Depones, that, in his experience as a chemist, he has very frequently had occasion to observe the operation of acids and other chemical agents upon paper, in destroying or partially injuring its texture, changing its colour, &c. Being shewn the document contained in No. 25 of process, and referred to by the last witness, and which is marked by the deponent as relative hereto, depones, that, to the best of his judgment, the texture of the paper has been injured by a chemical agent, and not by damp. Depones, that he considers the top margin, on which are the three stamps, the bottom margin, on which there are two signatures, and the lower part of the side margin, to be uninjured, and not to have been subjected to the agency of the substance which has injured the body of the paper. Depones, that he perceives the upper part of the side margin bears writing on its back. Depones, that, to the best of his belief, the injury to the paper could not have arisen from accident. Depones, that he accounts for the greater decay of the upper part of the paper, by supposing that the destructive agent has been applied to both sides, and that the injury to the top of the margin may be accounted for by the destructive agent having been applied to the writing at the top of the reverse of the leaf where the writing is partly on the back of the said margin. Depones, that from what he has seen, and from every experiment he has made, he is quite satisfied that the writing of the body of the deed, as it now stands, and of the docquet on the top of the reverse, must have been written subsequently to the application of the destructive agent, though before the paper had reached its present state of decay. Depones, that, in his judgment, the document is not one which can be considered trust-worthy, as proving the facts set forth in it, and of the date it bears. Depones, that he has frequently seen writing completely discharged from paper by the application of an acid; and that he has done so himself where the writing was of six years' standing; and adds, that he has found writing of a few years' standing more difficult to discharge than what has been recently written. Depones, that he conceives it quite possible that writing previously existing upon the paper in question, and occupying the same space with the present writing, may have been discharged so as to make way for what is written both on the front of the leaf, and on the top of the reverse, without interfering with the signatures. Cross-examined for the defenders, and interrogated, Whether he has been much in the habit of examining old manuscripts? Depones, that he has not. All which he declares to be truth. Five words delete before signing. (Signed) WILLIAM GREGORY. Compeared DONALD GREGORY, Esq. Joint-Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, a witness cited for the pursuers; who being solemnly sworn, purged of partial counsel, examined and interrogated, depones, that he has been in the habit of examining old manuscripts for the last fourteen years, and has turned his attention very much to the examination of manuscripts, both in the public records and in private repositories, in the course of his historical and genealogical inquiries. Depones, that he is acquainted with the distinguishing character of hand-writing during the last 400 years. Being shewn the document referred to in the deposition of the last witness, and which is marked by the deponent as relative hereto, he observes, that it bears date in 1723, and declares, that in so far as his experience goes, he has no hesitation in stating, that the character of the writing in the body of the document is of a considerably later period than the date above specified; and the chief grounds of his opinion, are the want of the contractions which, in deeds of that period, are usually met with in legal hand-writing, and the peculiar shape of the letter e. Depones, that the general style of the document, as well as the character of the handwriting, and farther, the mode in which the date 7th December 1639' is written, lead him to the opinion that the writing is of the early part of the reign of George III. Depones, that the signature Hen. Hovenden,' appears to be that of an old man in the year 1723, judging from the character of the hand-writing, and corresponds with the age mentioned in the commencement of the affidavit; and the signature of J. Pocklington,' appears to be that of a younger man, and in its character corresponds with the date of the affidavit. Depones, that he perceives certain words contained in the docquet on the back of the deed, which are of a different character from the rest of the docquet, and correspond with the date 1723, and he points out these words, as ‘— neble. Jno. Pocklington, Esq. one of ye. Baron. ( torn) Excheqr. in Ireld.' Depones, that the signature to the docquet appears to be of the period corresponding with the date of the docquet, and of a considerably earlier period than the writing of the docquet itself, with the exception of the words above quoted : And being shewn the deposition of Sara Lyner, dated 17th January, 1722, and contained in number 25 of process, and which is marked by the deponent, commissioner, and clerk as relative hereto, depones, that the character of the writing is of the period which it professes to be, and of a totally different character from the affidavit of Hovenden. Depones, that in the deponent's opinion, the document first referred to, bearing to be the affidavit of Hovenden, is not a genuine document of the date it professes to be, with the exception of the signatures, and the few words above quoted, contained in the docquet appended thereto. Depones, that the decay of the paper of the document above referred to, has not, in his opinion, proceeded from the effects of damp; and that, if it had proceeded from this cause, it would have borne the appearance of a document which he now produces, and which is marked by the deponent, commissioner, and clerk, as relative hereto. Depones, that he has never perceived the appearance presented in the above-mentioned affidavit of Hovenden, of the running of the ink, in any instance where the paper has been exposed to damp, and that the writing remains quite sharp notwithstanding the damp. Cross-examined, and required to examine the signature, Thomas Merefield, which he has already deponed to be a genuine signature, and to say, whether the letter e is of the character of writing of the period 1723? Depones, that it is not of the general character of that period, but of a character which then had begun to be introduced, and which is the same with the writing of that letter in the present time. And being required to examine the certificate, bearing to be signed Thos. Conyers,' underneath the notary's docquet, and interrogated, whether it is of the hand-writing of the period 1723? Depones, that it is of that period, and contains the letter e as usually written at that period. Depones, that the paper of the document produced by him is of a thinner texture than that of the paper on which the affidavit is written, and that it would, on this account, become more easily affected by damp; but that the latter, if exposed to damp, would have also become soft, and would not have presented the hard appearance of Hovenden's affidavit. Re-examined and interrogated, Whether the docquet signed by Thos. Conyers,' is written by a person taught to write at the date it bears? Depones, that in his belief it was written by Thomas Conyers at that date, and that he must have been a younger man than Henry Hovenden, and taught to write at a later date. Depones, that he believes that the words contained 6 in the docquet, and which have been quoted above, as differing in character from the rest of the docquet are the writing of Merefield, who signs the docquet. All which is truth, &c. Sixteen words delete before signing. (Signed) DONALD GREGORY. R. HANDYSIDE, Comr. What is contained in this and the 21 preceding pages, is the report of the proof allowed by the interlocutor referred to in the first page hereof. (Signed) R. HANDYSIDE, Comr. At Newtonards, in the county of Down, the 24th day of October, 1836 :— Which day there was produced to me, Richard Bailie Blackiston, Esq. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the county of Down, in Ireland, an act and commission, dated the 26th day of November, 1835, with continuations and prorogations thereof, dated 10th February, and 1st day of June last, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, in an Action of Reduction and Improbation, depending in that Court, in which the Officers of State for Scotland are pursuers, and Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, calling himself Earl of Stirling, and others, are defenders. Of which Commission I accepted, and made choice of William Loughe of Comber, in the said county of Down, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the oath de fideli, as use is. Thereafter appeared Roderick MacKenzie, W.S. as agent for the pursuers, and Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. as agent for the defender. Thereafter compeared The Reverend MARK CASSIDY, Perpetual Curate of and residing in Newtonards, and one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said county, aged 59 years and upwards; who being solemnly sworn, purged of malice and partial counsel, and examined and interrogated by and in the presence of the said Commissioner, depones, that there is still in existence, in Newtonards, an old building now converted into a Sessions-house, which he has heard was formerly used as a place of worship, but has not been used as such, so far as the deponent knows, for the last hundred years and upwards; and was known by the name of the Old Church : That there was in connection with this place, and immediately adjacent to it, a building used as a private chapel, and said to have been originally built or repaired by the family of Montgomerys, and afterwards used as a chapel by the families of Colvill and Stewarts, who became after them proprietors of Newtown Estate: That the Old Church formed the vestibule of the Chapel: That the deponent has resided in Newtonards as the parish minister constantly for the last 27 years: That until the year 1817, he performed public worship in the said chapel, when a parish church was built in another part of Newtonards; and the said chapel was afterwards taken down, and the said vestibule converted into a Sessions-house: That in the chapel there were no grave-stones or inscriptions, so far as the deponent recollects, relative to persons buried there: That in particular, there were no grave-stones bearing the names of the last Countess of Mount Alexander, or of a John Alexander: That there were tombs and grave-stones in the vestibule or Old Church: That he has had frequent occasions to examine these tombs and grave-stones; but never saw, that he recollects, any grave-stones or monuments of the said countess, or any person of the name of Alexander; and being shewn the inscription alleged to be a copy of that on the tomb-stone of John Alexander, is quite positive that no grave-stone in the vestibule or chapel bore any such inscription: That in the vestibule, at the earliest period he recollects of, there was no appearance of pavement or flagging, except an occasional grave-stone; and indeed the place had no appearance of ever having been regularly flagged: That he knows a woman of the name of Margaret M'Blain, widow of James M Blain, in Newtonards, and also knew her husband That while he knew him, the said James M'Blain was not extensively employed in the line of a mason, and an undertaker of building generally, having a considerable number of workmen under him: That he was merely a good common workman: That Margaret M'Blain is a woman of such general character, that she could not in his opinion be believed on oath where her interest was affected; and if she appeared before him as a magistrate, from her general character, he would not be disposed to give her credit on oath where her interest was in opposition. Interrogated for the defender, depones, that he is positive there was not, in the Old Chapel, any grave-stone bearing the name of the Countess of Mount Alexander, inscribed upon it, visible to the naked eye; and he has no recollection of any grave-stone, or part of a gravestone, with the name John Alexander upon it. Depones, that the deponent does not know that Margaret M‘Blain, before mentioned, has ever had a conviction against her in any Court for any offence, and does not know any thing in particular to the prejudice of her character, except the general. : |