it to Bristol to a man named Sidley, with instructions to engrave upon it the words "Ye giffte of 1. S" in such a manner as to make it look old. This was done, and when a few days later a photograph of the chest was taken these words were clearly seen upon the hinge. Meantime, the defendant one day borrowed a hammer and chisel from Preddy, and afterwards some hammering was heard in the belfry. Two or three days later, when Preddy was up in the belfry with the bellringers, one of the men discovered carved on one of the beams, John Shipway, 1541." In November, 1896, the defendant obtained permission from the Home Office to open certain graves, on condition that any remains there might be were not disturbed. At this time he began searching for a lead coffin, and after opening one freestone grave in vain, he found one in a grave on the other side of the church which bore the name of Hicks. In the grave was a lead coffin, with a metal name-plate bearing the name of Hicks, which had been attached to an outer wooden coffin, now entirely rotted away. The lead coffin was carried into the vestry, and the defendant left alone with it. Afterwards an acid smell was noticed, and when the coffin-lid was inspected, the words Leo telo manu," with underneath "John Shipway, 1628," were found on it. The coffin was replaced, and then the defendant actually had the freestone gravestone, which bore the Shipway name, placed over this coffin, and the gravestone bearing the name of Hicks removed to the other side of the church. In doing so, by some accident a stone fell upon the foot of a labourer named Webster. The foot was crushed, and a few days after the man died from the shock. The defendant promised to compensate the widow, and actually received 10 from Colonel Shipway for that purpose. All that Mrs. Webster received

from him, however, was £4, so that he appropriated £6 of this widow's money for himself. Behind the church organ was a niche with a sort of stone canopy over it. In this niche was a female figure carved in stone, and old inhabitants of Mangotsfield stated that there had formerly been the figure of a man in armour besides the woman, but that for some reason it had been buried under the organ. This memorial really belonged to the Blount family, but the defendant had the organ removed, the figure dug up, and eventually an elaborate screen was placed in front at Colonel Shipway's expense, bearing the words, "Johannis Shipway. The enclosed two monuments were placed in this chantry to perpetuate the memories of John Shipway, Man of Arms, of Beverstone and Mangotsfield, and Margaret, his wife. During troublous times the figure of John Shipway was buried near by. It was recovered and replaced by his direct lineal descendant, Lieutenant-Colonel Robert William Shipway, of Grove House, Chiswick, in the county of Middlesex, November, 1896. Upon the original plaster of this wall can be seen traces of the family arms specified in the parochial registers and district probate registry, also portions of the original inscriptions. The name of Johannis Shipway can still be deciphered on the face of the coverstone. The Shipway vault is south of the

church. The name and arms also appear with the date 1541 cut into a beam in the belfry." The defendant next turned his attention to the Andrews monument in the church. This bore a shield at the top, completely black, but after, as the defendant himself said, removing eight coats of paint, the words "John Shipway, 1620," were discovered. Of course, all these discoveries were communicated to the College of Arms, but Colonel Shipway was informed by the College that, though their records had been searched for 400 years, they could find no trace of any arms borne by the Shipway family, and they could not accept an entry in a parish register as sufficient proof. He suggested therefore that the diocesan registries should be searched to see whether any wills of the Shipway family could be found. Accordingly, in June, 1896, the defendant went to Gloucester, and again in August, with the result that there he discovered the will of John Shipway. This will was a most interesting one for Colonel Shipway, for in it the testator," of Beviston in Maingotsfield," though apparently in articulo mortis, found time to recite the details of his arms received by an ancestor from Richard I. in 1191, through William de Marchant, Chancellor and justiciary." This was obviously incorrect, for in 1191 Richard was in Palestine, and William de Marchant had been dismissed from office some years before. All these wills were numbered in order, this will being numbered seventy-five. In 1890 a Mr. Phillimore, who, as the defendant wrote to Colonel Shipway, was "a most skilled antiquarian," made a list of these wills, and number seventy-five on his list was that of "John Nelme, of Came." The will of John Nelme was now missing, so it was evident that the defendant had stolen this will and substituted a forgery for it, or, as appeared probable, that he had erased the writing from the original parchment, and forged this will upon it. Traces of earlier writing could still be seen in photographs of the will, and it was a remarkable fact that at the top the word Came" appeared. In these old wills it was customary to find the name of the testator's parish at the top, and so ignorant was the copyist that here he had actually retained the name of John Nelme's parish on a will purporting to come from Mangotsfield. In February, 1897, the defendant went to Worcester, and shortly after wrote to Colonel Shipway to say that he had discovered the will of John James Shipway, who was the father of John Shipway, and who died in 1493. This will stated that the testator was a "man of arms "an erroneous description, for apparently a man entitled to bear arms was meant and after reciting the grant of the arms by Richard I., the testator went on to bequeath to his son the papers by which this grant was made 300 years before. The register of wills contained no mention of this document, and it looked as if the parchment had been torn off from another will, several of them having a blank half-sheet attached, and the corner through which the leather lace which held the wills together should have gone being missing. Here, too, the defendant found the will of Grace Shipway, dated 1537, which was also loose, and in the same bundle. This will bore the number 133. In the

register 133 was the number of the will of one "Nicholas Walbey," a will which could not now be found. Here, again, the defendant seemed to have destroyed a will and then forged another on the same parchment. Each of these three wills was full of modern peculiarities; they were written in the same handwriting; and there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence to show that they were forged, and forged by no other than the defendant. Mr. Bodkin concluded by explaining that it was not Colonel Shipway, but the Public Prosecutor, who prosecuted in this case; but it was hoped that Colonel Shipway, though he had suffered severely through the defendant in the way in which he had been duped, would yet do his duty as an officer and a gentleman, and aid the prosecution as far as he could to place the facts of this case before the Court.

Susan Webster, wife of the labourer who lost his life in the defendant's service, having given evidence as to the receipt of £4 as compensation for him, the hearing was adjourned.

Bail was increased to two sureties in £300 each. -Times, September 24.

At the hearing on September 29:

John Preddy, a smith, living at Mangotsfield, said that he was seventy-two years of age, and had lived there all his life. Fourteen or fifteen years ago an organ was placed in Mangotsfield Church in front of a niche in which was a female effigy in stone. Witness remembered his mother, who died thirty years ago, saying that there used to be a second figure in this niche. He did not remember seeing any writing in this niche, nor had he seen the name of Shipway there or anywhere else in the church, or even heard the name prior to the prisoner's arrival in 1896. On the south side of the church was a monument to the Andrews family, with a stone shield above it. In the autumn of 1896 Dr. Davies came to Mangotsfield. Witness met him in the church, and the prisoner questioned him as to the vaults, asking whether there were any near the altar. Witness told him of all the vaults he knew, but said he knew of none near the altar. Then, at the prisoner's request, he took down the shield from the Andrews monument, and placed it on a stool in the aisle. The prisoner scraped it with his pocket-knife, remarking that there ought to be something on it. Nothing was found, and the shield was packed up and sent to Mangotsfield Station, together with two little figures taken from the west porch outside the door. In a few days they were returned and replaced. The figures were unaltered, but the shield bore the name of "John Shipway," and part of a date could be seen upon it. Next, the altar was moved, and the floor of the chantry taken up, with the result that the stone figure of a man was found. The prisoner said that he had expected to find a grave or a vault there. The flooring was replaced, and the figure placed with the other in the niche, the organ being moved so as not to hide it. The niche was next repaired, and a wooden frame placed in front of it containing two memorial brasses. Soon after the figure was dug up the name "Johannis

"

Shipway" appeared above the niche. The letters were quite clear, and witness thought they had been done with blacklead pencil, as on touching them with a knife the black came off, leaving the bare stone. One day Davies borrowed two chisels and a hammer from him. He did not say what he wanted them for, but went up into the church tower. Witness followed him, but found the belfry door locked, and heard a sound of hammering inside. The same afternoon witness went up into the belfry, and saw that on the central beam the words "John Shipway, 1541" were carved. Forty or fifty years ago the level of the churchyard was lowered, as witness remembered. In the churchyard was a pennant-stone tomb bearing the name Samuel Hicks, Esq.," and also a freestone tomb. on which was a coat of arms, but no name. Davies had the freestone tomb opened, but no coffin was found in it; and then he asked witness if he knew where there was a lead coffin. Witness remembered seeing a lead coffin in the pennant-stone tomb, and told him so. Accordingly Davies had that tomb opened, and a lead coffin was found there with, lying on the top of it, the brass nameplate which had been fastened to the decayed outer wooden coffin. On this plate the name "Samuel Hicks, Esq.," was quite plain, but on the coffin itself nothing was visible. The coffin was carried into the vestry, and the next day Dr. Davies called witness to see it. On the lid the name "John Shipway could now be seen, and underneath a lion rampant holding up some weapon. Witness noticed that there was a smell of acid, but the prisoner said it was disinfectant, and he thought the marks on the coffin were of recent date When the coffin was returned to the vault the freestone tomb was placed over it, and the pennantstone tomb was moved to the place from which the other tomb was taken. Davies said that he held an authority from the Home Secretary to open any grave or vault in the churchyard. Some twenty years ago witness was employed by the churchwardens to open an old chest which was kept in the vestry, and of which the key had been lost, The chest was taken to the rectory, and witness opened it in the presence of the Vicar and churchwardens, having to take off the hinges to do so. There was then no lettering on the ironwork, but one day Davies called him to the rectory, and showed him that inside the hasp of the chest were the words, "Ye giffte of I. S."

In reply to Mr. Waddy, the witness said that when the churchyard was lowered the tombstones were moved, and some were not replaced in their proper places. The freestone tomb was one of these, but he thought the pennant-stone tomb was correctly replaced, as it was over a vault. Witness told Dr. Davies that there was some confusion in replacing the tombs.

Two of the bell-ringers at Mangotsfield Church having given evidence that the name "John Shipway was not visible on the beam in the belfry before Davies came there,

Albert Edward Sidley, an engraver in the employment of Messers. Willett and Sons, of Bristol, said that in October, 1896, the prisoner brought the

brought the hasp the prisoner also brought a stone scutcheon (the shield for the Andrews monument), and asked witness to paint some words upon it. Upon the shield now appeared the words " John Shipway, 162, Æt.-," but when witness returned the shield to the prisoner both the full date and the age were plainly visible.

James Hamilton, a photographer, of Broad Street, Staple Hill, Bristol, said that he took a number of photographs for the defendant in November, 1896, including an enlargement of a small photograph of a will, and photographs of the beam in the belfry, the stone effigies, the stone shield, the tomb, and the coffin-lid. The prisoner was not satisfied with the photograph of the coffin-lid, as the seal on it did not show well, and so it was twice enlarged, and then, the prisoner having touched up the enlargement, a reduced photograph was made in which the seal showed plainly. Witness also did some private work for the prisoner, and his bill for all the work done came to £10 os. 6d., of which £7 12s. 6d. represented the amount due from Colonel Shipway. The prisoner was not satisfied with this, and got him to make out a bill at his dictation, in which the private work was not included, but the total was increased to 12 3s. 6d. This bill the witness receipted in exchange for the prisoner's I.O.U. for £8, payable at fourteen days. He did not, however, get the £8 at once-that was in December, 1896, and the account was not cleared off until March, 1897. The prisoner did not then settle his private account with witness, and it was not until witness had obtained judgment in the County Court against him that he received payment, in February this year.

At this point the hearing was adjourned.— Times, September 30.

On October 6:

Mr. Charles Angell Bradford, second assistant secretary of the in-registry at the Home Office, said that the prisoner had applied for permission to open the grave of Colonel Shipway's grandfather in a Wesleyan burying-ground at Minchinhampton, and also the grave of another of his relatives in Whitbourne churchyard, in order to obtain some details for the erection of a monument. Permission was granted in the first case, and the prisoner was referred to the incumbent in the second. These were the only two instances in which the prisoner had applied for permission to open graves.

John Stidard, sexton at Mangotsfield Church, gave evidence confirming that of the smith Preddy at the last hearing, as also did George Cross, a platelayer, who assisted in opening the tomb.

Arthur Edward Lonnen said that in June and July, 1896, he was clerk to the late Mr. Crook, solicitor, of Bristol. In July, 1896, a person who gave the name of James Bucknell, but whom witness now identified as the prisoner, came to Mr. Crook to make a statutory declaration to the effect that a seal which he produced was an heirloom in the Shipway family. He brought a declaration already engrossed on parchment, but, owing to an error in it, witness engrossed another, and was present when the prisoner swore it.

The

prisoner told him that the motto on the seal was Dum vivo" (Whilst I live.)

Mrs. Mary John, whose husband is a restaurantkeeper at Bristol, identified the prisoner as a man who used to call in the name of Bucknell at a temperance hotel kept by her in July, 1896, in Victoria Street, Bristol, and said that he asked her to take in letters for a friend of his named Davies. A letter came addressed to Davies, and she gave it to him, and to her surprise he opened it.

Mr. Frank Penlock, one of the churchwardens at Mangotsfield Church, said that the prisoner applied to the Vicar and churchwardens to have the organ moved so that it should not hide the niche which was then behind it. They consented on his paying £20 for the removal. There was a figure in the niche which the prisoner said was that of a knight with his armour removed. Witness thought it was that of a woman, and when the figure of a knight in armour was found underneath the chantry floor the prisoner agreed that it was so.

Mr. Bodkin: Did he say anything as to whom the monument was erected to?-Oh yes; of course he appropriated it to the Shipway family, and put their name on it.

The Rev. George Alford, Vicar of Mangotsfield, said that he had held that office since 1881. At that time the parish registers were kept in an old oak chest in the vestry. This chest was afterwards removed to the Vicarage and opened by Preddy, the smith, the key having been lost. Witness did not then see any inscription on the hasp of the chest, nor at any subsequent time till after Dr. Davies's arrival in 1896. When the prisoner first called upon him, saying that he came from Colonel Shipway, witness took him round the church and showed him the niche behind the organ, saying that he believed that the memorial belonged to the Berkeley family. Witness grew to be on very friendly terms with the prisoner and reposed great trust in him. He used to come to the Vicarage and inspect the old registers which went back nearly to 1500-in the library. Witness was not always present at these times. After some time the prisoner called his attention to a slip of parchment which he said he found in the book, and he asked permission to take it away to have it examined by experts.

Mr. Bodkin said that this slip appeared to be a portion from some sort of passport granted to someone described as Shipway filius, while of the signature the word "Rex" remained. The fragment was sent to Colonel Shipway, who had it photographed in facsimile by the Autotype Company.

Witness could not say whether the word Shipway was on the slip when it left him, but it was there when it came back The prisoner next asked witness to lend the parish register for inspection by the College of Heralds, but witness demurred, and it was not until ample guarantees had been given that he handed the register to Davies. Up to that time he had heard nothing of any Shipway entries in the book, but when about a week later it was returned to him he was asked to certify the correctness of six photographs of pages in which the name of Shipway appeared. There was a lastcentury copy of this register, and this copy had never been out of witness's possession.

Mr. Bodkin called attention to the curious fact that the paper used in this copy bore as watermark a lion rampant with a weapon in its paw (the alleged Shipway crest), but in this case there were the letters C.R., apparently referring to Charles I. or II.

The witness continued that in the niche behind the organ the prisoner pointed out to him some markings which he said were like a lion, and said that he thought the shield on the Andrews monument must have been placed there by mistake after the church was restored some fifty years ago, but witness could not say where in this case it could have come from. Witness consented to allow the shield to be sent to Bristol to be cleaned, and it came back with the name of John Shipway upon it. Witness had known Mangotsfield parish for between thirty and forty years, but until Davies came there he had never heard of the Shipway family as connected with it.

Mr. Bodkin questioned the witness as to the certificates which he had given of the genuineness of certain photographs of the "Shipway" relics, and asked him how it was that he came to describe these as "the Shipway tomb," "the Shipway vault," the Shipway memorial," and even in the case of the old chest as "the gift of John Shipway."

Witness; I am afraid that I relied upon the word of Dr. Davies; I had implicit confidence in him.

The Rev. George Percy Alford, the son of the last witness, said that he acted as curate to his father. The witness stated that he saw Davies write out facsimiles of several of the entries in the old register, imitating the old writing with surprising success. Witness pointed out one or two errors, and on these being corrected, certified the copies as exact facsimiles of the entries. The prisoner did not say to what the entries referred. Witness did not see the prisoner after he left Mangotsfield, but in January, 1897, he received a letter from him stating that he had found the will of John Shipway, "an enormously rich man," and asking for information as to a house mentioned in the will. As to the certificates on the photographs, the witness said that the prisoner dictated the wording. Witness wrote it down and his father signed it, for they both had implicit faith in the prisoner.

The hearing was again adjourned.-Times, October 7.

Again, at the hearing on October 13,

Mr. Charles Sawyer, a partner in the Autotype Company, New Oxford Street, having identified some photographs of extracts from Mangotsfield parish register as made by his firm to Colonel Shipway's order,

Mr. Bodkin called Richard Edward Kirk, record agent, of Chancery Lane, who said that he had had considerable experience in the examination of ancient writings. He had examined the parchment book before him, which was entitled, The Antient Register Booke belonging to Mangotsfield, and, according to a statement on the fly-leaf, was purchased in 1620. The earliest entry in the book related to the baptism of one Eleanor Coole, in 1579, and the most recent entry was under date 1667. The witness assumed

that the entries dated earlier than 1620 had been copied into this book from loose sheets or another book, as was very frequently done about that time. The whole book was crowded with writing, with the exception of the fly-leaves. The entries were generally classified under the date of the year, but the date 1579 had, it appeared, been tampered with, for the tail of the 9 had been erased, so as to make the date look like 1570. As the next date was 1580, this would leave a gap in the register of ten years. Under the date 1570 (1579) the witness found the following entry: "Johies Shipway, the sonne of Johies Shipway, Man of Arms, was christened the 6 day of Julie." Johies" was obviously intended for an abbreviation of the Latin Johannes; but the accepted abbreviation would be in the first instance Johnes, and in the second Johis. The writing of the entry was an imitation, and not a good imitation, of ancient handwriting.

Mr. Lushington pointed out that the name in this entry might be John, what was taken for a final "s" in each case being part of the flourish in the initial "S" in Shipway. On referring to the book again, the witness agreed that this was probably so, but said that the entry was very badly written, so that it was difficult to decipher these words. The witness continued that he had also examined an ancient copy of this register, which was made, he should think, about 1700. In it was a copy of this page of the register, headed with the date 1579, and it contained duplicates of all entries in this page with the exception of the Shipway christening. Under the date 1591, at the top of the page, there was in the register this entry: Matrimoniu solemnisat. est inter Johannis (sic) Shipway et Margaret. Sandows quarto die Octobris." This entry was not merely in bad Latin, but a palpable imitation of ancient handwriting. The next marriage entry had the date 1593 in the margin, and the following one 1597.

Mr. Bodkin: So it would appear that for four years there was no marriage in Mangotsfield; certainly a very extraordinary thing.

The witness continued that in the copy of the register the first marriage was dated 1596, not 1593; the Shipway marriage did not appear, but there were twenty-seven marriages of dates between 1591 and 1597 in the copy of which no record appeared in the register. From the appearance of the register witness judged that the page containing these twentyseven entries had been cut out with some sharp instrument, and it appeared that the Shipway entry, dated October, 1591, had been inserted between two entries both dated January, 1596. Under the date 1593 witness found the following entry in the register: Johannes filius Johnis Shipway [de] Beuerstone baptizat. est vicesimo primo de (sic) Novembris." The colour of the ink of this entry was darker than that of the other entries, and it did not appear at all in the copy. Witness also found, under the date 1618, March, the entry: "John Shipway, Esquiere of ye Beuerstone was buried ye 9 of March in (?) Fryotstone & his bodie requscit (sic) ad the altare." Witness did not know what Fryotstone" meant. This entry contained modern letters, and was not found in the copy-register. The same remark applied to the entry under the