Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 05 October 2022), September 1892, trial of MARGARET JOSEPHINE SMITH (30) JOHN PAUL (60) WILLIAM MICKLETHWAITE (45) SARAH INGRAM (60) THOMAS ALLISTONE (37) (t18920912-859).

MARGARET JOSEPHINE SMITH, JOHN PAUL, WILLIAM MICKLETHWAITE, SARAH INGRAM, THOMAS ALLISTONE, Deception > forgery, 12th September 1892.

859. MARGARET JOSEPHINE SMITH (30), JOHN PAUL (60), WILLIAM MICKLETHWAITE (45), SARAH INGRAM (60), and THOMAS ALLISTONE (37) , Feloniously forging and uttering a deed, purporting to be signed by John Cornelius Park, with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; MR. SYLVESTER appeared for Smith, MR. ELDRIDGE for Paul, Allistone, and Ingram; and MESSES. TATLOCK and GREENFIELD for Micklethwaite. JOSEPH TRAVERS SMITH. I am a solicitor—in the years 1884, 1885, and 1886 I acted as solicitor for the late Cornelius John Park in some incidental matters—about January 24th, 1887,1 received by post, at my residence at Teddington, these documents in an envelope—one of them could not be a will, because there are no witnesses to it—at that time I had never heard of Margaret Josephine Smith, and knew nothing of any will under which I was appointed executor—I sent the documents to the

solicitor acting for Mr. Park—there was this copy and an anonymous letter and an envelope—I do not know the writing of any of the documents, and have no idea whence they came, and never have had.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I knew old Mr. Park's writing; it is many years since I saw it, but I think I should recognise it again—I do not recognise the signature to this letter (produced) as Mr. Park's; signatures vary a good deal, but his varied less than most people's; it was a very peculiar cramped writing—this deed is a little more like his writing, but it it larger than he generally wrote, and I don't think it is his—this cheque of March 23rd, 1886, is the same date as the deed, that looks more lib Mr. Park's writing, but my impression is that it is not; there are a gnat many differences. (Several other signatures were shown to the witness which he did not recognise as Mr. Park's)

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. Old Mr. Park frequently came to see me on matters of business—the first time I was asked to act for him was from a message from Mrs. Park.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. Mr. Park's age was 75 or 80—I last saw him about two years before his death—no doubt I have got letters from him; I have not brought them—my impression is that this signature to the letter of instructions of October, 1885, is not Mr. Party but it is far more like his writing than one or two of the others—I an not an expert, but it does not remind me of his signature as the others instantly do—this cheque has his signature—one signature immediately reminds me of his writing, and the other does not; when you know it signature you recognise it the instant you see it—the signature of I man of that age may vary from weakness, but I have known some old people where there is no difference—there is a material difference between the signature of 18th October and that of the deed of March 21st, though there is only a difference of a few months in point of time; the hand trembles more; the "J" and the "C" are not united, and the "P" is not written in the same way; the general pressure of the pea appears to be the same—I should not expect such a change in three or four months, in a person whose health had not materially varied—lie was a wonderfully hale hearty old gentleman.

Re-examined. This letter (produced) differs very much from the signature of Mr. Park; the "k" is of a totally different character to the "k" in the deed—my impression is that it is not Mr. Park's signature—I have given my opinion simply from my acquaintance with his writing as a matter of business.

GEORGE MURRAY . I am a barrister, and one of the examiners of the High Court—I took the depositions on the examination of John Paul in the suit against Park—Paul was examined first on August 8th, 1887, and cross-examined on December 5th, 1887—during his cross-examination exhibits J. P. 1 to J. P. 5 were all produced, and marked with my initials—Paul was re-examined on May 1st, 1890, and the exhibits J. P. 6 and J. P. 7 were produced—on 13th February, 1888, William Micklethwaite was cross-examined before me, and the exhibits W. KJ and W. M. 4 were produced, and marked by me—he was re-examined on May 1st, 1890, and the exhibits W. M. 6, 7, and 8 were all produced, and marked by me—Micklethwaite and Paul both signed their cross examination and re-examination—the prisoner M. J. Smith was cross-examined before me on 1st July, 1889, and I produce the original depositions

which she signed—she was re-examined on April 30th, 1890, and 1s. 2 and the letter of October, 1885, were produced on her cross-examination, and marked by me; also M. J. S. 1, which purports to be a copy of the will.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I also took Mrs. Park's deposition—I have not got it here.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. This deposition (produced) has not been marked by me; if it was produced as an exhibit I should have marked it—it appears to have been used; this is the mark of the Registrar of the Court of Chancery—these are Miss Smith's, Micklethwaite's, and Paul's depositions (produced).

WILLIAM ARTHUR WOLLERBY . I am a solicitor, of 4, Lancaster Place, and a commissioner for oaths—this affidavit of Margaret Josephine Smith was sworn before me on August 3rd, 1887 this is my signature—this affidavit of William Mickiethwaite was sworn before me on August 3rd, and this one of John Paul on August 5th, 1887, and the same deed exhibited with it—Messrs. Cross and Sons, who were acting as solicitors, brought me the affidavits.

BENJAMIN STARLING . I am a solicitor and commissioner for oaths, of 9, Gray's Inn Square—this affidavit of Thomas Allistone was sworn before me on August 3rd, 1889.

ARTHUR WESTBROOK . I am a solicitor and commissioner for oaths, of 45, Duke Street, Mayfair—this affidavit of Sarah Ingram was sworn before me on August 4th, 1889—I went down to Baynes Park for the purpose—there were some exhibits, articles of jewellery, marked S. J. 1, to S. J. 10. (The affidavits were here read; also the deed; also another affidavit of Margaret Josephine Smith, sworn on June 29th, 1889; also her cross-examination nine months afterwards in the Court of Chancery.)

GEORGE MURRAY (Re-examined), I took the cross-examination of Mrs. Park—this is the original; it is signed by her, at least it has her mark.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. These two photographs, C.P. 1, and C.P. 2, were shown to Mrs. Park; they do not bear any marks, but I recollect the fact perfectly. (The re-examination of M. J. Smith on April 30th, 1890, was here read,)

ARTHUR WILSON CROFT . I am one of the firm of Croft and Son, solicitors, of Lancaster Place, Strand—I acted as solicitor for Margaret J. Smith at the commencement of the. claim she made against Mr. Park—I received from her this deed marked A, and this letter of instructions, and other documents, which were filed in Court—towards the end of January, 1887, Mrs. Emily Wright brought me a document purporting to be the will of Mr. J. 0. Park, and about three weeks afterwards Smith called at my office; I showed it to her; she read it and asked me what I thought of it—I said I thought it a very dangerous document, and before she propounded it as a will she ought to consult some other solicitor—she tore it up and threw it into the fire, and said, "That is the best place for that"—I did not notice that she kept the signature—it said, "I give all I possess to Miss Smith, of Teddington,' and the signature was across a penny stamp—this (produced) purports to be a copy, but it is written the other way of the paper—the witnesses' names are Ingram and Allistone-we filed her claim under the deed, and acted for her up to the time she went to prison, after which we handed over some documents'

solicitor acting for Mr. Park—there was this copy and an anonymous letter and an envelope—I do not know the writing of any of the documents, and have no idea whence they came, and never have had.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I knew old Mr. Park's writing; it is many years since I saw it, but I think I should recognise it again—I do not recognise the signature to this letter (produced) as Mr. Park's; signatures vary a good deal, but his varied less than most people's; it was a very peculiar cramped writing—this deed is a little more like his writing, but it is larger than he generally wrote, and I don't think it is his—this cheque of March 23rd, 1886, is the same date as the deed, that looks more like Mr. Park's writing, but my impression is that it is not; there are a great many differences. (Several other signatures were shown to the witness, which he did not recognise as Mr. Park's)

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. Old Mr. Park frequently came to see me on matters of business—the first time I was asked to act for him was from a message from Mrs. Park.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. Mr. Park's age was 75 or 80—I last saw him about two years before his death—no doubt I have got letters from him; I have not brought them—my impression is that this signature to the letter of instructions of October, 1885, is not Mr. Park's, but it is far more like his writing than one or two of the others—I am not an expert, but it does not remind me of his signature as the others instantly do—this cheque has his signature—one signature immediately reminds me of his writing, and the other does not; when you know a signature you recognise it the instant you see it—the signature of a man of that age may vary from weakness, but I have known some old people where there is no difference—there is a material difference between the signature of 18th October and that of the deed of March 21st, though there is only a difference of a few months in. point of time; the hand trembles more; the "J" and the "C" are not united, and the "P" is not written in the same way; the general pressure of the pen appears to be the same—I should not expect such a change in three or four months, in a person whose health had not materially varied—he was a wonderfully hale hearty old gentleman.

Re-examined. This letter (produced) differs very much from the signature of Mr. Park; the "k" is of a totally different character to the "k" in the deed—my impression is that it is not Mr. Park's signature—I have given my opinion simply from my acquaintance with his writing as a matter of business.

GEORGE MURRAY . I am a barrister, and one of the examiners of the High Court—I took the depositions on the examination of John Pad in the suit against Park—Paul was examined first on August 8th, 1887, and cross-examined on December 5th, 1887—during his cross-examination exhibits J. P. 1 to J. P. 5 were all produced, and marked with my initials—Paul was re-examined on May 1st, 1890, and the exhibits J. P. 6 and J. P. 7 were produced—on 13th February, 1888, William Micklethwaite was cross-examined before me, and the exhibits W. M. 1 and W. M. 4 were produced, and marked by me—he was re-examined on May 1st, 1890, and the exhibits W. M. 6, 7, and 8 were all produced, and marked by me—Micklethwaite and Paul both signed their cross-examination and re-examination—the prisoner M. J. Smith was cross-examined before me on 1st July, 1889, and I produce the original depositions

which she signed—she was re-examined on April 30th, 1890, and M.J.S. 2 and the letter of October, 1885, were produced on her cross-examination, and marked by me; also M.J.S. 1, which purports to I be a copy of the will.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I also took Mrs. Park's deposition—I have not got it here.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. This deposition (produced) has not been marked by me; if it was produced as an exhibit I should have I marked it—it appears to have been used; this is the mark of the I Registrar of the Court of Chancery—these are Miss Smith's, Micklethwaite's, and Paul's depositions (produced).

WILLIAM ARTHUR WOLLERBY . I am a solicitor, of 4, Lancaster Place, and a commissioner for oaths—this affidavit of Margaret Josephine Smith was sworn before me on August 3rd, 1887—this is my signature—this affidavit of William Micklethwaite was sworn before me on August 3rd, and this one of John Paul on August 5th, 1887, and the same deed exhibited with it—Messrs. Cross and Sons, who were acting as solicitors, brought me the affidavits.

BENJAMIN STARLING . I am a solicitor and commissioner for oaths, of 9, Gray's Inn Square—this affidavit of Thomas Allistone was sworn before me on August 3rd, 1889.

ARTHUR WESTBROOK I am a solicitor and commissioner for oaths, of 45, Duke Street, Mayfair—this affidavit of Sarah Ingram was sworn before me on August 4th, 1889—I went down to Raynes Park for the purpose—there were some exhibits, articles of jewellery, marked S. J. 1, to S. J. 10. (The affidavits were here read; also the deed; also another affidavit of Margaret Josephine Smith, sworn on June 29tó, 1889; also her cross-examination nine months afterwards in the Court of Chancery.) GEORGE MURRAY (Re-examined). I took the cross-examination of Mrs. Park—this is the original; it is signed by her, at least it has her mark.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. These two photographs, C. P. 1, and C. P. 2, were shown to Mrs. Park; they do not bear any marks, but I recollect the fact perfectly. (The re-examination of M. J. Smith on April 30M, 1890, was here read.)

ARTHUR WILSON CROFT . I am one of the firm of Croft and Son, solicitors, of Lancaster Place, Strand—I acted as solicitor for Margaret J. Smith at the commencement of the. claim she made against Mr. Park—I received from her this deed marked A, and this letter of instructions, and other documents, which were filed in Court—towards the end of January, 1887, Mrs. Emily Wright brought me a document purporting to be the will of Mr. J. C. Park, and about three weeks afterwards Smith called at my office; I showed it to her; she read it and asked me what I thought of it—I said I thought it a very dangerous document, and before she propounded it as a will she ought to consult some other solicitor—she tore it up and threw it into the fire, and said, "That is the best place for that"—I did not notice that she kept the signature—it said, "I give all I possess to Miss Smith, of Teddington," and the signature was across a penny stamp—this (produced) purports to be a copy, but it is written the other way of the paper—the witnesses' names are Ingram and Allistone we filed her claim under the deed, and acted for her up to the time she went to prison, after which we handed over some documents'

—the deed was not stamped when it was brought to me; she asked me to get it stamped, and I said if she brought me the money I would do so; she never brought it—it was stamped on September 2nd, 1889 and the penalty paid—I entered a caveat against Mr. Park's will, not by her instructions, but with her concurrence.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I cannot say on what day she gave me this deed—I am not prepared to say that it was not on January 7th 1887—I think it was the beginning of January, on a Sunday night; I believe the letter of instructions came from Miss Smith with this deed, and not I from Mr. Lomax's office—I never saw Micklethwaite till I saw him at Bow Street—I did not take Miss Smith's instructions to make a claim; I that was done by my partner—he is not here—the claim was to be made I on the deed alone—I had no instructions from her to make any claim on any will—she did not mention any will before I showed her the document from Mrs. Wright, and never suggested that there was such a will—she brought Mrs. Wright to my office in the Vibart Hughes case—she came to my office earlier than three weeks after I had that document, but I was away in Italy—there are attendances down when she discussed these matters with some of my clerks before she saw me—she never suggested propounding that will to me—she threw it in the fire, and I believe it was burnt—my firm actually filed a claim on this deed, and deposited the deed in Court and the letter of instructions—Miss Smith had not got either of them in her hands after early in 1887—they went straight from my hands into Court—there is not the slightest doubt that the deed was in existence early in 1887; it was brought to me on January 19th, 1887—there was Chancery delay between January and August.

THOMAS WILLIAM ROSSITER . I am a solicitor, of 7, Ely Place I conducted the prosecution when Margaret J. Smith was charged in 1887—I am the person she mentions in her examination—I went with a police-officer to identify her, at 41, Talbot Road, when she was arrested—she and her sister and Paul were arrested together, and I charged with conspiring to defraud—Paul was not there at first; he came in afterwards, and was arrested—there is no truth in her allegation that I took possession of a tin box containing documents, or of any letters from Mr. Park to Mr. Park, jun—when Paul was arrested he was carrying a black bag, which was taken from him, and I found in it two documents marked J. P. 2 and J. P. 3; they purport to be copies—also J. P. 1, a penny memorandum-book, and the memorandum J.P. 5 that was in October, 1887—on November 9th, 1887, I took a statement from the prisoner Ingram, with a view of calling her as a witness for the prosecution, and she was called—she signed every page of her statement as it now appears—this is it—she says: "I know nothing whatever about Mr. Park's affairs, or if he left a will. I will swear I never signed a document with Allistone as another witness."

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I knew nothing about Miss Smith's claim till after her arrest, in October, 1887—I then knew that she had I made a claim against Mr. Park's estate for £20,000—when I applied for the warrant I did not know that such a claim existed; it is very probable I knew it when I went to identify her—I was acting for Mr. William Frederick King, of the Admiralty, whose house the prisoner Smith had taken—I found nothing else of any importance in

Paul's bag—I only took out those four documents, and whatever else there was I left there—I read them—they were cards and bills and indecent photographs—I had nothing else in my possession bearing on Miss Smith's claim—Ingram's statement was taken at 3, Western Road—she was cook with a lady there—she did not write it, I took it down at her dictation; no doubt she referred to the will; I do not think I put to her the question of this deed—I said, "I understand there was a will signed by Mr. Park, and attested by you?"—she said, "No, I never attested it, and further than that, I never attested any other document"—I took a statement from Emily Wright; if the Treasury have not got it I have—Ingram was to be a witness against Miss Smith if she could give evidence—she gave evidence, and said that the Treasury had a copy of her proofs—she was not acting against Miss Smith; she was acting in her own defence, because it was suggested that Ingram was a party?—she explained to me in that statement how she brought an action against Mr. Park for slander.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. There are two statements in Paul's writing.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. I was making a charge of false pretences—I knew of the existence of the claim against the Park estate—I was instructed to prosecute long before October, 1887—I applied for a warrant about the end of August—I had nothing to do with the prosecution about the alleged forged will—the information I got from Sarah Ingram related to her claim on the Park Estate—I am not aware that she had made any claim; it was a general statement for the prosecution, incorporating the facts necessary to be proved—no doubt I mentioned the alleged forged deeds; otherwise it would not have appeared in the statement.

Re-examined, In Ingram's statement she says: "On 22nd October, 1885, I left Mr. Park's service; that was only a month or two before the time I was introduced to Miss M. J. Smith. After leaving Auckland House I went to Mrs. Edwards and stayed ten days; I then went to Mrs. Smith at Gordon Villa; she offered me a room, for which I paid nothing. I remained with her till I left with Margaret J. Smith for London. Afterwards I heard that Mr. Park and his son had been making slanderous statements against me. Miss Smith suggested that I should bring the action"—at the end of it she says, "Allistone was only with Mr. Park six weeks or two months. "

SEYMOUR MORRIS . I am clerk to Mr. George Sherard, solicitor, of 26, Lincoln's Inn Fields—Mr. Sherard acted as agent for the trustees of Park's will in Smith's claim, which was tried before Mr. Justice Romer on 6th May, 1891, and ten subsequent days—judgment was given on 5th June, 1891, dismissing the claim—Smith gave notice of appeal, which was dismissed with costs, she not complying with the conditions—Allistone, Micklethwaite, and Ingram were examined as witnesses at the trial—Paul was also called, but I was not present.

Cross-examined by MR. STLVESTER. Smith was ordered to find £100 security for costs upon motion made 23rd July—an application made to the Court of Appeal to extend the time was granted—the security was not found, and on that ground on 9th December the appeal was struck out of the paper—the appeal was never heard—I saw Lomax, O'Leary, and Sears in Court.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I was junior clerk under supervision—Williams attended to the matter till his death, shortly before the trial—the trustees were Mr. Cole and Mr. Chester—the action of Cole v. Park was commenced by an administration summons—Mr. Chester acted for John Park, the son.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. Mr. Lomax gave evidence at the trial. Re-examined. Mr. Davis was a witness.

(The statement of Emily Wright, the re-examination of Paul and Mickle thwaite on 1st May, 1890, and an affidavit of Smith, made 5th July, 1890, were here read.)

CORNELIUS JOHN PARK . I reside at South Hayling Island—I am the son of John Cornelius Park, who died on the 4th January, 1887, in his eighty-second year, leaving property amounting to about £100,000—he was four feet eight inches in height, and stout—these are two photographs of him, one full-length, the other only the head—I am fifty-eight years of age—I was married in 1875; up to then I resided with my father—when I married I went to live at South Hayling Island, in which he had large property, which I managed for him—my wife died in 1878—I have since remained a widower—I was on terms of the closest intimacy with my father till his death, and acquainted with all his business on the island and in other places, but only partially after I left him—I was constantly in the habit of visiting him at Teddington, and was on affectionate terms up to the time of his death—he had very great business habits, was very saving, and careful of his investments—Mr. Travers Smith and Mr. Chester acted as his solicitors—he had a large quantity of house property—he was accustomed to sign deeds and other legal documents—till after my father's death I never heard one word of a suggestion that I was to marry Smith—I never had any conversation with her leading to such a subject—I had seen her only twice before my father died, once, in 1885, at Auckland House, when she came about some repairs—I knew she was the tenant of Gordon Lodge—nothing then passed between us except a discussion of that business—I next saw her about two months later, in 1885, at Auckland House, when she brought a catalogue of a sale of furniture about to take place, and asked my father to go and buy some of it for her—on those occasions there was no conversation on the subject of my marrying her—I never gave her an engagement ring, nor tried to put one on her finger—I never gave her a present—I never had this brooch and other articles—I never wrote a letter to her, nor she to me—after my father's death I saw her at Holloway Gaol, when I attended with the Examiner for the purpose of taking her cross-examination—as I was going out of the room she said she would thank me to return a ring she had never given me a ring—when I denied it she said nothing—never till this case came on did I hear of Sir Charles Manley Brown—I never saw him, nor knew of his existence—I was at Auckland House, and, thinking my father would last a day or two, I went home to get clean things—when I returned my father had died at eleven the previous night—his funeral was the following Friday—Smith was not present after the funeral I went to South Hayling—about 4th February of that year I received by post this packet in an envelope—it contained a photograph of Smith, with some pink paper attached, with some writing

which no one could make out—it also contained a form of bond and one of my visiting cards, with some writing about being found in a certain part of his dress, but it was never there—I know nothing of these documents—I had no idea whose writing was on the envelope—the postmark was Richmond—I knew nobody at Richmond—I had never had the photograph, nor heard of any such bond—Mr. Churchill was present when I received the packet; he saw me open it—I showed him the contents—I afterwards sent it on to Mr. Edward Cole, the executor, in the same state in which I received it—I know nothing of Micklethwaite or Paul—I never saw or heard of them in connection with my father's place of business, nor of one of them being a gardener—Ingram was a cook part of the time at South Hay ling; she went back in 1885 to Auckland House—I heard of an action against my father—in 1885 my father was in very good business health; in 1886 he was very ill; up to November, 1886, he was in good health, but failing in memory—I wrote his business letters sometimes—he invariably signed his own cheques—I know his signature well; the signature to the deed marked "A" is not his; this "J. C. Park" and "I agree to the above" I believe are his writing, the other I am doubtful of; I do not believe it is his; the "k" is rather unlike his, but I should pass this as his writing—this cheque of January 12th, 1886, on plain paper, I know nothing of; he never signed cheques on plain paper, to my knowledge—these other cheques are signed by him—Mrs. Park was my stepmother; she had a paralytic stroke 1886—from my diary I fix the date, and that I left Auckland House on 8th September—Mrs. Park was then perfectly well—on Saturday, 11th September, 1886, I received a telegram, in consequence of which I drove to Havant from South Hayling, and went by the 3.18 Southwestern train to get the 6.20 for Teddington—I then found my stepmother suffering from a seizure.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. My father did not like writing letters—he generally got them written for him, and signed them—that was not always his habit—his signature is sometimes more tremulant than at others—this is my father's signature and mine. (A distress warrant.)—I do not see any variation in his "P'S" and "k's"—he had worked his way up; he started not as a bricklayer, but as a builder in a small way—his education was neglected—I have no doubt that in March and November, 1886, he was able to do business,' but in a very unsatisfactory way—he did not know sometimes whether he was doing it—I see he signed a cheque on 23rd March, 1886, the same date as the deed—I also find one on November 9th, 1886—there is a cheque of 12th January, 1886, and another of 3rd May, 1886, on blank paper—he transacted business in October, 1885, the date of the document when he wrote "I agree to the above"—he did take an interest in my marriage; as to the person I should marry in the first instance, so much so that he made a proviso in his will that things would not be quite the same if I married without mother's consent—after my wife died I had no difficulty with my father about that—I know you are going to ask about a certain lady—in 1885 and 1886 my father wished me to marry; I was an only child—he expressed no wish that my deceased wife's sister should leave, because it was at his suggestion she came—he was not very anxious, but he suggested I should marry again—he named two persons—I hoard

what Mr. Chester had to say after my engagement was broken off—I went to Auckland House in 1885 four times in four months, the latter part—I can show you by my diaries; I went twice in one week then missed for a month before I went again—I was there frequently between 1883 and his death, while Miss Smith was tenant of my father—my father confided his business to mother, generally speaking—she knew nearly all his business, or quite—Miss Ingram was with me three years—when she went I corresponded with her two or three times to ask her questions—this is one reply (produced): "I do pity father now that he has got to the age when he ought to be petted," etc., "such a trouble as he has"—I suppose that referred to my stepmother—she might have been unfit for business at times, when father could not consult her—she was a very violent-tempered woman at times—I do not think there were things he tried to hide from her, especially connected with his money—the photographs produced are getting on for twenty two years old.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. When I went to Auckland House I slept there—I slept at the Clarence four times—the rule was I was to sleep at Auckland House, but I slept out very seldom; I used to go there and back in the day—I do not suppose I slept out four nights in a year—the letter of 21st July, 1890, giving a character to Mrs. Ingram after she left, is my writing.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. Auckland House is semi-detached, with ten or twelve rooms—there is a little side garden gate—people could get in there, or could cross the fields, and get in by the back door—I first sat the document containing "I agree to the above" at Holloway in 1887 or 1888—I had no opportunity of examining it—I took no proceedings upon it—I first saw it in the possession of Mr. Rossiter—I first heard of the deed of 23rd March, 1886, on 4th February—I heard of the deed set up in Chancery through the solicitor; I cannot say when.

Re-examined. I never heard of the deed nor the bond till after Smith claimed against my father's estate—the photographs of my father are good so far as his figure is concerned—he was always on confidential terms with me up to his death, although a little angry because speculations did not turn out as he expected—he never suggested I should marry Smith—I was engaged to another lady in 1885 or 1886—it lasted three months, I think—my father knew of it—he objected to it at; last.

EDWARD CHESTER . I am one of the firm of H. F. and E. Chester, solicitors, of Newington Butts—my firm were solicitors to J. C. Park upwards of fifty years, prior to his death, and continuously up to 1883—between 1883 and 1886 we had no fresh business of his—he sent for me in July, and I attended him in August, 1886, to take instructions for a new will—he gave me instructions, and a new will was drawn, but never executed—I went to Teddington several times between July and his death—Smith or her mother was a tenant—except that, I never heard of her—the deceased talked to me about the marriage of Cornelius John Park—there were negotiations on the subject in 1882,1 think; not in 1885 or 1886—I acted for Park in the action against him by Sarah Ingram for slander—letters were handed to me, received from Ingram—they were destroyed by me, under an order of the Court, as being scandalous and offensive—they contained no reference to Smith, or any

intended marriage between her and Cornelius John Park—that was not mentioned, to the best of my recollection—I read the two letters before they were destroyed, to find out whether they did refer to Smith; I was requested to do so—I knew J.C. Park's signature—the signature to the deed is not his—as to the letter of ratification, the writing is similar, but I am sure it is not his signature—he never joined the upper part of his "a," which is joined here—I have never seen the upper part of his "a" joined at any time—I have carefully looked at the letter of instruction—this is wonderfully like his; I believe that to be his—I acted in proceedings to get Smith's mother and sister out of Gordon Lodge in the latter part of 1886, on Mr. Park's instructions—I could not find out who was tenant; Miss Smith came and gave me reasons why she could not get out, and arranged to go out afterwards—the time did not expire before Park died—the house was found empty some time after he died.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. After the death, Smith claimed that the house had been bought, but when she saw me she never asserted such a claim—proceedings were taken on an alleged agreement, the signature to which was denied—between 1883 and 1886 fresh matters went to other solicitors; I had to take some up afterwards—he employed several solicitors—a draft settlement came into my hands in 1882—the lady's name was Miss Kemp—that settlement, on behalf of the son, fell "through in 1882 or 1883—Park wished his son to marry again before 1882, and in 1886, and names were mentioned.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. In Ingram's action an order was made that I was to deliver up all documents in my possession to the executors—among them were three letters and part of another one—this claim on the deed was under consideration, but I cannot speak to dates—I read through the letters a second time by special request—I applied for the Order on 18th July, 1888, that they should be destroyed—I did not keep them, because I was afraid of their getting into other hands than the executors, and I thought they ought not be parted with under any circumstances.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. I saw some of these cheques before the hearing—the "J" and "C" are not united on the deed, although it was not usual for him to make them separate—I have searched and found one or two cases where his signature is not always so—the "J. C. S" are all joined in these letters—that was his custom—in many years there are one or two exceptions—some signatures on these cheques are firm and some weaker on account of his age.

Re-examined. I have looked, I fancy before the trial, to find a signature where the J and C were not joined—I never found one with the "a" not open on the top-in the letter and in the deed of November, 1886, the "a" is joined at the top—he never made his "k" like the "k" in the deed, he made them like "h" with a curve, and the little dot on the "P" is from his always having made an involuntary stop with his pen as he was making it—I have been through the claim made by smith, or some of her family, that Gordon Lodge had been purchased by them—she never suggested it when I tried to get her out of possession—I believe her sister put forward an agreement for the sale of the house to her by Park—that was resisted—they did not go on with toe proceedings—there was merely a writ or summons—I was not the

Solicitor—his father never mentioned Smith as a suitable wife for him, but spoke of her in quite a different way.

JOHN CHURCHILL . I am an accountant of Evesham, in Worcestershire—Mr. Edward Cole is my father-in-law—I went with him on 7th January, 1887, to Auckland House, Teddington—to assist him, I went through all the papers left by Mr. Park, Auckland House—I found nothing relating to Smith during my stay in the house for a weak—this letter (produced) with Christmas or New Year's card in it, was shown to me by Mrs. Park two or three days after I went—on Sunday evening, 9th January, when I was in the dining-room, I heard a noise which led me to go upstairs—I saw Smith on the landing at the top of the staircase—two servants were trying to prevent her getting into a room—I went into the room where Mrs. Park was lying down on the floor holding Mr. Cole by the hand; I went to her, she laid hold of my hand—Smith was outside—she should have heard what was said—I did not know her—I told her she was forcing her way where she was not wanted—she said she did not believe Park was dead, and would I let her see him—I said, "No," and asked her to go downstairs—she ultimately went down; when we got to the hall, she told me she was engaged to be married to Cornelius Park, and Mr. Park had left her £30,000 by his will—I said I could not say anything about it; she must put forward her claim at the proper time—she went upstairs—I followed her and got her out of the house—she did not want to go—I was present at Mr. Park's funeral on 27th January—Smith was not present to my knowledge—two hours after the funeral she came to Auckland House—she said she had come to attend Park's funeral—I said it had already taken place, and asked her to leave the house—she did leave ultimately—I was with Cornelius John Park in Hay ling Island on 4th February, 1887, when he received the postal packet (produced)—I saw him open it—I saw the contents: a photograph, a bond, and a visiting-card—those were sent on to Mr. Cole.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I married a niece of Mrs. Park she is not interested under the will—her father is the brother of Mrs. Park—the letter of 2nd January was shown to me by Mrs. Park some days after its receipt—Mrs. Park did not hand me the envelope—I cannot say it was not received 2nd January.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I had charge of the papers, and went through them—I saw some receipt-books; I think with counterfoils.

MARY LAMBOURNE . I am the wife of George Lambourne, a bargebuilder—I am a niece of Mr. Park, who died on 4th January, 1887—I was in the habit of visiting Auckland House and staying a week at a time for several years before Mr. park's death—I also visited them at Hayling Island—during my visits I became acquainted with the fact that the prisoner Smith was a tenant at Gordon Lodge—I never heard of her except as a tenant, not personally—I never saw her in the house till after Park's death—on the August Bank Holiday, 1886, when I was staying at the house, she came into the garden at the side gate—I was walking with my husband and Park in the garden—I left her sitting on a garden seat, speaking to Mr. Park—almost immediately afterwards Mr. Park beckoned to me—when I got up to them, Mr. Park begged me to come and sit between him and Smith—Smith went on

talking a little while, and then got up and went away, wishing Mr. Park good-afternoon—she was not on friendly or affectionate terms with him—he did not treat her nor she him as his future daughter-in-law—there was no appearance of it—when she went away Mr. Park said something about her—he had very often spoken about her before—I was on confidential terms with Mr. Park—I remember Allistone and Ingram leaving within a week of each other—when Mr. Park died I was staying at his house—I remember a letter arriving on 6th January from Smith, with a New Year's card—I opened it for Mrs. Park—it was handed to Mr. Churchill afterwards—it purports to be a reply to one from Mr. Park, who for three weeks or a month before his death did not receive or write letters; he was too ill—I was at the house on Sunday evening, 9th January, when Smith came—I was in the hall as she went out—she said to us all that she was Mr. Park's future daughter-in-law, and that Mr. Park, the son, had refused to marry her, but Mr. Park had left £20,000 to her—that was the very first I heard of her story.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. She said she was to have £30,000 if the son did marry her, and £20,000 if he did not—she did not say under what document—Churchill was there; he heard it—she said nothing about the will—I am the niece of Mrs. Park—I was not living in the house in December, 1886, but I was frequently there—I was in the house within a day or two of the whole of the last three weeks of the deceaseed's life, day and night—I might have stayed just a day from him, and returned again—no relations visited Park for many years—he was an isolated man—Smith got in the habit of coming in by the garden gate for the last twelve months—I cannot say often in 1886—possibly four or five times during the year—the letter came about ten o'clock from Notting Hill or Bayswater—I believe the envelope was given to Mr. Churchill with the letter;—my attention was called to the date when I saw the matter in the Courts—I do not know whether the envelope was destroyed or what became of it.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I now live at Auckland House—in 18861 was living at St. John's, Lewiaham, and in 1885—I was not at Auckland House when Allistone left, but I was there directly afterwards, and Mr. Park told me the circumstances—Ada Lambourne is my husband's daughter—she was at the house part of 1885; she was not there when Allistone left, to the best of my recollection—I knew the rules of the house—the servants were not allowed to bring in intoxicants; there was no occasion.

Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. Gordon Lodge is eight to ten minutes' walk from Auckland House—Smith would have to come through a field to come through the garden gate; it was a wicket gate from the field into the garden; at another time she would come through the stable-yard—she came as if she was in the habit of coming—I was very much surprised at the letter—not at the date, but at the words—6th January was a Thursday.

Re-examined, She did not come in as if she was on friendly terms; she forced her way in—I never saw her come in through the front door—she tad been forbidden the house quite a fortnight before Mr. Park's death—I knew of those orders.

ADA LAMBOURNE . I am living at Auckland House, Teddington—for seven years before Mr. Park's death I was in his service as parlourmaid

—I was in the house at the time he died—after 1883 I occasionally sat the prisoner Smith in the house—I used to Jet her in sometimes, and sometimes Annie Scott did—sometimes she said she wanted to see Mr. Park on business—she had no meals in the house, she only called as a tenant—I knew she was a tenant—I saw her there twice when the son was there—I think it was in 1885—I let her in, and showed her into the drawing-room, and told Mr. Park that she was there—she was in the house from twenty minutes to half an hour—she came again the same year when young Mr. Park was there, and told me she came about a stove or some repairs in her house—I left her in the hall, and told Mr. Park she was there, and afterwards showed her into the dining-room—those are the only two occasions I saw her in the company of young Mr. Park—I never saw or heard anything to lead me to the conclusion that they were engaged to be married—I was away from the house for a few months in 1885, and with that exception I was continually there from 1889 to 1887—I remember Allistone and Ingram being discharged within about a fortnight of each other—at the beginning of 1886 Mr. Park gave me instructions about Miss Smith, in consequence of which I never let her into the house again—she tried to get in after that, and I told her Mr. Park was engaged, and would not let her in—I remember Mr. Park dying in January, 1887—he had not been very well in November and December, and at the end of December he was very bad—I never saw Micklethwaite or Paul till I saw them at the Chancery Court—I never saw Allistone at the house after he left in October, 1885—on the Sunday after Mr. Park died the prisoner Smith came—I went to the door—she said, could it be true that Mr. Park was dead—I said yes—she said, "Will you let me see him?"—I said that she could not—she tried to get up the stairs; I tried to stop her; she tried three times, and I pulled her down, but she got up at last—I am one of the persons who held her; she was on the landing, and I tried to take the candle away—she wanted to get into the room where Mr. Park was lying.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I am no relation of Mr. or Mrs. Park—Mrs. Lambourne is my stepmother, and she is a niece of Mrs. Park—I am living with her at Mr. Park's house, Auckland House; it belongs to his executors now—I knew Miss Smith very well at Teddington, from 1883 to 1886, but cannot say how many times she called—she called there often in those three years, but not in 1886—she always called on business, as far as I know, or about the repairs of the house—it was Mrs. Park who first objected to her coming to the house—when she came I told Mrs. Park, and she came into the room, so that they should not be alone together—Smith was in the garden in 1886; she came to the garden once and sat on a seat with Mr. Park, and Mrs. Park told Mary Lambourne to go and sit there—Mr. Park was in good health in 1885, and in fair good health in March, 1886; he was not confined to his room till December, 1886—I took a present of game from Auckland House to Miss Smith at Gordon House from Mrs. Park—I think it was at the end of 1885; I do not know whether young Mr. Park had sent that game up from Hayling Island—he used to send game up, but the game came from different parts—he may have sent some in 1885, and I will not swear he did not send this.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I do not remember being at Cromer Lodge at the end of 1885, or bringing some oilcloth from there—there was no oilcloth in the bedroom at Auckland House, nor in the hall—I remember a sale at Cromer House, next door to Auckland House—there is not a house called Cromer Lodge—I think Mr. Park bought two fenders and some Indian matting there; I do not think I helped to bring it in; I do not remember when they came to the house, but I know it was after the sale—I do not remember the facts; I might have helped Allistone to take it up, but I don't remember—I never took any messages from Mr. Travers Smith—if I remember right, Mr. Park gave Allistone notice to leave; I was not there when be left—I did not take any apples from the house to sell; I might take a few to friends—I never heard orders that nobody was to bring any alcohol into the house, or any intoxicant.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. Annie Scott was the only other servant—I generally let visitors in—we were never out of the house at the same time—Mrs. Park went to the door sometimes—I never saw either of these persons come to the house—I first saw Micklethwaite at Bow Street—I was a general servant—it is a large house—when Miss Smith only came into the garden I should see her—I made an affidavit in 1889; that was the first time I was asked about Micklethwaite—I do not remember any gentlemen visitors to the house in March, 1886, or in December, 1886—I cannot give you the name of a single visitor from. 1885 till I left.

Re-examined. There were very few visitors; Mr. Park was not able to receive many—he had several other tenants at Teddington; they sometimes called on him on business matters, and Smith called just the same as the other tenants—there was no appearance of her being an intimate friend or a probable daughter-in-law of Mr. Park—it was Mr. Park who gave me instructions at the end of 1885 not to let her in—he said he could not be bothered with her any more.

ANNIE SCOTT . I was in service at Auckland House for two years before Mr. Park died, and assisted Ada Lambourne in the work of the house—if she was not in the way I opened the door—during the two years the prisoner Smith came three or four times, not as Mr. Park's future daughter-in-law, but simply as a tenant—she never took any meals in the house—she was there once when Cornelius Park was there—I cannot say when it was—she was shown into the drawing-room; I went and told Mr. Park, and he came in to see her—except on that occasion I never saw Smith and Cornelius Park together—I never saw any sign of their being engaged to each other—I never saw Micklethwaite or Paul at the house—I never saw Allistone at the house after he left in November, 1885—I do not know Emily Wright; I saw her once after Mr. Park's death—I received a letter from her, and she called at the house and saw me—up to that time she was quite a stranger; she wanted me to do something, which I declined, and I did not see her again.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. During the two years I saw Miss Smith many times at Auckland House, she used to come to see Mr. Park; she asked for Mr. Park—Mrs. Park objected to her being with Mr. Park, and used to come into the room when they were together—on one occasion she came when young Mr. Park was staying there; I think that was about September, 1885—Mr. Park and young Mr. Park were in the

garden together; I went and told Mr. Park that Miss Smith was there, and he went in and asked young Mr. Park to go in with him, which he did, but he did not go straight in—the interview lasted about half an hour—I remember Charles Sears repairing some boots for Mrs. Park once, and I believe he brought them home—I went with Ada Lambourne to take some game to Miss Smith as a present; I do not know whether it came from Hayling Island.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I have heard Mr. Park speak to Ingram; he usually called her Wigram.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. When Miss Smith did not get in at the front door she came in by the side gate—gentlemen called on Mr. Park, but I cannot give you the names of any of them; Mr. Park did not speak to me about his affairs—he always saw Miss Smith alone.

Re-examined. She used to come in by the garden gate in 1886—I knew that there were orders not to admit her to the house.

RICHARD WEALTHY FORGE I am an auctioneer, of Twickenham—on June 12th, 1885, I received instructions from Mr. Park, senior, of Auckland House, Teddington, in consequence of which I distrained on the 13th at Gordon House, where the prisoner was living, for three quarters' rent—the distress warrant was made out against her—on the Monday after the man was put in possession, Smith produced a receipt for rent, and I withdrew the man on my responsibility, after making inquiries.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I informed old Mr. Park that I had done so, and he approved of what I had done.

EMMA GREEN . I live at 5, Hayden Terrace, West Maldon—my maiden name was Mansell—in the summer of 1886, I was lodging with Mrs. Emily Wright, of Hampton Wick, and the prisoner Smith visited her frequently; they were on intimate terms—I occasionally went to Auckland House with Emily Wright; she told me she went there to take needlework—this is my signature to this affidavit—during the whole time I was at Auckland House I never saw Smith and Cornelius John Park in company—I never heard anything of an engagement between M. J. Smith and Cornelius John Park—in December, 1889, I was staying at New Maldon, and Smith came to see me there twice—she asked me if I would make an affidavit of what I knew about Emily Wright—(I do not know whether Emily Wright was dead at that time), she asked me if I remembered Wright at Teddington—I said yes, and she asked me to go to London one day to See her, and then told me Emily Wright was dead, and that Mr. Park had left money to her, Miss Smith, by will, and if I made a statement she would give me something for my trouble; I believe it was £20—she gave me something that night, I cannot say how much—she came and saw me a few weeks afterwards, and in consequence of a letter I had I went to see her at Talbot Road, Bayswater—I took down a statement on another occasion, and she read it, and asked me to copy another paper which she had written out before I got there—when I had done it she asked me if I knew what an affidavit was; I said, "No"—she said, "Well, this is my affidavit and yours together"—I put it in an envelope and addressed it to Mr. Kimber, the solicitor—she said she would post it—she gave me something on that occasion—on one occasion I saw Mrs. Ingram with her—about the end of June, 1890, I went with her to Mr. Kimber's

office in Walbrook; she said that I was going before a commissioner of oaths to swear an affidavit—when we got into Mr. Kimber's office I saw the document, and signed it—I did not read it first, and did not know what was in it—I did not know that it was my statement—I signed it because I thought Miss Smith was going to sign it as well—this is it—the one I originally wrote I left with Miss Smith, and never saw it again—I then went across to a commissioner of oaths, and was sworn to it—I did not write this; it was written by the solicitor's clerk—no card of Cornelius John Park was ever given to me—this visiting card of Mr. C. J. Park has my writing on it—Miss Smith gave it to me, and I wrote these words at her request—she did not dictate them; she gave me a book to copy them—the spelling is the same—after I wrote it she robbed it with her fingers to make it dirty, and said, "I have had it a long time in my box"—she took it to Mr. Kimber, and I heard her tell him that I had found it in my box—when I had sworn the affidavit she gave me 10s.—I said, "I do not know half what they have been reading"—she said, "I will get you an office copy, and you can. learn that"—she afterwards asked me to go to Auckland House to see Mrs. Park, so that if I was asked on the trial what Mrs. Park was like I could say what sort of person she was—some time afterwards she brought me an office copy of an affidavit, and told me to learn it—my address in it was 58, Chippendale Road, Harrow; I had never lived there—she said I was to go there and stay a few days before the trial, that they should not bother me, and I was to learn it like a book, because I might be cross-examined—on the day before the trial came on in Chancery she sent my expenses for the trial and a new bonnet—I saw her at the Court in the afternoon some days before I was called into the witness-box, and went with her to Warwick Road—she said she wanted to see me alone about the affidavit which was sworn, whether I knew it; she said, "Suppose I am the solicitor and you are the witness," and she cross-examined me on it—I could not answer—she said I might be all right when I came to the Court, and gave me 10s—I was called at the Court the next day and cross-examined about my affidavit, and described how it came about—I spoke the truth—I never saw Smith afterwards—Mr. Kimber spoke to me after the case—I once saw a piece of paper in Smith's hand with a penny stamp on it, and "J. C. Park" written over the stamp, and there was writing above it—she showed it to me that I might mention on the trial how the paper was wrote—this is what I copied: "In the years 1885-1886 I saw the said J. M. Smith at Auckland House, where she seemed to be on very intimate terms with the said Cornelius John Park and Mrs. Charlotte Park, and I have seen the said Miss Smith and the son Cornelius John Park walking together in the garden of Auckland House, and it was the common talk all over Teddington at that time that Miss Smith was going to be married to the said Cornelius John Park."

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I married Mr. Green at the end of last October—I was living in apartments at the time of the trial; Mrs. Seeley was the landlady—I believe it was at the beginning of May, the year before the trial, that Miss Smith asked me to make an affidavit—I believe the trial was at the beginning of 1890—I think I swore the affidavit in July, 1889, but I have not kept an account—the first conversation as to the affidavit took place at 4, Haydon Terrace, New Maldon,

garden together; I went and told Mr. Park that Miss Smith was there, and he went in and asked young Mr. Park to go in with him, which he did, but he did not go straight in—the interview lasted about half an hour—I remember Charles Sears repairing some boots for Mrs. Park once, and I believe he brought them home—I went with Ada Lambourne to take some game to Miss Smith as a present; I do not know whether it came from Hayling Island.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I have heard Mr. Park speak to Ingram; he usually called her Wigram.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. When Miss Smith did not get in at the front door she came in by the side gate—gentlemen called on Mr. Park, but I cannot give you the names of any of them; Mr. Park did not speak to me about his affairs—he always saw Miss Smith alone.

Re-examined. She used to come in by the garden gate in 1886—I knew that there were orders not to admit her to the house.

RICHARD WEALTHY FORGE I am an auctioneer, of Twickenham—on June 12th, 1885, I received instructions from Mr. Park, senior, of Auckland House, Teddington, in consequence of which I distrained on the 13th at Gordon House, where the prisoner was living, for three quarters' rent—the distress warrant was made out against her—on the Monday after the man was put in possession, Smith produced a receipt for rent, and I withdrew the man on my responsibility, after making inquiries.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I informed old Mr. Park that I had done so, and he approved of what I had done.

EMMA GREEN . I live at 5, Hayden Terrace, West Maldon—my maiden name was Mansell—in the summer of 1886, I was lodging with Mrs. Emily Wright, of Hampton Wick, and the prisoner Smith visited her frequently; they were on intimate terms—I occasionally went to Auckland House with Emily Wright; she told me she went there to take needlework—this is my signature to this affidavit—during the whole time I was at Auckland House I never saw Smith and Cornelius John Park in company—I never heard anything of an engagement between M. J. Smith and Cornelius John Park—in December, 1889, I was staying at New Maldon, and Smith came to see me there twice—she asked me if I would make an affidavit of what I knew about Emily Wright—(I do not know whether Emily Wright was dead at that time), she asked me if I remembered Wright at Teddington—I said yes, and she asked me to go to London one day to See her, and then told me Emily Wright was dead, and that Mr. Park had left money to her, Miss Smith, by will, and if I made a statement she would give me something for my trouble; I believe it was £20—she gave me something that night, I cannot say how much—she came and saw me a few weeks afterwards, and in consequence of a letter I had I went to see her at Talbot Road, Bayswater—I took down a statement on another occasion, and she read it, and asked me to copy another paper which she had written out before I got there—when I had done it she asked me if I knew what an affidavit was; I said, "No"—she said, "Well, this is my affidavit and yours together"—I put it in an envelope and addressed it to Mr. Kimber, the solicitor—she said she would post it—she gave me something on that occasion—on one occasion I saw Mrs. Ingram with her—about the end of June, 1890, I went with her to Mr. Kimber's

office in Walbrook; she said that I was going before a commissioner of oaths to swear an affidavit—when we got into Mr. Kimber's office I saw the document, and signed it—I did not read it first, and did not know what was in it—I did not know that it was my statement—I signed it because I thought Miss Smith was going to sign it as well—this is it—the one I originally wrote I left with Miss Smith, and never saw it again—I then went across to a commissioner of oaths, and was sworn to it—I did not write this; it was written by the solicitor's clerk—no card of Cornelius John Park was ever given to me—this visiting card of Mr. C. J. Park has my writing on it—Miss Smith gave it to me, and I wrote these words at her request—she did not dictate them; she gave me a book to copy them—the spelling is the same—after I wrote it she rubbed it with her fingers to make it dirty, and said, "I have had it a long time in my box"—she took it to Mr. Kimber, and I heard her tell him that I had found it in my box—when I had sworn the affidavit she gave me 10s.—I said, "I do not know half what they have been reading"—she said, "I will get you an office copy, and you can learn that"—she afterwards asked me to go to Auckland House to see Mrs. Park, so that if I was asked on the trial what Mrs. Park was like I could say what sort of person she was—some time afterwards she brought me an office copy of an affidavit, and told me to learn it—my address in it was 58, Chippendale Road, Harrow; I had never lived there—she said I was to go there and stay a few days before the trial, that they should not bother me, and I was to learn it like a book, because I might be cross-examined—on the day before the trial came on in Chancery she sent my expenses for the trial and a new bonnet—I saw her at the Court in the afternoon some days before I was called into the witness-box, and went with her to Warwick Road—she said she wanted to see me alone about the affidavit which was sworn, whether I knew it; she said, "Suppose I am the solicitor and you are the witness," and she cross-examined me on it—I could not answer—she said I might be all right when I came to the Court, and gave me 10s—I was called at the Court the next day and cross-examined about my affidavit, and described how it came about—I spoke the truth—I never saw Smith afterwards—Mr. Kimber spoke to me after the case—I once saw a piece of paper in Smith's hand with a penny stamp on it, and "J. C. Park" written over the stamp, and there was writing above it—she showed it to me that I might mention on the trial how the paper was wrote—this is what I copied: "In the years 1885-1886 I saw the said J. M. Smith at Auckland House, where she seemed to be on very intimate terms with the said Cornelius John Park and Mrs. Charlotte Park, and I have seen the said Miss Smith and the son Cornelius John Park walking together in the garden of Auckland House, and it was the common talk all over Teddington at that time that Miss Smith was going to be married to the said Cornelius John Park.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER I married Mr. Green at the end of last October—I was living in apartments at the time of the trial; Mrs. Seeley was the landlady—I believe it was at the beginning of May, the year before the trial, that Miss Smith asked me to make an affidavit—I believe the trial was at the beginning of 1890—I think I swore—the affidavit in July, 1889, but I have not kept an account—the first conversation as to the affidavit took place at 4, Haydon Terrace, New Maldon,

and I live at No. 5 now—Miss Smith did not suggest that I should make a false affidavit—a few months elapsed between her asking me to make a statement and my making it—she told me to write down what I knew, and I did so; this is it (produced)—I left it with her and saw it again at Mr. Kimber's office—I wrote this (produced) at Mr. Kimber's office—Miss Smith asked me to write it—the clerk was not there; she took good care that there was only she and I there—I believe I entered two rooms, in one of which I saw Mr. Kimber and in the other his clerk; Mr. Kimber was not at home when we went, and we saw the clerk—that is him—I did not tell him what we came for; Miss Smith did all the talking—she went into the room first, and I followed her; she might have been talking to the clerk a minute before I went in—we were presently shown into Mr. Kimber's room, and saw him; he had my written statement in his hand or on the desk in front of him—he did not draw my attention to the facts in that statement; I don't think he spoke to me at all; he spoke to Miss Smith—he must have asked me whether that was my statement, and whether it was true—he did not dictate this affidavit to his clerk in my presence, but the clerk, I believe, read it over to me—I signed my name to it in the clerk's presence without saying that it was untrue, because I thought it was Miss Smith's and mine together, but I did not say so to them—I did not give this address—I cannot say whether Miss Smith gave it; I could not give it, because I never lived there—I never saw Mr. Kimber or his clerk from that day till the trial, and did not suggest that it was untrue—I did not live at Auckland House, and I was not very often there in 1885 or 1886; I should not know whether Miss Smith visited there or not—Mrs. Wright used to do needlework for Mrs. Park, and I used to go to the gate to take it home—it was before the affidavit was sworn that Miss Smith told Mr. Kimber that I found this card in my box—I did not say that it was a lie, but I told her about it coming home—I wrote this on the card at Miss Smith's place in Talbot Road before I went to make the affidavit—I wrote it from a copy; I do not know whether I wrote the word "copy" on the card; I wrote it in the room—I was first shown into a kind of waiting-room where clerks were sitting, and not in the room where it was read—Jenkins did not stay in the room—I wrote it while we were waiting for Mr. Kimber—I don't know whether I gave it to Mr. Kimber, or whether Miss Smith did—he asked me whether it was true, but I thought it was the paper I wrote first—Miss Smith tore that up, but it was to be added to my affidavit. (The statement teat here read.)

Re-examined. Very little of that statement is true—Miss Smith gave it to me to copy and I left it with her in an envelope—I wrote down that on one occasion I had seen M. J. Smith and young Mr. Park walking in the garden of the house, and that it was common talk about Teddington that they were going to be married; I copied that—Emily Wright told me on one occasion Rossiter had taken some jewellery and keys, and I told Miss Smith that—I last saw Emily Wright in 1888, I believe—there is no truth in the paragraph about having seen Mr. Park cut off the signature with a pair of scissors—I never was at Auckland House.

GEORGE BRIGGS HOWARD . I am a solicitor, of Gray's Inn Square, and a commissioner of oaths—on November 4th, 1890, in the afternoon, Smith came to my office to have an affidavit sworn, and said that Sir Charles

Manley Brown would call about 3 or 3.30—this is the affidavit—it was already signed, but this jurat was not there—I said this won't do, I must alter the jurat—it purported to be sworn at Wimbledon Hill, in the county of Surrey, before me—that was in November, and I said, "We are not at Wimbledon, we are in Gray's Inn Square"—I took my pen and was going to strike it out, but she said, "Pray don't do that"—I read the Act to her. but she would not permit me to strike it out; she said she would get it done elsewhere, she took it away, and the gentleman went too—she called at my office afterwards on other business, and said that she got it done elsewhere—on the trial of this case before Justice Romer I saw a man named Davis who was very like the man said to be Sir Charles Manley Brown—Davis was also a witness at the County-court—at the time it left my hands the jurat was not crossed out, it is crossed out now, and it purports to be sworn before a commissioner named Lebrow—here is an entry in my call-book of Wednesday, November 7th, 1890: "Miss Smith called at 3.30, and Mr. Brown at 3.55."

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. Miss Smith was first introduced to me on November 4th—I have an entry, "November 4th; Miss Smith, 1.50"—when she brought this affidavit on the 7th she brought somebody's card whom I knew—I had not done any business for Sir Charles Manley Brown against a Mr. Spencer, a stockbroker—I never saw him on any business—Octavius Davis was a witness for Miss Smith at the trial, and after I was called I heard him emphatically deny being at my office—I was engaged for Miss Smith at the County-court; she was the defendant—so far from keeping away from me, Davis actually came to my office to have his proof taken by my clerk—the first time I saw him was November 7th, and I did not see him again till I was at the County-court—I do not recollect Miss Smith asking me questions about an advertisement Sir C. M. Brown wanted inserted, but I remember her saying so at the Chancery Court—I do not remember being spoken to about an advertisement, or about any slanderous statements by Brown, and there is no entry before November 14th, 1890, that Miss Smith or Brown ever called on me, but there was a general conversation before Mr. Brown came—I do not remember seeing this advertisement (produced), but Edmunds and Edmunds, my next-door neighbours, are mentioned in it—I never had any conversation with them about it.

LEONARD PLANT PENNER . I am clerk to Mr. Howard—I was with him in 1890—I remember Miss Smith calling on November 7th—she was shown into Mr. Howard's room, and after she had been there some time a man called, who gave the name of Mr. Brown, and I entered him in the call-book—I took him into Mr. Howard's room, and the prisoner Smith introduced him as Sir Charles—the same man called subsequently several times and gave his name Mr. Davis—I saw him before Justice Bowen, and he gave his name Octavius Davis—when he called in November I entered him as "Mr. Davis, Bart."—I did not know him before November 7th—no letter had been written to him to call at the office before the 7th.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I saw him on November 7th, and had so good a look at him that I knew him again—he was a peculiar looking gentleman—he came several times afterwards in a different

name—he had no reason for keeping away; he wanted some money I never said, "You are the man who came here as Sir Charles Manley Brown," or hinted to anybody that he was the same man till I got into Court in the Chancery case—I did not take his proof as a witness; I believe Mr. Howard did—I put Bart, to distinguish him from other Davises who called—I heard him deny before Justice Bowen that he was the man who came with Miss Smith.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. He was a witness at the County, court—I don't think I described him as Davis, Bart., then; I daresay Mr. Howard did—two other gentlemen were in the office; one of them has gone, and the other is dead—I was for the defendant at the County-court.

VALENTINE LABROW . I am a solicitor, but not in practice—I am still a commisioner for oaths—to the best of my belief this affidavit, purporting to be sworn before V.H. Labrow, was not sworn before me; it is very much like my writing, but to the best of my belief it is not—to the best of my belief I was never at 11, Great Western Road—I did not take many other affidavits, and that may have impressed itself on my mind, especially as it was taken at his private residence—I find in my diary an entry that I was at Acton that day, but none of my being at 11, Great Western Road—I went to the house before I was called as a witness, but failed to recall that I had ever been there—I knew Micklethwaite before August, 1890, but I did not know his name; when I saw him at the Law Courts I recognised him as the managing clerk to Mr. Ward—he has not brought affidavits to me, but he has sent for me on many occasions to Mr. Ward's to take affidavits.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. Mr. Wale is managing Chancery clerk to Mr. Ward, and I have taken affidavits there—I have often gone with Micklethwaite to take affidavits—I cannot swear positively that this is my signature, but I may have written in a style I fail to recognise—when I recognised Micklethwaite at the trial before Mr. Justice Romer I asked to be re-examined, and explained it to Mr. Park's solicitor, and I waited, but he did not call me again—I offered to make an affidavit to that effect in the Court of Appeal—I do not think the Great Western Road is on the road to Acton; it is close to Paddington Station, and you go to Acton by the North London line from Broad Street, or by the District Railway—it is not Acton on the Great Western line—there are two stations, one on the North Western line, and the other on the Great Western—my diary does not say that I went by the North London line; it merely says "Acton"—I have not got the diary here.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. I handed the diary to Mr. Sherrard, the solicitor—I do not make an entry every day of the affidavits I take; I sometimes take notes and memoranda—I make notes of affidavits very irregularly; there are very few entries in my diary.

Re-examined. I see that the jurat was originally at the bottom of the page, and it is now crossed out with the pen—I often swear affidavits, and the jurats are very often crossed out.

Re-examined. I have no recollection of taking this affidavit—11, Great Western Road is a very small place; a very poor place.

MARTIN MAXTEAD . I am an army pensioner, of 11, Great Western Road, Paddington—a person named Sir Charles Manley Brown lived at my house in 1890, and died there on September 5th, 1890—this

(produced) is the certificate of his death; he was eighty-eight—he was laid up for three weeks before he died, and for about a fortnight he was seriously ill—the prisoner Smith was a constant visitor at the house.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. He came to me from 8, Talbot Road—he was at Artesian Road before that—Miss Smith used to come and nurse him during the day, and there was a nurse at night; she came to see him every day, and took him out for a walk—I attested his will, under which she took a benefit—up to three weeks before he died he was well enough to do business; he signed cheques and wrote letters—I do not know his signature very well, but he used to sign my book every week—I have not kept his signature; I destroyed everything; it is two years ago—I should say that this affidavit is not his; I do not believe it is his signature, but I cannot swear it is not—he always signed his name Major Brown—he did not put "Bart." after it—he signed his will Charles Manley, I think—I cannot say whether he put "Bart." after it—I believe this letter (produced) is his writing; this signature has got "Bart." at the end of it.

Re-examined. I do not know whether "Bart." is the same writing or the same ink.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. I believe the whole of that letter to be his writing.

By the COURT. Nobody came to take an affidavit of Sir C. M. Brown—I was not away in the daytime, I was away on night duty—the servant would open the door—I have not go) the same servant now.

JOHN SMITH INGLIS . I am an expert in handwriting, which for many years I have made a study—I have carefully examined the signature on this deed, J. C. Park, with his genuine signatures on the cheques, and in my opinion it is not genuine—I can give reasons—I have also examined this signature on the letter of 29th November, 1886, I do not think it is genuine—the signature to the letter of instructions with "I agree to the above" is more like Park's genuine signature, but I cannot give a decided opinion one way or the other with regard to it—the last line of the body of that document Is much closer to the previous line than any other lines in that page, and I also find that there are more letters in that line than in any other line, showing that it is compressed from top to bottom, and from side to side—it appears as if the words "I agree to the above" had been written in to fit the writing of the body.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. It is possible that writing may be fitted so as to leave room for a signature as much as that a signature may be fitted to suit the writing—I cannot give an opinion whether the "I agree to the above" is in Mr. Park's writing; I heard his son swear it was—I had thirty cheques to compare the signature with—I have seen and compared the cheque on blank paper. (The Witness was cross-examined as to similarities and dissimilarities between the formation of various letters and style of writing.)—you cannot expect a good signature from a man of eighty; you would expect a tremulous signature—I have no doubt in my mind about the signature to the deed not being genuine, it is larger than he wrote at that time.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I have often given evidence—juries have not always agreed with me—I don't expect twelve men to find out in two or three minutes what it has taken me two or three days to work out—the first few lines of the first page of the letter of instructions are

written closely together, and on the second page they get much wider in the middle, and I do not see why the last line should be crowded if there was a blank space underneath.

Cross-examined by MR. TATLOCK. I think if the "I agree to the above" had been on the paper, and the last line had been written in the ordinary space, they would have clashed—a "J" pen writes differently to a scratchy pen. (The witness was further cross-examined as to characteristics of the writing of various documents.)

Re-examined. My opinion is that in signing this the ink failed in the pen, and that the writer continued with the pen exhausted, and made some scratchy marks, and then it was gone over again and made more distinct; the failure of iuk occurred when the "J" was made, and before the "C" was made—I have a cheque of the same date as the deed—I was not called upon the trial before Mr. Justice Romer—I had been consulted by Miss Smith about this signature; I went down to the Probate Court with her, and examined the deed; I was not called as a witness.

By MR. SYLVESTER. I said that without more signatures of Mr. Park it was impossible to tell.

By the COURT. None of these variations could have been constituted by going over the signature with an empty pen, because I consider the faint indications of letters are underneath the ink—there was a faint signature before this was made, and if there had been this signature over it would be explained by a failure of ink—I should think the "J. C. Park" and the "Margaret" were written at the same time, because there is a peculiarity; the "ar" is faint also, and it has been gone over, and I think Allistone's name is written at a different time; it appears to be different ink—I think "Park" and "Margaret Josephine Smith" were written with the same pen and ink, and the "Thomas Allistone" with different ink, but whether at a different time I could not say—I am inclined to think that the signatures Micklethwaite, Park, and Paul in this letter of instructions were in three different inks—the words "I agree to the above" are in a different ink to the "Thomas Allistone" and the body of the letter—the signature is more similar to the genuine writings than otherwise—I believe the signature "J. C. Park" has been patched up.

G.B. HOWARD (Re-examined). I find on 16th June, 1889, Miss Smith changed her solicitor to Mr. Bridger, and papers were handed over to him, and are in his possession, on an undertaking to hand them over to me if I want them—no proof was ever taken from Davis—I find from letters from Miss Smith this letter, in which he prepared his own proof; it was used by me as his proof—no letter was written to Octavius Davis in 1890 to come; I have searched the letter-book—I may have asked Miss Smith to bring Davis, but this letter of 7th November, 1890, to her explains why he did not come—I think there is no letter asking her to bring Davis—Miss Smith called next day, and said she had not said anything of the kind.

THOMAS DOVE . I am a pensioned Police-Sergeant—in October, 1887, I went with Mr. Rossiter to arrest Smith and her sister and Paul, at Talbot Road—I then took no tin box from her lodgings or anything else belonging to her—I took no letters from her belonging to Mr. Park—I saw no tin box.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER I took no property belonging to the

females; they had no property—I was responsible—no property was brought from the house.

FRANK FROEST (Detective Inspector New Scotland Yard). On 18th June I arrested Smith—I met her in Whitehall—I said, "Is your name Margaret Josephine Smith?"—she said, "Yes"—I said, "l am an Inspector of Police; I am going to arrest you on a warrant charging you with forging and uttering a deed purporting to be signed by John Cornelius Park"—she said, "Let me go to my house first"—when we got to Scotland Yard she said, "On my solemn oath the signatures on the documents in Court are Mr. Park's"—I took her to Bow Street, where she was charged; she said in answer, "The signatures on the three documents in the Court are Mr. Park's"—two days afterwards, on 20th June, I arrested Paul, at Havant, Hay ling Island, where he was detained by the police on my instructions—I said, "Is your name John Paul?" he said, "Yes"—I said I was an Inspector of Police, and told him the charge; he made no reply—I brought him to London, and charged him at Bow Street; he said in answer, "I have nothing to say"—I was in Rowan's company part of the time when Micklethwaite was arrested her at the Wimbledon Police-station; she made a statement, which I took down at the time: "I entered an action for £500 against Mr. Park, and Miss Margaret Smith said she would double it if I withdrew the case. I am sorry I had anything to do with her. She induced me to say what I did at the trial. It was all false; now I intend to tell the truth; I did not witness Park's signature to the paper"—a little while after, when going back into the cell, she said, "She did not offer to double the £500 to make me say what I did"—at 5 o'clock the same evening I arrested Allistone—I read the warrant charging him with forging the deed—he said, "It is a bad job; I will make up my mind what to say when I go before the Magistrate"—on 22nd June I arrested Micklethwaite—I told him I was a police officer, and was going to take him into custody for forging and uttering a deed, purporting to be signed by J. O. Park, on 23rd March, 1886—he said, "How could I have forged? they know very well it was old Park's signature"—I was present at the Police-court when these prisoners were all brought up, on the first occasion they were charged, when evidence of their arrest was given—I gave evidence, in the presence of Ingram, Allistone, and Smith, of the statement made by Ingram—Ingram said to the Magistrate, when asked if she had anything to say, "It is quite true"—on the second hearing, at the Police-court, when all prisoners were present, she denied the truth of it.

Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I arrested Allistone at his house; his wife was there—I don't think he pointed to her when he said, "It is a bad job"; she was in a very delicate condition at the time.

Evidence for Smith's Defence.

CHARLES FIGGIS . I am managing clerk to Mr. Kimber, the solicitor who acted for Miss Smith in the proceedings in Chancery—I was with him when Emma Green swore an affidavit; I knew her then as Emma

Mansell—on July 1st Mr. Kimber received a statement in Mansell's writing, and it was arranged that an affidavit should be made on July 3rd—I believe Mr. Kimber was in the office when she came, but engaged, and I saw her first—I do not know whether she came with anybody—she afterwards continued her statement in Mr. Kimber's room, writing at his table, and then he called me in and dictated an affidavit, and before it was written I believe Miss Smith called; it was about 6 p.m., and I suggested that while I was transcribing my notes they might go and get a cup of tea—Mansell did not raise any objection to any statement Mr. Kimber dictated to me; on the contrary, she suggested more—Mr. Kimber got the things which are not in the statement, from her—they talked over the affidavit while it was being dictated—this (produced) is the statement sent to the office, and this is what was sent by post—I read the affidavit over when they came in; it was put to her as her own affidavit; it was never suggested by anyone that the statement was Miss Smith's—the affidavit of Sir C. M. Brown ultimately came into Mr. Kimber's possession, I do not know how.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Mr. Kimber had not acted for M. J. Smith before to my knowledge, and I do not think he has since—he is not acting for her now—she was not present when this affidavit was dictated—I have said, "The affidavit of E. Mansell was dictated to me in the presence of Emma Mansell and Miss Smith. "

WILLIAM LOVELL . I was coachman to Mr. Park, senior, for twenty four years—I cannot say whether I was there between 1881 and 1885—I cannot remember the dates—I do not know who succeeded me as coachman—Allistone came after I left—during the time I was coachman I saw the prisoner Smith sometimes at Mr. Park's, and sometimes in the road—I have seen her in the dining-room talking to old Mr. Park, but not very often—I never drove them—young Mr. Park was not there when I have seen Miss Smith there—I have seen Mr. Park and Miss Smith talking at the gate together.

CHARLES SEARS . I am a bootmaker at Teddington—I have known old Mr. Park about twenty years, and worked for him during that time—my shop was near Auckland House—I have seen the prisoner Smith there once or twice, but never saw her with young Mr. Park—I have left Teddington seven years—I do not remember being present in one of the rooms of Auckland House when Miss Smith and old Mr. Park and young Mr. Park were there—I once carried a letter from Mr. Park to Miss Smith, and I have taken two or three from her to Mr. Park—I took one from Mr. Park to Miss Smith, at 81, Lawrence Road, Notting Hill.

Cross-examined. I made an affidavit to oblige Miss Smith, and was examined as a witness—I do not remember Mr. Justice Romer saying that he did not believe me—I have never seen Miss Smith with Cornelius John Park—I have sworn, "I have seen the said M. J. Smith on several occasions walking arm in arm with the said Cornelius J. Park," that was the old gentleman—I did not read my affidavit before I swore it—Mr. Edwards, the solicitor, prepared it—I swore it about August 18th, 1889—I was living then where I am now at, Hampden Gurney Street, near Hyde Park—I am described as of St. Peter's Park; I work there; they are both correct—I said before Mr. Justice Romer that it was not correct, and that it was the address of a relative—I don't know now what was in the affidavit.

DR. HEAD. I am in practice at 20, Oxford Terrace, Hyde Park—I attended a man at Great Western Road, who was introduced to me as Major Brown, from August 5th to September, when he died; during the greater part of that time he was capable of conducting business.

EDWARD KIMBER . I acted as solicitor for Miss Smith in her claim in the Chancery Division in the latter part of the time—I prepared an affidavit for Emma Mansell—I received a statement in writing, and when this woman called on me I asked her whether it was her statement she said "Yes"—I asked her whether she sent it to me—she said "Yes"—I asked her whether it was true—she said "Yes"—I said that it appeared there was something which was irrelevant, and told hereto sit down, and I called in my shorthand writer, and I dictated! to him, paragraph by paragraph, each statement, and asked her whether it was true, and she said "Yes"—there was no suggestion of it being a joint affidavit of her and Miss Smith—I explained to her what she was doing—the things which are in the affidavit and not in the statement I got in discussion with her—I received the affidavit of Sir C. M. Brown through the post in August or September sworn, too late for the trial—I had it in my possession in November, 1890—it had a signature then, the same as it has now—it purported to be sworn before a commissioner, and the other jurat was across it—it was too late to file—it was filed; these were all affidavits filed and printed, and they must have printed some affidavits afterwards, because I know the first batch printed were filed within the time; these are supplementary affidavits, which were afterwards sworn and filed; the first one is as far back as 1884—this affidavit is exactly in the same state now as when it was sent to me.

Cross-examined. I received it by post—I suppose it was from Brown himself, as I was having some proceedings with him at the time—I do not think there was any letter with it—I afterwards told Miss Smith it was no use, because he was dead, and could not be cross-examined upon it, and I declined to file it; she asked for it, and I gave it to her—I was surprised to find afterwards that she had actually filed it.

DONALD MILLER DUNBAR . I am a laundry proprietor and dyer, of 103, The Grove, Hammersmith—in 1885 I was an estate agent at 214, Fulham Road, and Miss Smith called upon me alone; she came a second time with a gentleman, and said his name was Park—they forced me to put two houses on my books which belonged to Mr. Park; and about a week afterwards she came with him, and my daughter Annie was present—the houses were given to me at £40 a year the first week, and when he came again he said I might take less to get rid of them—he said Miss Smith was about to get married to his son, and it was important that they should be let finally, as two houses would be too much for her mother to look after—I subsequently got instructions to let Cromer Lodge—I went to Teddington, looked at the houses, and called at Auckland House.

Cross-examined. I was managing the estate agent's business for the prisoner Paul during the time he was in the country, as he lodged at my house—he is a house agent—I had to attend to my own business as well—I was a landed proprietor too; I have a house or two—I gave Paul a job when he returned from prison, doing machine work in the laundry—I knew he had been in prison; I saw it in the papers—I considered he was as respectable a man as we are; of course a conviction looks bad,

but when I knew him he was a highly respectable man, and had a livery stable in St. James's; he had then, I suppose, £2,000—I did no business, but I turned 5 per cent, during the months I was there, and I introduced some customers, big firms, furnishing companies, and all that—I have met Paul and Miss Smith together, passing through Brompton Cemetery, once or twice—at the time Paul was arrested, in 1887, we were not still doing business for each other, but he was lodging at my place; he owed me some money, and therefore we did not speak after that; I passed him and took no notice—I believe he lodged with me in 1885; I do not know about 1886—when he came out of prison he came to me; he was down, and I did not want to keep him down—I saw him two or three times walking about with Miss Smith—I was first asked to make an affidavit, I think, in 1889—Mr. Edwards' clerk asked me.

Re-examined. I never went with Miss Smith to St. James's Street.

ANNIE DUNBAR . I remember the time when my father was managing the estate office in Fulham Road—I went there every day for a fortnight to take his dinner—one day when I was there, Miss Smith and a short stout gentleman, Mr. Park, came together—he spoke about houses to let at Teddington or Richmond, and then about Hayling Island—I said I had been there; he asked how I liked it; I said, "Very much," and that I had seen the lifeboat launched on stormy days—he said Miss Smith was going to marry his son and live on Hayling Island—she was wearing a locket with a portrait in it—he said it was his son—I could not see the likeness because I am near-sighted.

Cross-examined. I took my father's dinner into the back parlour, but the folding doors were thrown wide open; I then walked into the office, and stood speaking to my father when the lady came in, which prevented my asking him if I should fetch his beer—I had never seen the lady or gentleman before, but I have seen Miss Smith several times since; I saw her walking with a gentleman in Fulham Road; I cannot say whether that was Paul, because I am near sighted—I saw Ingram once in The Grove, Hammersmith—I made an affidavit; Miss Smith asked me to state what I knew—she did not remind me of this interview in 1885—she said she was having an action and wanted me as a witness, and asked me if I remembered what was said on that occasion—Mr. Edwards' clerk wrote out the affidavit as I told him; I did not find it ready written—these people were conversing there nearly two hours, but not with me; my father's dinner was hot when I took it.

By the JURY. The gentleman had a broad face and short legs, and walked peculiarly, and had a little hair on his chin, but I cannot recognise the two photographs—he was very old—I am very bad at recognising, unless I am close to a person.

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O'LEARY . I have carried on business for some years as a dentist in Harrow Road—for the last seven or eight weeks I have been in the hospital with phthisis—I knew Sir Charles Manley Brown very well in 1885 and 1886; he came to my place and introduced a gentleman as Mr. Park, who came to me afterwards professionally—I went down to Auckland House, Teddington more than once, to attend him professionally, and I did something to his teeth there—on the first occasion I was there professionally about half an hour, but I stopped two hours—while I was there I saw Miss Smith; I had known her previously—I saw her at Auckland House on that occasion—I did not stay

any time in her company—he was surprised that I knew her—I do not think she was in the room more than once while I was there—when she was going out Mr. Park said she was a very lucky girl, but what that meant I do not know—Sir C. M. Brown mentioned her engagement on a subsequent visit, or else Mr. Park mentioned it; I think it was the elder Mr. Park, but Sir C. M. Brown was present.

Cross-examined. I gave evidence before Mr. Justice Romer, and was cross-examined—I heard after that Mr. Justice Romer said he believed Mr. Park in preference to me—I have no book to show the year or month of the date of my visit to Mr. Park, nor have any of my patients except their names—it was about 1885 or early in 1886; I think it was in 1885—I distinctly remember visiting him twice—I have no idea how Sir C. M. Brown came there; I understood he was a friend of Mr. Park that was about 1885; I do not know where he lived—I used to meet him in Bayswater—he never lodged at the house kept by M. J. Smith in Talbot Road—I have known her since 1884, and I must have known her when she was living there; I understood making affidavits—I gave my address 18, Westbourne Villas, Bayswater—but the name was changed some months, before to 18, Harrow Road; it was Westbourne Villa; when I was asked how it was to be found, I replied, "I daresay they would find it in an old directory, or making use of their tongue"—I said it would sound better if I called my house Westbourne Villa—Sir C. M. Brown was tall and stout, and had a long beard.

Re-examined. 18, Westbourne Villas was the right description of my house when I went to live there, but a few months before this the Board of Works had altered it; that was well known to the postmen; letters so directed would reach me now—I do not keep books, only a rough scribble—it is a ready-money business.

MR. PENNINGTON. I am an auctioneer, of Richmond—in June, 1885, I had written instructions from Mrs. Smith, the prisoner's mother, to levy a distress at Gordon Lodge, Teddington, on the goods of Mrs. Vibart Hughes—Mrs. and Miss Smith were living in the adjoining house—this is the distress warrant.

GWINNETT SMITH . I am no relation of the prisoner Smith—I knew Sir C. M. Brown when he lived in Great Western Road, Paddington—I nursed him during the last months of his life—I was there every day—in August, about a month before he died, Mr. Micklethwaite and another gentleman came to see him, and he made an affidavit—I saw him sign his name to it—this is it—I think he put it away himself, but I am not sure—Dr. Head, of 20, Oxford Terrace, was attending him—he knew what he was doing when he made this affidavit—I went to Teddington in 1885, and looked at some houses—Mr. Park was the landlord—I called at Auckland House and saw Mrs. Park and Miss Smith, who was playing on the piano—Mr. Park introduced her—I had never seen her before—he said that she was his future daughter-in-law—Mrs. Park joined in the conversation—later on in the same year I saw young Mr. Park at Gordon Lodge; he came there to see Miss Smith—I did not hear anything; they were in the garden—I think they went away together—I am not quite positive whether I saw Miss Smith again at Auckland House, but I went there once or twice—Mr. Park spoke to me about Miss Smith more than once in a very friendly way.

Cross-examined. My real name is Jane Gwinnett Smith—I got that by marriage—I first married John Gwinnett; he died, and I married a Mr. Smith—my name is Jane Smith—on 5th July, 1890, I was living at Porten Road, "West Kensington—I swore before Mr. Justice Romer that I lived at 120, Shirland Road, in July, 1890—that was true—I described myself in July, 1890, as of 66, Belsize Park, Hampstead, in an affidavit I made—I had no permanent address—I told Mr. Justice Romer that I was living at 120, Shirland Road, because I was staying there at the time I had known Sir C. M. Brown some time—I am not a professional nurse—I have known Miss Smith about ten years—I gave evidence for her at the County-court once or twice—I registered Sir C. M. Brown's death—I was present when he died at 42, Chippenham Road—when I registered his death I described myself as J. Gwinnett—I was Jane Smith, but I conducted my business in that name as a dressmaker and outfitter twenty years ago, and I am more known by that name than the other—I had no residence at this time; I was staying with my sister for a year and a half—I was living in Warwick Road, I think, in April, 1890—I was one of the attesting witnesses to Sir C. M. Brown's will—I did not describe myself as Jane Gwinnett, of 50, Portland Road, Kensington, but Porten Road—I cannot tell how many addresses I gave at that time; I was visiting Miss Smith was not living with me when she was arrested, I was living in Porten Road then—I was not in the house when she was arrested—I was living with her when she was arrested on this charge—she had been living with me for a short time previous to the trial of her action—I am the person who went down to bring Emma Mansell up, and took her a new bonnet—I had not got a copy of my affidavit, as we came up in the train; I did not come up with her—I lived in the name of Gwinnett Smith, at 63, Belsize Road—a Mrs. Reynolds lived there—that was not me, she was not like me; she was only a quarter my age—I do not know where she can be found now—I lived there about 9th December, 1890—I have never heard that the landlord and tradesmen have been looking for me—I know Sir C. M. Brown's writing, and quite believe the signature to this letter to be his.

Re-examined. I was not in debt to the tradesmen—one of my sisters lives in Shirland Road, and the other in another road—I had not got a house of my own—Sir C. M. Brown knew me as Gwinnett Smith—I carried on business in my first husband's name, even after I married Smith—I had no reason for concealing my name—people knew me as Mrs. Gwinnett. (MR. TATLOCK tendered the affidavit of Sir C. M. Brown. MR. AVORY Contended that I was not put in.)

HENBY BLAND . I am a greengrocer—I removed some furniture and effects by Miss Wright's orders in 1887 and 1891—I do not know whether Miss Smith had been living there, or where she was at that time—there were six or seven different kinds of boxes; two were big yellow tin ones.

Evidence in reply,

JAMES FORBES . I am a clerk in Somerset House—I produce the will of Sir C. M. Brown, Bart., who died in September, 1890—he signs his name, Charles Manley Brown, in full.

WILLIAM HOWARD HUNT . I am a pensioner of police—before March, 1891, I knew the prisoner Smith at Teddington, where I have lived since 1863—in February, 1891, she came to see me, and pulled out a sheet of

note-paper, and said, "Have you ever seen me and Mr. Park together?"—I said, "I think I have, once;" she said, "Do you know the date?"—I said, "No; but I remember his meeting you in Queen's Road"—She wrote it down and said, "Would you mind signing it?"—I said "No," and signed it—a fortnight afterwards she brought a sheet of paper folded in four, and said, "Just sign this; this is precisely the same as you signed before in pencil"—I said, "I always make a rule of reading a thing before I sign it"—I looked at it, and it said, "I have seen her hand on Mr. Park's arm several times, and also on old Mr. Park's arm, and Mr. Park introduced me as Mr. John's future wife, and said he would give me £30,000 if I married him, and failing that, £20,000;" she said, "If you will sign that I will give you £500"—I said, "How can I sign what I have never seen and never heard?"—she said, "You won't do it?"—I said, "No"—she said, "Then I won't press you"—she summoned me as a witness.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. I have positively seen Miss Smith walking with young Mr. Park in Queen's Road—that is Cornelius John Park, who has been called as a witness—I have every reason to believe it was Miss Smith; this was not far from the father's house, but I never saw them arm-in-arm—I saw them walking together once, and only once. By the JURY. I am not quite sure it was Miss Smith; they were six feet apart, and it was dark—Mr. Park said, "Here is our old policeman Hunt"—that was addressed to her—I had known her by sight for three years, and knew her pretty well; I should imagine it was her; she was going towards her house, Gordon House—they were both side by side, six feet apart, but abreast of each other.

GEORGE INGLIS (Re-examined). I have examined the signature of the alleged affidavit of C. M. Brown with the signature to the will, and do not think they were done by the same hand—this letter appears to be written by the person who signed the will.

Cross-examined by MR. SYLVESTER. My opinion is that there are very strong variations.

Cross-examined by MR. GREENFIELD. The signature to the will I accept as genuine—I had no other.

By the JURY. I have only had it a short time; the "le" is imperfectly formed, but it joins the "t," and the "r" has got-a shoulder to it—he writes "Charles" in full in these two.

EMILY ELIZABETH NORMAN . I live at 15, Artesian Road, and let lodgings—in August, 1889, Sir C. M. Brown came to lodge with me in Torrington Square—this is his photograph—he left, I believe, in November, and went to lodge at Bayswater—I went to see him at his new lodgings, 11, Great Western Road, once or twice (I inquired at Talbot Road, but he had left)—a fair man, rather dissipated-looking, opened the door—I have not seen him since—I saw Sir C. M. Brown—this document, which he said was an affidavit, was on the table—I have seen him write cheques and letters—I should say decidedly that this letter is his writing—it is very like it, and I believe it is—this (another) is also his, and this affidavit is his writing, to the best of my belief—I have seen him write, and have received letters from him frequently—he lodged with me a little over three months.

Cross-examined. I have not been called as a witness in this case before—I have given evidence in ordinary police cases—he usually signed his

name "C. M. Brown" or "C. Manley Brown"—he wrote numbers of cheques.

GUILTY .

SMITH— Five Years' Penal Servitude. PAUL— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. MICKLETHWAITE and INGRAM— Six Months' Hard Labour each.

ALLISTON— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.