THE CASE OF MR. SMYTHIES.

Dunstan Times, Issue 497, 27 October 1871, Page 3

THE CASE OF MR. SMYTHIES.

Some interest is expressed in the issue of Mr. Smythies’ appeal to be reinstated as a legal practitioner. In his statement, recently made at the bar of the House of Representatives, ho gave the following account of the circumstances which led to his being charged with forgery, proving at least his freedom from all crime, if not from blame : “In the year 1546 he entered into partnership with a Mr. James, of Aylesbury. In 1847, a suit in Chancery was commenced by infants of the name of Miles, and a person of the name of.Soden became their next friend, and the whole question was whether or no Soden signed a written consent. Up to the time of settling the suit, all parties admitted that a consent had been signed, but the paper bad been- lost, and Mr. Smythies, for the pmrpose of taking counsel’s opiuion upon its effect re-wrote it, and this paper was produced before the Master, upon the taxing of the Bill of Costs, not to prove Soden’s liability, but to prove the time of its commencement. That the paper was asked for by the attorney on the other side, and Mr. Smythies lost four guineas by its production. That an action was brought to'recover the amount, of the bill, but Mr. Smythies not being able to find the original, withdrewthe proceedings and compromised the cases and the wholematter was amicably settled, to the satisfaction of all parties. Up to this time no imputation had been thrown out, impeaching the document, nor any charge of fraud or forgery made, Mr. Smythies partnership with Mr. James continued during two years and a half, and during that time the business increased from 8001 a year to 21)001. Mr. Smythies did all the business himself, bis partner being engaged in busine-s in London. In 1840 James lost his business in London, and desired to come down to Aylesbury and have the whole of the business, offering Mr. Smythies the 'situation of his managing clerk. Mr. Smythies having refusal to fall into this arrangement, James, in his absence, seized all his papers in the office including the papers respecting Soden, arrested Smythies for 10091., which he swore he owed him. although Smythies afterwards found that James was at the time in lebtel to him. Bribed Soden and one of the Mileses by a release of the bill of costs, 4001, to swear that'Soden signed no paper ; entrapped Smythies into a harmless conversation, and got him to write a letter acknowledging the truth of what James had said, without saying what that was, and which was put in at the trial, after James stated that he had then charged Smythies with forgery, and then summoned him to Bow street to answer the charge of forgery. The case was dismissed. and then James obtained a true bill from the Grand Jury of Middlesex. Having obtained the bill, and so held Smythies out to the world as a forger, James got rid of him as a partner, and secured the business. Ho then gave notice that he should not proceed with the prosecution. Smythies gave James notice of trial. When the case was called, all the witnesses, including Sedan's attorney in the action, subpeenaed on behalf of the Crown, were sent out of Court, and therefore could not hear the evidence given, and only a clerk to James’s brother-in-law, James himself, Soden and Miles were called. Sodeu’s Attorney afterwards made an affidavit contradicting all the material facts and ho said that had he heard the evidence he should have contradicted it i:i Court, foa Soden had always acknowledged signing the paper. Mr. Smythies was found guilty of forging the paper and uttering it at the taxation.