th inst.  A man, who called
himself "Sir Richard Smyth," brought an action for
ejectment against the successor of the late Sir Hugh
Smyth, of Ashton Hall, near Bristol. He claimed to be
the son of Sir Hugh, and the heir of all his property.
His claim, according to the statement of his counsel,
was founded on the following circumstances:—He was
the son of Sir Hugh and a Miss Jane Vanderbergh, who
were married in Ireland, in 1796. A family bible with
the entry of the marriage was put in, signed by Dr.
Lovett, the Vicar of Lismore, Hugh Smyth, Jane
Vanderbergh, Caroline Bernard, John S. Vanderbergh, and
Consena Lovett. Of this marriage the plaintiff was
born, at Bath; and in the same bible an entry of his
baptism was found. The boy was consigned to the care
of Lydia Reed, and brought up in the house of a
carpenter named Provis, at Warminster, in Wiltshire. He
was educated at Winchester, and subsequently went
abroad. In 1814, a man named Grace, Sir Hugh's
butler, represented that the boy was dead; but in 1822,
Sir Hugh, having reason to believe that this statement
was false, executed a paper acknowledging the boy to
be his son. The document was put in, and purported
to be signed by Sir Hugh Smyth, his brother John
Smyth, James Abbott, William Dobbson, and William
Edwards. It virtually contained a resumé of the plaintiff's
story. A deed was executed in 1823, signed by the
same persons, except John Smyth, Sir Hugh's brother,
whom he constituted his sole executor, confident that
he would do his lost son justice. These two documents
were found, the former in the possession of Lydia Reed's
family, the latter in that of an attorney's clerk. The
plaintiff supported himself on the Continent until 1826,
when he returned to England, and gained his living by
lecturing in schools. In 1849, he became convinced
that he was the son of Sir Hugh Smyth; and accordingly
he introduced himself to John Smyth, then Sir
John Smyth, his uncle, and disclosed his relationship.
Sir John seemed greatly agitated, and next morning he
was found dead in his bed.—In support of this story
various witnesses were called. The Reverend George
Turner Seymour deposed that some of the signatures
were Sir Hugh's, some doubtful. Mr. Holland Kingston,
of Bandon, recognised the signature of Dr. Lovett
as soon as he saw it. Captain Smyth Bernard, son of
the first Lady Bandon—the "Caroline" of the marriage
entry on the bible—deposed that his grandmother's name
was Hesther, and that of his mother, the first Lady
Bandon, "Catherine Henrietta." He also deposed that
there never was a Caroline Bernard in his family. But
John Symes, who had been taken out of a workhouse
to give evidence, and Ann Symes, the son and grand-
daughter of the clergyman alleged to have baptised the
plaintiff, spoke to his hand-writing in the entry of
baptism. The Honourable Caroline Courtenay Boyle
said, that "Isabella Thynne," the name of the other
witness to the baptism, was in the handwriting of that
lady; and Rich, a clerk at Drummond's bank, said the
signature was so like that he would have paid a check
presented with such a signature. Mrs. Grace, the
widow of Grace the butler, had never heard her husband
speak of the plaintiff. Several witnesses spoke to the
signature of "John Smyth" and "James Abbott."
One of the witnesses, however, shuffled so that the
Judge said he had a great mind to commit him.
There was some doubt and contradiction as to the
signatures "William Dobbson" and "William
Edwards:" the " Dobbson," having two b's, made it
doubtful in the opinion of his relatives. A seal having
the Smyth motto was here handed to the Judge:
the motto of the Smyth family is "Qui capit capitur;"
the motto on this seal was " Qui capit capitor."
The remaining witness was "Sir Richard Hugh
Smyth," the plaintiff himself; a man of middle size,
sallow complexion, iron-grey hair carefully combed,
scanty whiskers, and the manner of a practised lecturer.
He gave his evidence at great length, supporting his
story by minute details: mentioning a host of names of
persons with whom he had been connected, and relating
how he became possessed of the documentary evidence
in support of his claim, and the jewels. He said that
old Provis, with whom he had been brought up, gave
him, after much entreaty and some violence, the Bible
and some jewellery. A new-looking morocco case was
here exhibited, containing a miniature portrait which
the plaintiff supposed was that of his mother, four gold
rings, and two brooches. One ring was marked with
the initials "J. B.," suggested to be those of "James
Bernard." A brooch was marked with the words
"Jane Gookin" at length. He obtained these evidences
in 1838, and from that time he had made inquiries. He
told how he had called on several solicitors, who
demanded a bond for costs before they would take up the
case; but at length he was introduced to Mr. Catlin of
Lincoln's-inn-fields, and that gentleman took up the
case. He accounted for the possession of one of the
deeds, that of 1823, by saying that it came to him from
London by railway; that of 1822 he declared he had not
seen until that; day. A portrait of Sir Hugh, he said,
he got from Provis. Under a searching cross-examination
by Sir Frederick Thesiger, the plaintiff became
bewildered. Several times he contradicted himself;
statements he had made in letters previously written
were by his own confession full of falsehoods. It was
shown that he, the lecturer on education, spelled very
badly; but he accounted for his own peculiarities of
orthography by variations in the dictionaries: "set
aside" he spelled sett asside; "rapid" rappid; "scrutiny,"
screwteney; and the name of Mr. Knox, son of
Lord Ranfurley, was Nox. Finally, he utterly broke
down in attempting again to account for the possession
of the deeds. He had declared that he received one
document on the seventeenth of March, and that from
the seal on that document he ordered a seal to be
engraved: but it was shown that he had ordered the seal
at least as early as the thirteenth of March. Not only
this, but with another seal, alleged to have been taken
from that on the document of 1823, which carried the
motto "Qui capit capitor," and which was received by
the plaintiff, as he said, on the 7th of June, he had
actually sealed a letter on the 13th of March. Another
discovery was here made. A jeweller in Oxford-street,
who had read the report of the commencement of the
trial in the Times, sent a telegraphic message to Sir
Frederick Thesiger at Gloucester, and from that message
Sir Frederick put a question—Sir F. Thesiger: Did
you on the 19th of January last apply to a person at
361, Oxford-street, to engrave the ring with the Bandon
crest, and the brooch with the words "Jane Gookin?"
—Plaintiff: Yes, I did. The ring and brooch were
produced, and he admitted these were the articles. At
this admission there was an expression of surprise in the
court, as scarcely any one expected that he would
frankly admit the fact, he had fenced so continually