The Express. — London, England, 1862-08-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCB. HOME ClRCUlT.—Gonanrosp, Arouer 18. Wore Mr. Barup Martin and a Special Jury.) BOUriLL AND OTRIRS T. WLITI.-RITRAORDINARI TRIAL. • In coosequence of the various rumours that were in carcu lation in reference to this cause, and the extraordinary cir ennistaocers connected with it, the trial appeared to create Ye moat intense interest, and • number of persons were present • considerable time before the usual hour for the ocenmenoeruent of the proceediega. The action was one of ejectment to recover possession of • farm at Kingston, called Surbiton Farm, mid the defend. sat pleaded that he was legally possessed of the estate is queetion. under a de e d o f gi ft execu t e d S y th e l a t e Ri c h ar d Palmer limped, the owner of the property. Serjeant Sher, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. J. Browne were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, 4.1. C., and Mr. Garth appeared for the defendant. Upon the application of Mr. %rill the whole of the whoa.... were ordered out of court, and they were ex amined separately. Serjeant Slice, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff brought this action to recover au state of about 11,3 acres, at Surbiton, near Kingston, of which the late Richard Palmer Keelson died oeised iu September, 18513. The pleas tiff claimed this estate as the heir-at-law of his deceased father, sod the defendant claimed under a deed executed by William Roupell, the eater.' brother of the plaintiff, and the question the jury would have to decide was whether the deed under which this property pissed was a genuine instrument. On the part • of the plain tiff he undertook to prove that it was a forgery. Although he should, however, prove this, still melees he should also establish that a will that purported to have been executed by the deceased was also a forgery, and that it was forged by William Roupell, the natural brother of the pLtintiff , the plaintiff e y i ld not recover, and be undertook to prove that fact also. The case he had to prove, therefore, was a simple one. He should show that the plaintiff was the beir-at-law of the deceased, and that a will had been executed previously to the forged will, by which the property was bequeathed to the plaintiff, and be would have come iota possession of it but for these forged isetrtunents. Although he had stated thus summarily the general nature of the case, it was necessary that he should go more into detail into the circumstances, which were undoubtedly of the most extraordinary character, and which not only involved a large amount of property, but also the honour, mid perhaps the liberty,of a gentleman of high mei tioa, and who had held a prominent position before the public as a member for the borough of Lambeth. The testator for many peen carried on the business of • lead merchant in Oravel.laue, and he had a ornate residence at Brixton. He bad five children—John, William (who was • natural sai), Sarah, Janice, and Emma, and the plaintiff, who was bora en the sth of July, 1640. The testator amassed a vast pro perty—his pereoual estate at the time of his death was worth 120,000/., and be had invested 200,0001. in real estate in different counties and in London, and within fifteen years of his death he had by will disposed of all these estates. In March, 1839, he executed one will, and three months after the birth of the plaintiff he, by will, left him the estate that was the subject of the pre sent inquiry, and he then revoked all former wills. On the Ist of October, 1850, he executed another will, by which he disposed of all his property, vesting his estates in trustees for the benefit of all his children ; and he again devised the Kingston and several other estates to his sou Richard. the plaintiff. He was satisfied with this will, until one of hit trustees, Mr. Patrick Hughes, died, and heap pointed Mr. William Clarke and Mr. James Surridge, in the place of that gentleman. It was clear at this time that he intruded to confirm the will of 1850, but he made some alteration by which he gave legacies to his executors, and a law days before his death, in 1856, be went to his proctor's a Doctors' COMMODs, and took the will with him, and he was informed that the attestation of the new trustees wee not sufficient, and a codicil was dawn op, by which be confirmed the will of 1850. This was on Saturday, the 30th of August, I£lso , and there could be no doubt that at this time he iatooded this will to be his last will and testament, and by this will the plaintiff would here become entitled to the estate in question and a considerable portion of his other property. The learned serjeent read the codicil, and mid it wss quite clear that the testator intended to confirm the will of 1850, and that when they lad heard the evidence he should lay before them he be lieved they would entertain no doubt upon this poiotll When he made this codicil it was also evident that he consi dered himself possessed of the Surbiton estate. He went over it a few days before his death with Lis steward, a man named West, and be told this person that be thought be should not live long, and that after be was gone he would bars to manage the estate for his eon Richard, the plaintiff. He should also prove by ether circumstances that at this period be had not the smallest doubt that this Kingston estate was his property. He had laid out money upon it, and in every possible way bad indicated his belief that it was so, and that he had done 'tithing to prevent him from disposing of it. Notwith otradieg this, the Kingston estate had been dealt with and Led been alienated through the fraud of his natural son. He should show them that William Roupell, the natural me, was in 1855 in great pecuniary difficulties ; he must bare lived an extravagant life, and he was much pressed by ereditote and greatly in want of money. He seemed to have been of opinion that by possessing himself of a 111•1111 property that adjoined the testator's estate at Brixton. he should relieve himself to some intuit, and the owner agreed to sell it for 8,0001., and about this time • fire insurance company bad the intentioo to expend 50,000/. upon the Roupell Park Mane at Brixton, sod had made William Roupell, who was then practising as an attorney, their trustee for this per =fle then, it appeared, wept to his father and told him he could purchase the estate for this sum, and that the llsity Fire Company would give 250/. per annum, which would increase the value of the estate, and the testator agreed to purchase it, and gave William Roupell a cheque for 500/. on the Bank of England as a deposit, and on the 25th of the name month another cheque for 4,500/., the Wanes. He should show that the 500/. cheque was paid into the Union Bank to the account of a gentleman named Watts. but that in point of fact it was devoted to the use of William Roupell, as was also the cheque for 4,5001.. and that Mr. Treadwell, the owner of the estate to which he had referred, never received one farthing, and that his endorsement on the cheque was a for gery. (se the Ist of August William Roupell appointed to pay Mr. Treadwell for the estate, and he should show them that be raised the money upon the Kingston estate without the knowledge of his father, and that be surreptitiously obtained pommies° of the deeds that enabled him to effect this object. It would be proved that he asked Lis father to let him look at the deeds relating to the Kingston estate, and that he represented some of them were missing, and that he wished to take them to Messrs. Marlon and Co.. the solicitors who had acted for the testator, and he should produce a document in the handwriting of William Roupell, showing that he had taken poner inn of these steeds, and that he never took Munn to Messes. Manion, but went to the office of Mr. Powell, a law-stationer in Perlis. sent-street, sod requested him at once to make facsimiles at the whole of them deeds, and at the same time mid be desired this should he done as speedily as possible, and the deeds were ready on Thursday, the Pith of J uly. He was' 'seder engagement to complete the purchase of the estate es the Ist of August, and before copies of the deeds ' , were completed, he endeavoured to raise a sum of 7,000/. capon the security of the Kingston estate, which was valued at 15,000/. The moment he got possession of the deeds he took the genuine ones to a gentleman named Whittaker and told him to prepare a deed of gift from his father to himself of this Kinpton estate, and this was done. It was returned approved, William Roupell forged his father's signature to this deed, and be caused two respectable witnesses to attest the signature, but he deceived them as to who the party washy whom the deed was executed, and lie should can them as witnesses to prove that fact. Having thus obtained doss 'on of the deed of gift, it was necessary that Le sLopW also deceive his father, and he forged to the coun terpart deeds the names of the whole of the conveying penise to the genuine deeds, and then handed them to Mr. Whittaker subsequently obtained a loan of 7,0001. upon the property, and 5,0004 were paid to Mr. Treadwell, and 2,0004 pocketed by Vali= Hooped]. In order to defend this settee it was incumbent on the defendant to produce the deal of gift. and if he did so, be (the learned counsel) pledged kilovolt to prove that it was a forgery. Although the 2.000 k relieved William Roupell fee a time, h e was still In great difficulties, and at the commencement of the following year he had recourse to another expedieut, end determixed to raise 12,0001. upon an estate in Meer, belonging to his father, called the Great Warley estate, and he should show that he forged hie father's' signature to a deed of gift of that estate, went through the same proceeding with Mr. Whittaker, and smetually borrowed 15,000/. upon that r mperty. At this time William Roswell was only Zyears old, and although Mr. Whittaker was well aware that Kr. Reopen, his father, /ended in London, he never had the least communi sation with him upon these importaut subject., sad be could not help observing that this appeared to Lis very extraordinary. Things went on in this way seta January, 1856, at which time William Roupell had played his last card. His father died in September, 11116, sad William Roupell hail immediate notice of the fact. Max Roupeil was overwhelmed with grief, and she pro the keys to William }Loupe'', and be went and examined his strong box tied the escritoire that was in his bedroom, and be there toned the will of October, 19110. He stood face to fees with his dead father, his dead father's will was in his head, and that will informed him that in a very few minutes after the body was consignel to the grave he must stand face to face with his father's executors, all men of buisinees, anal trustees for the" benefit of his wife and children, and that discovery and ruin were inevitable. This will would have been his ruin, destructive to his honour, his cha racter, and his liberty. He was, however, a bold and de. terruined man, and he made up his mind what he would Es. it would not do to destroy the will, but a new will revoking it must be executed, and he again had recourse to Whittaker. He had little time to do this. He slept in the house with his dead father, and on the day after the death he commenced his proceedinp. He went to an aged um. Named Moggeridge, who had been for many pars in bib hither'. service, and pee him 5/. for mourning, and naked him for a receipt, and he resolved to forge hie aipeture to the instrument he intended to Indus* as a witness. It would not do to make ea maitre! fresh will, but he wanted to have the entire esast of his property, and lie drew op • short will, revolt. beg the former one. and hewing the whole of the property In hw mother, be, himself, being appointed treetee, and be absiaki show clearly that this document was a forgery, and that the signature of kluggetidge and those of all the other pretended witrimses were forgeries al.o. The learned see , pent then pioceeled to say that Mrs. Roupell lived with the testator for • unsiderable time before their marriage, cud William Roupell was born before the ceremony took place. There was no doubt that there did not at to j time subsist that cordiality and confidence between the testator and his wife that ought to exist between a man and woman tin that position, and it appeared that she was out aware of the existence of the will of 1850, and she made no difficulty as to the dispositioe of the 1. The will which be alleged to be forged was dated tre ° : P h:tuf September, 1836, sod only a few days before the testator had prepared the codicil to which he had before alluded, and he asked them whether this was riot in itself almost con clusive evidence that the will was forged, and that it was forged by William ltoupell, the natural son of the testator. He then said that he should prove a variety of circumstances showing how William &mien was employed on the 2nd of September, and which would prove almost con clusively that he could not have attested this new will of his father, and that he could not have been in the oom psoy of kluggendge, the man whose name appeared to the will u witness. This was the general outline of the evidence upon which he should rely to show that the deed of gift of July, 1853, and the will of the 2nd of September, 1856, were forgeries, but there was a variety of other evidence all tending to establish the same fact. He would now proceed to narrate other circumstances in connexion with this extraordinary traosactioc. After the fuueral, Mr. Roopell applied to the professional gentlemen who had only twelve days before niadethe codicil, to obtain probate. They were surprised, and suggested that the mother ought to be the executrix, but this diffi culty was got over, and William Roupell ales into the satire possession of the whole of the property ? and he very soon embarked in • career of extravagance which astonished, and toeorne extent ecandslised, the public. He sold estate after estate, with his mother's consent, upon • premise that be would settle 3,0001. a year, and he at length became hopelessly involved, and no resource was left to him but to tell the truth, and to show that he had no right to deal with the property aa he had done, and thus enable the heir-at-law, Richard Roupell, to obtain his rights. The learned serjeant then said it was only necessary for him further to stets that William Roupell left England on the 29th of March, 1862, and that before be left he destroyed a large quantity of papers. The learned eouosel concluded by giving an outline of the nature of the evidence he prepared to lay before the jury as above detailed, and he said that he should also put William Roupell into the witness-box. He was unwilling to make any observations with regard to his con duct, but it was clear that he had ruined his mother and his brothers ; and, if he bad dose this wrong, by coming forward to make all the reparation be could, if be was speaking the truth, it appeared to him that he was actuated by the highest feelings of honour and duty. No doubt the into nate of the defendant were deeply involved in the inquiry ; be had purchased the property believing that William Rou pell could legally dispose of it ; but at the same time the interest of the real owners of the property was quite as much worthy of consideration as that of the defendant, aid if he made out that he had been defrauded of his property by the forgery and fraud of his elder brother he ought to have a verdict in this action. The following evidence was then adduced : Mr. J. T. West said— l am a farmer,and reside at Surbiton. I knew the doomed for twenty-five years. I mansged the Surbiton estate before Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell purchased it, and I subsequently became his bailiff. He died in September, 18511, and I bad been his bailiff five or six yews before, and we used to settle our accounts every week. He came down to the farm at the latter end of August, 1556. He was very ill at the time, and he died a few days after. After his death I used to amount to Mr. William Roupell, and Alpo to Mn. Roupell. Richard Ron en built some cottages about two years before his death, and I used to occupy one of them. l remember Mr. Win. Roupell coming down to see the estate before his father died. I think it was about two years before. He was accompanied by two gentlemen, but I don't know what they came for, except it was to look at the lead. After I left the esta te defendant took possession of it. Croseexamined—The property was put np foe sale by auction, and was eold to Mr. Waite for 15,0004 Some of the carts and wagons were sold to me by valuation. There was no alteration of any kind in the management of the farm until after it was sold. Mr. Richard P Reopen occupied the land and the house at this estate, and I was employed there seven years before he died. I have never said that the estate belonged to William Roupell. I swear that positively, bemuse I knew that it belonged to his father. I have not been to the office of Messrs. Linklater, the solicitors to the plaintiff, more than once, and I have not sent any persons there to give evidence. I never told Mr. Lamb, the poor rate collector, that the estate at Kingston belonged to Mr. William Roupell, and I never asked him to alter the name in the ratobook. I won't say that I always paid the sates in the name of Mr. Richard Palmer Roane& After his death I paid them in the Dime of William RoupelL The name of William Roupell was not upon the carts and wagons before his father died, nor upon the sacks. I never said to Mr. Berry, a road contractor, who had threatened some legal proceedings, that my master was Mr. William Roupall, aad that he was a barrister, and be would not get much out of him. (A laugh.) I never said that Mr. Richard Roupell had given the estate to his son William, and that he was never to turn me out of my cottage. William Roupell never interfered with the estate until after the death of his father. The witness, on re-examination, identified certain re. ceipts for poor rates that were put in, and which were made out in the name of the deceased Richard Roupell. He also said that he never heard such • thing said by any one, as that his master had given the estate to his eon William. the By Mr. llovill — Upon one OCCIIIiOO he received the sum of 3001. for the valuation of a farm from a gentleman named Nightingale, and he handed over that money to Wilfiw RoupelL Mrs. Wood rid—l am daughter of the last witness, aid remember his being employed upon the Surbiton-park farm a great many years before Mr. Richard Roupell died. The old gentleman used to come to the farm generally about once a month, and T saw him there a fortnight before be died. Mrs. Roupell was with him upon this occasion. (The witness then stated that her father could not read nor write, and she identified certain accounts that were put in, show ing that down to the year 1856, after the alleged deed of gift had been executed, the teetator exercised owner ship to the estate in question.) I don't know who my father settled with after the old gentleman's death, but I used still to continue to make out his accounts for him, and they were all kept in a book. Cross.exaniined--1 was about fifteen years old when Mr. Roupell died, and I made out the accounts from the time I was eleven years old. Some of the accounts have been destroyed because they were not thought to be of any use, but Ido not know by whom they were destroyed. I think they were not destroyed until after the sale of the property. The last time I saw old Mr. Roupell upon the farm was about a fortnight before his death. lie generallyoanie alone. except on the last two occasions, and then Mrs. Roupell came along with him. 1 remember finding some old leaves that had been torn out of a book. and I gave them to Mr. Linklater, the solicitor to the plaintiff. I know Mr. Wil liam Roupell. I have not seen him at Guildford during these maims, and I don't think I have seen him since the sale. Me-examined—l have given Mr. Linklater every paper that I found. _ M.Mrs. Eleanor Wallet!, an aired lady, said—l have known Mrs. Sarah Roupell for thirty-five years. When I first knew her she lived in Pitt-street, Peckham, and she went by the name of Carter. Mr. Remelt used to come and visit her. She had four children, John, William, Sarah, and Emma. I remember the eon Richard being born. They were not married when they first came to live at Peckham, and when she left, she went to live at Brixton, and she then for the first time went by the name of Mrs. RoupelL I saw Richard Roupell the day he was born, and I have known him ever since. Be was born in the year INJS, twenty-three yearn ago. Mrs. Maria Watta said—l arn the sister of Mrs. Roupell, and remember when she lived at Peckham. Ido not re collect bow many children she had at this time. I knew her son Richard Rimmed!, the plaintiff in the present action. She had no other children after him, and at the time be was born she went by the name of Roupell. Cross-examined—When I first knew Mr. Ronpell he bad • son named John, and a daughter named Sarah ; but I did nut know much of his family affairs, because I was a good deal on the Continent. I have not seen my sister for four years. I did not stay with theni when I was in Ragland. [The witness then proceeded to say that abe could Dot tell why she had been brought down as a withers) I have men Mrs.Roupellaince I have been at Guildford, mid Mr.Williain Roupell. I have visited my sister and her husband at their residence ut Brixton. The msr•vge register, containing an entry of the mar riage of Mr. and Mrs. Roupell, was then put in. It ap peared to have taken place at the parish church of St. Giles, Camberwell, on the 6th of December, Is3s. William Roupell, it will be remembered, was at this time a year old. _ _ Mr. R. W. Parte said—l am a lead merchant in Tothill street, Westminster, and I was well acquainted with the deceased Richard Palmer Itonpell, and had many business transactious with hits. I am well acquainted with his handwriting. He told me once that be was not married, and he consulted me upon the propriety of his getting married. This was soon after the death of his father. He came to me and said that his father was a vary eccentric man, and if he had married during his father's lifetime he would pot have left him any property. He said be had been living with a person and had a family by her, and her redefines advised him not to marry her, and be wanted my advice about it, and I told him to get married to her and to lose no time. I beard shortly afterwards that he had followed my advice, and that he was married. Jane Wordley said- -I was in the service of Mrs. Roupell. and I remember her eon Richard being born. on the 27th of July, 1840. I knew William Roupell at this time, but I cannot say bow old he was, but I should think he was about five or six. John was the oldest child, then Sarah, then William, then Emma, and thee Mr. Richard, Cross-examined—John was ten yeses older than William. Hs was sent abroad because be was rather wild. Old Mr. Roupell was very fond of William, but I cannot lay that he was more food of him than he was of the other children. I have no memorandum of the day on which Richard . . &amen was born, but my burhimi's birthday is the 26th Jely, and this makes me remember it. I remember per. featly well that it wee ie the year 1840. Mr. Bentley mid—l am a wpm as Brixton, and I have known the Houpell family for many yeses. I atteeded Mn. Roane!' during her coseammeart with her eta Rickard. Be was hors on the 27th Judy, 1910. Cross-axamieed—l frequently went to Mr. RonpelTs house, and was acquainted with his family. John was • " harum swum" fellow, cud they were obliged to send him abroad. William was given to learniug, and his father appeared to be particularly attached to him, arid he was constantly with him while the buildings were going on upon Roupell-park. I should think that more than 100,0 001. were laid out upon Roupell-park, and William Roupell was constantly employed in superintending the buildings that were going 00. The old 111114 was a very good man of busi ness, and he knew perfectly well that • large sum of money was being expended upon Roupell-park. The register of the birth of Richard Roupell was then put in. The date of the birth was stated to be the 27th of July, 1840. The certificate of the death of the testator on the 11:th of September, 1856, was also put in. It appeared that he was 74 years of age at the time of his death. Mr. Joseph Sharp said—l am clerk to Mr. Ring, proctor, of Lecture-commis, and was also clerk to his father before his death. Our tiros acted for • great many year, profes sionally for the late Mr. Roupell, and be frequently more to our office upon the subject of his will. I remember a will being prepared in 1830, but I cannot say whether I had any communication with the testator respecting it. I recol lect Mr. Halpin coining to the office in August, 18,56, and bringing his will with him, and also • memorandum. Mr. Sevin objected to the contents of this memorandum being put in evidence. Baron Martin said he thought it would be quite sufficient to prove the will. Examination continued—Mr. Roupell on this occasion produced his previous will, and I looked at it and saw that the body of it was all in niy _handwriting. I also maw the signature. The deceased called my attention to an altera tion that had been made in the will, and be showed it to me, and I told him the alterations had not been pro- perly executed, as they were attested by one witness only. He then asked me to make a oodicil, and I did so, and it was engrossed while he was in the office, and he executed it, and took the will and the codicil away with him. Mr. Bovill-1 object to this document being called • will. (A laugh.) &nicest Sbee—Well, then, the paper. Examination continued-1 read over the codicil to the testator before it wu *erased. This occurred in the 30th of August, 1866. (The deceased died on the 12th of Sep tember following.) At the time the deceased appeared to be in e pretty good state of health. (The witness then pro. duced • draft of the will be referred to ; and it was sug gested that if it had been carried out the plaintiff would have come into possession of the greater portion of the testator's property.) In answer to further questions, the witness said that he prepared several other wills for the deceased prior to the one in gelation, and that one of them was made on the 6th of March, 1839, and a codicil, it appeared, was added to it owNovember 5, 1839. No drafts or traces of any of those wills at present remained in the aloe. Serjeaut Mee said that on the part of the plaintiff the suggestion was that this will of 1850 was placed in the escritoire of the deceased, and bad never been seen since ; and he proposed to five secondary evideuce of its contents. Baron Martin said it appeared to him that until it was proved that the will was either lost or destroyed, or was in the possession of the other side, secondary evidence of its contents could not be given. Mr. John Tresdwell said— I reside at Streatham, and I remember having a negotiation with Mr. William koupell for the sale of a piece of land at Brixton. Mr. Bovill objected that the sale of this piece of land bad nothing to do with the question before the court. Baron Martin thought that, upon the opening of Burnt Slue, such evidence was relevant. The learned course was quite right, in such a case, in taking the objection ; but he felt bound to admit the evidence. Mr. Treadwell then said—The negotiation took piece in 1854. Mr. William Roupell was to give me 5,0004 for • piece of land adjoining Roupell-park, and after the transac tion was completed I applied to him during *eland months for the money, and I was eventually paid on the Ist of August, 1855. I received the money from Mr. Whittaker. The name "J. Treadwell " on these two cheques now produced, one for 5004, and the other for 4,5001., is not my hand writing, and I never saw these cheques before. (These were the cheques that were given by the deceased to his son William to pay for the land in question, and which were alleged to have been appropriated to his own use.) Mr. Whittaker was the solicitor of Mr. Bourg], and he paid me the money on his behalf. Orme-examined—l wee paid the MOO/. in flee 1,000. Beak of England notes. The signature on the cheques is not at all like my signature. 14-esamioed—One of them I should all a bad imitation of my *Datum The other is not at all like it. Mr. Balfour, • clerk in the Bank of England , proved that the cheques above referred to were paid in through the Union Bank of London, at which bank William Roupell kept an account, and where they appeared to have been paid in to hie credit. Mr. W. & Powell said—l am managing clerk to my father, who carries on the business of a law-stationer in Parliament street. I know Mr. William Roupell, and he used fre quently to come to our office on business. Berjeaet Shea here called for the p roduction of the title deeds relating to the Kingsto n pro pert y. Mr. Bovill said they did not on p roduce them. Berjeant Shee said that • notice to produce these deeds had been served on the defendant, and he should therefore be entitled to give secondary evidence of their contents. Mr. Powell then proved that in July, 1855, certain deeds having reference to the estate that was the subject of the present action were copied in their office, but he said he waa unable to state whether these deeds were brought by Mr. W. Roupell, or whether he gave any instructions re iTedb.g them. The price of the work was debited to Mr. P!` 11- Spirant Shee—Who paid for it ! Mr. Bovill—Were you present Witness—My father was. (A laugh.) Mr. B. Powell, the father of the last witness, was then called, and he stated that the work mentioned by his boo was paid for by Mr. William Roupell. He could not say, however, that he was paid personally ' and all he knew was that be got the money. Reopen generally brought the work himself, and took it away himself, and he had re ceived money from him personally in payment. He also proved that one of the entries in his books was a charge for copying • conveyance. S. Powell wu then re-called. and he stated that he remembered that part of the work that was done wu to copy a conveyance, and that it filled thirteen skins of parch ment. He said he also remembered that a deed of covenant was also copied as well as a plan of the property that was to be conveyed by the deed. The whole number of deeds that were so copied was five. Mr. William Roupell was then called. His appearance in the court appeared to excite great sensation. He said— lam the son of the late Richard Palmer Roupell, and the brother of the plaintiff. For some time before his death I lived at my father's house at Brixton, and I had chambers in St. James's-equare. I had been admitted as an attorney in the year 1854. I had an elder brother maned John, who, oa account of some misunderstanding with his father, went abroad. I enjoyed my father's confidence very much during the latter part of his life. He used to sleep at his house in Cross-street, Blackfriars, during the week, and go to Brixton on the Saturday and remain till the Monday. I knew be had property at Streatham and at Kingston. I remember the negotiation with Mr. Treulwell for the per. chase of a amen piece of laid adjoining my father's pro perty at Roupell-park. Pending the negotiation I spoke to my father about it, and proposed that he should purchase it, and told him the price was 5,000/., and I was authorised to offer him 2504 a year for it on lease by the Unity Firs Insurance Company. He knew I was connected with that company, and that 1 was then trustee for a sum of money to be invested in building. The sum was 50,00)/. that I had to invest. I had paid my father several thousand pounds, which I represented to be the rent of the Roupell•park estate, and that it was paid by the Unite Company. I also showed him a deed to explain how I lied become trades to this company. I have not got that deed now. I burnt it about a year and a half after my father's death. The par ties to this deed purported to be the Unity Company ; but it was really executed by myself. Mr. Treadwell's piece of land was contiguous to the Roupell-park estate, and I re. commended my father to purchase it as being an eligible increase to the Roupell•park property. He ultimately gave me these two cheques, one forsoo/. sod the other for 4,5001., that have been produced. He gave them to me to pay for Mr. Treadwell's land. The signature "John Treadwee on these cheques is not John Treadwell's. Serjsant Shoe—Whose is it! Mr. Roupell—Mine. • (Sensation.) Scrjeaut Shee—W hat did you do with the money? Mr. Roupell—l appropriated it to my owe purposes. Examiaation continued —The terms for the purchase of Mr. Treadwell's land were finally agreed to soon after I received the money. After this transaction I made a pro posal to my father relating to the Kingston estate. I think it was in June 1853 that this occurred. _ Ifierjesat Shoe— What was the proposed? Mr. Roapell—l proposed that he should let it to the company, to which he believed he had let the RonpeU.perk estate; and I said that they were partly disposed to take the estate on a building lease ; and he replied that they might have it for five hundred years. I said that they would require to be satisfied as to the title being good, and that it would be necessary to submit the title deeds of the Kingston estate to counsel. I was aware that the deeds were at my Wheels house is Crcesetreet, and be took them from the strong-box and gave them to me, and I signed an acknowledgment for them. I toll my father at the same time that I thought all the deeds were not there, and it would he as well to inquire of Messrs. Maroon and Co., my father's solicitors, whether they had any deeds re lating to the Kingston property. I obtained possession of the deeds, but I never took them Wes Ms. Marcos and Co. Serjeast Shea then proposed to read the acknowledgment given by the witness to his father. Mr. Bovill, however, before this was done, p o t some questions to Mr. Bonnet', in answer to which be said that when the deeds were placed on the table before him, he at the same time signed the paper that had been produced. Examination motioned—Messrs. Marion did afterwards send some abstracts of title. . . _ fferjeast ghee then again proposed to read the receipt, but Baron Martin said be thought the document was not evi dence, and he should therefore reject it. The °sides'se was pressed, and Heron Martin admitted it, and the document was read. Itsram to this effect : —„. "William Itotiptill this day takes the deeds relating to the Kinptoo estate for Yr. Minos to ioquire into the title." Examination coatinned—The moment I obtained poises aim of the deeds I took thaw to Yr. Powell, the law statical, in Parliament-street, to copy, sad I re 0 ,,j,,,g them boa afterwards, the dogleg aad the originals. I aingle the swim rammbis tbs atigimal title deeds. and gave them to my father, and I afterwards burned those deeds on the night before 1 left England. I filled up the signatures, copied the seals, and also the attestations. I took the real deeds to my solicitors, Messrs. Whittaker', in Liocubis.ion•fields. I had previously told them that uly father intended to convey the property to me, and immedi ately I took them the deeds they commenced preparing a deed of gift as from my father to me of the Kingston es tate. They gave me a letter to my father and a draft of the deed, but I did not deliver either of them to my father. I took the draft back to Mr. it hittaker, and said that my father approved of it, and told him to eogrom it. I then caused a valuation of the tetate to be made, and after the deed had been engrossed 1 ordered Mr. Truman and another gentleman to attest my siguature, but I put a piece of blotting paper so as to couoeal the place where the name was, and I afterwards added my father'a name to the deed. My father knew nothing whatever of this. Baron Martin—Am Ito understand that he never, either before or after, authorised your placing his signature to the deed ? Mr. Roupell— Certainly. Examination continued—This estate was afterwards sold by the mortgagee. and I concurred in the sale. After the execution of the deed I instructed Mr. Whittaker to raise money upon it, and he procured me a loan of 7,000/. Part of thia money was expended for the puts hese of Mr. Tread well's land, as he was becoming impatient for his money. I was under great pecuniary pressure at this time. I had mortgaged the Kingston estate, and it was sold by the mort gagee to the defendant. Mr. Bovill objected to this fact being taken as proved. Berne Martin said he thought there was evidence that the florbiton-farm estate was purchased by the defendant. Mr. Whittaker was an important witness, and the evidence went to show that he bad negociated the sale, and he ought to have been called as a witness. Se 'rut She. said that it appeared to him his learned friend ought to have produced the deed. After some further technical discussion, Mr. Bovill still declined to produce the deed, unless his lordship decided u • question of law th►t he was bound to do so. Baron Martin said he should not do this. Mr. Barill then consented to produce the deed, and he put in the supposed deed of gift of the deceased to his son. Heron Martin said he understood that the discussion had reference to the deed to Waite. (A laugh.) After some further legal argument, a deed was put in showing the conveyance of the estate to the defendant. Serjeant Shee then called for the production of the deed of gift, and it was shown to the witness. Mr. Roupell said—This is the deed that I affixed my father's signature to without his consent. Serjeant Shee—Are the deeds that are referred to in this instrument the same deeds that you took from your father! Mr. Roupell—They are. Serjeant Sties—When did you last see these deeds! Mr. Roopell—ln the presence of Mr. Whittaker, who was the solicitor for the mortgagee. Serjeant Shee—Where did you last see them? Mr. Roupell—At the private residence of Mr. Whittaker. Belleau' Shee called for the production of the mortgage deeds. Mr. Bovril! said he should not produce them. They were proved to have been last in the possession of Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Roupell was then further examined. He said—l went to my father's house in Cross-street on the morning of his death. Mrs. nonperson, the housekeeper, gave me the keys, and I opened the varlets drawers. I opened his pri vate bureau, where I knew his will had been placed, and I took possession of it, sod I secreted it. At the first oppor tunity that offered I read it, sod determined to do that which before I had meditated—namely, to secrete it. The will comprised several sheets, and there was a codicil on the back of the last sheet. _ Mr. Serjeant /Thee—What did you do with that will? Mr. Roupell—l burnt it at my father's house at Brixton, the night before I left England. Every sheet of the will was signed by my father in the way he signed all important documents, and it purported to appoint certain gentlemen as trustees. I was one of them. Mr. Clark, Mr. Berridge, and Mr. Richard Stevens were to be the other trustees. The will was dated October, 1850, and the last codicil was dated the 31st of August, 1856. The Kingston property was divided between my brother Richard and another brother. 1 prepared a short will and wrote it upon a blank form that I had obtained with several others from a law stationer in Gracechinch.etreet. I slightly altered it to suit my purpose, and then went to Mr. Muggeridge, a very old man who was my father's rent collector, and gave him Si. as for mourning, and obtained his signature to a receipt. I have since burned that receipt. I copied this signature to • sheet of piper, purporting to be an attestation to • will, and I then forged my father's signature to the will, and added my own attes tation. -- Reijeant See—Whets siguature did you write last Mr. Roupell—l think it was Ruggeridges. A document was here handed to the witness, and he cot , rooted himself and said that be put his father's signature last. He said that ltuggeridge's signature was very difficult to imitate. Serjeant Shee—What pens did you use ? Mr. Roupell—l wrote my father's signature with his own quill pen and ink, Muggeridge's also with a quill pen, and my own with a gold pen, very lightly, so as to offer as strong a contrast as possible to the other signatures. Serjeant She. —V6IIOO did you write out the will ? Mr. Roupell—Two or three days after the inquest upon my father's body. Examination oontioued—l believe I first showed the will to Mr. Watts, the husband of my mother's sister, on the day of the funeral ; and on the same day I showed it to Mr. Orme, the surgeon, and my brother Richard. I then communicated with Mr, King, my father's proctor, and left the will in his possession. At first he appeared to think it was informal, but he afterwards found it wee quite correct. The forged will was put in and read. It will be sufficient to lay that it conveyed the whole of the testator's ptoperty to his wife, and made her and the wither, William Ron pall, executors and trustees to carry the will into execu tion, and it revoked all former wills. Mr. Roupell was further examined. He said—the will was not drawn up by me on the day it bears date, the god of September. My father was very ill on the sth of Sep tember, and he continued to get worse until his death. Ify mother was with him from this time until his death at the house in Cross-street. No one wee aware of my intention to make this forged will. Sergeant Shee—Did your mother know anything of it Mr. Itoupell—She did not. He then went on to state how bin time was occupied during the whole day on the 2nd of September, to @how that he had no opportunity of attesting the will on that day. Mr. Rotipell, on being further examined, said that he left England on the .10th of March and went to Spain, and the night before he left he burned a great quantity of papers at Aspen House, the residence of his late father, at Brixton, and where he had himself resided aims hi death . When Sediment She. est down, Mr. Baron Martin ad- dressed Mr. vill, and said that if he plowed he might postpone hie crow-examination until the morning. Mr. Bovill said he should like to ask Mr. Roupell one or two questions. He then asked him whether he did not swear before the surrogate that the will in question was a genuine one, and that the signature to it was his father's signature ? Mr. Roupell—l am sorry to say I did. Mr. Bovill—And did you then deliberately commit wilful perjury ? 3dr Roupell—ln &certain seine I did. • Mr. Bovill—Have you not wilfully and deliberately per jured yourself either today or upon that occasion? Mr. Reopen made no answer. Mr. Davin then said he should postpone his further crow examination. Baron Martin—The sheriff must take this man into cu "Tlis was done, and the court then adjourned. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. (Before the Common Berjeent.) _ . Willisss eltampion Raton, 45, dealer, was indicted for unlawfully pledging one chimney glass and other goods, valued 1651.,with intent todefraud, he having been adjudged a bankrupt. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. K Bailey prosecuted, and Mr. Ribton defended ; Mr. Orridge appearing to watch the case upon behalf of the person who had bought the dupli cated of the property which had been pawned. The case, which occupied a considerable time, was not one presenting any peculiar features of public interest, except ing the fact of its being the first prosecution under the new powers given to commissioners to commit for fraud. The prosecutors to the indictment were Messrs. Seise, of Moorgate-street, upholsterers, and in January last the prisoner applied to them stating that he was aboutopesing a boarding house and hotel in Skinner-street, City, and giving references purchased of the prosecutors property of the value named in the indictment, and agreed to pay au instalment of 251. on the 15th of April and 101. a month afterwards. The first instalment was not paid, and the prisoner, who had previously refused to give • bill of sale to the prose cutors, asked for • month longer, to meet the payment, but this was not agreed to, and upon the 30th of April prosecutors 'erred Lim with a writ for the amount due, and upon the 6th of May took out • trader summons, prepara tory to making prisoner bankrupt, and the prisoner himself then applied, upon the 15th of May, to the court, and upon his owe petition was adjudged& ltankrupt. Mr. George Blames and Mr. Snell, junior, the officer and shorthand writer to the Court of Bankruptcy, proved the examination and cross-examination of the prisoner before the court, and in answer to those questions relating to the property, the prisoner stated that upon the 14th he had pawned • portion of the property which the prosecutors had wet to his house in Skinner street, and upon the 15th, the day on which he had peti tioned the court, be pawned another lot, making in all 221., and that be sold the duplicates to • person for 101. The bankrupt before the commissioners stated that his debts amounted to 2661. 45., being only 1001. more than be owed to the prosecutors. He stated that he had been bankrupt before, and also an insolvent, tint be did Dot tell the prosecutors so when they parted with their property. His accounts showed that a portion of the 100/. which las owed over awl above the debt to the peoseeutors, included ie it 251. for a quarter's rent, and 401. which be should have paid as a premium to enter the house. Evidence wee adduced which proved the pawning of the goods is question, and also the disposal of the duplicate*. Mr. Itibton, in defence, contended that the conduct of the prisoner clearly did not come within the meaning of the act under which he was indicted. The act said that it was • question whether the primmer intended to defraud his arsclitars, but it was evident to this bislang* bl) suck ia lenient existed. This w■s not one of those cases where a man !col obtained a large quantity of goods, and had a large number of creditors, and bad disposed of the property for his own benefit with an intent to defraud a Large number of persons. It was clear from the evidence given by the prose cution that the prisoner was in legal difficulties. At the thee he parted with the goods be had, iu all probability, done so to cover those expenses, and he had every meson to believe that in • year like the present, on account of the Exhibition, the speculation he es tend into would not be a fallen, . . The prisoner received a good character from win' wit. nes,,es, and . _ The Jury, after roue deliberatios, returned s verdiet of Not guilty. THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 19, 1862. SURREY SESSIONS. Joseph Grossdass, 12, the eon of docent parents, residing in Howland-street, Fitaroyequare, who bad been convicted at the last sessions of administering canth•rides to Huth Glynn, was called up for judgment. It apt-eared from the evidence given at the time of the trial that the proscenia went to Richmond with other Sunday 'cholera to a feast, and the prisoner was among the party. %hen the children were enjoying themselves, the prisoner got another boy to purchase two pennyworth of Spanish flies at a chemist's, and some taste. He mixed the flies in the tarts, and gave one to the proseoutria, and afterwards behaved indecently to her. She was taken very ill, and the prisoner was given into custody. During the trial the girl fainted away twice, and her evidence taken before the magistrate was read over to her. The sentence was postponed, to ascertain the result of the injury inflicted on her. Mr. Robinson, who attended for the prosecution ' rid that unfortunately since the trial the poor girl had become a maniac, and was at the present time confined in St. Pan cras Lunatic Asylum. Mr. Thompson, for the prisoner, urged his youth and inex perience in such a drug, hoping that • slight punishment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and a lesson to him for the remainder of his life. The Chairman observed that it was a very bad me in deed, and it would be impossible for them to peas it over lightly. The sentence of the court was that he be impri soned for two months, and ►t the expiration of that term be confined in a reformatory three years. James Sharp and Ma ry Sharp, his wife, were indicted for stealing a pocket-book containing 5/., the property of James . . . II appearod from the evidence that the prosecutor dropped his pocket-book and oontent, in the street, and the prisoners were seen to pick it op. They converted the money to their own use, and refused towy anything about it. The jury found them both Guilly. Sentence, two months' hard labour. THE POLICE COURTS. YANSION•HOUSS Edwin Wag, who wan placed at the bar on Saturday leek charged with embezzling moseys to the amount of 2501. belonging to hia employers, Messrs. Richard Enna and Cob, 24, Watlmg-street, warehouse's's, was brought up sok yesterday before Mr.•Aldermaa Challis, who at for the Lord Mayor. Mr. Named, the solicitor for the Society for the Prose cution of Fraudulent Servants, egain . appeared to prosecute. The facts of the cam were given is our report of yeeter. day. It was further proved yesterday that the prisoner bad received two other amounts, which, although he had entered in the ledger, he had not accounted for to the head clerk, as was his duty. The prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed for trial. A foreigner, who gave his name as John Prier, aged 27, and was described is • barber, was brought up on a charge of indecently assaulting a little girl, 12 years of age, named Eliza Norris. The prisoner, it appeared, was employed at • hairdresser's shop in Lime-street, and on Saturday evening the little girl was sent out for a box of limiters, and on returning she happened to drop the box down the arm grating of the shop where the prisoner was employed. She asked a little gist who wee standing at the door to ask her father to get thesis for her. The prisoner came oat, and as hearing what win the matter called the child down stairs into thecae: where the matches were, and while there committed the amault in question. There was also another case in width the prisoner wee charged with attempting to assault a child 10 yeah of age. The prisoner denied the charge, and said that it all mess out of his kindne►s. With regard to the that charge, he only lifted the child in his arms for the purpose of taking her out of the cellar. With regard to the other case, the girl 'rented some one who lived down in the cellar, and the followed him, and ea he came upstairs he took her in his arms, but did not commit, or attempt to commit, anT assault. The prisoner was remanded. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Maria Mani was ;;;;u7s the death of her infant. Elisabeth Mauring, servant to Dr. PROM, 29, Pall.mall, said on Saturday morning a hamper was left at the house. She opened it and found an infant about four months old lying on its right side. The infant appeared poorly. She gave it a warm bath, and afterwards took it to SL James's Workhouse. Police-sergeant Buoce, C 27, law the child at Pall-mall, and afterwards, when dead, at the workhorse. The prisoner came to the workhouse to give information. she said, about the mother of the obild. The prisoner gave a number of particulars, all of which were false. Witness afterwards took the prisoner into custody, and on searching her lodg. lags, No. 60, Cbandoestreet, found some babe) clothes which corresponded with the articles sent with the deowsed infant, The prieoner eventually admitted that the child warn her own ; that being in a destitute condition she had sect it 14 Dr. Paratt, who being a distant relative was better able to support it than she was. She mid the child was quite well when she sent it. She cried a good deal on being told it was dead. Remanded. ALLEGED WILFUL DESTRUCTION OP SHIPS. Last week a person named Thomas Jamieson was brought before the Liverpool magistrates, charged with having written threatening letters to • merchant, named Buxton, for the purpose of extorting money, The prisoner alleged hi one of his letters that he had destroyed a vessel called the Roscoe, of which be was.at one time the captain, in obedience to Buxton's instructions, and threat ened Buxton with exposure if he did not pay him a certain sum of money. In consequence of an advertisement offering a reward of 2001., and a free pardon to any person or persona who would give such information as would lead to the conviction of shipowners and others who might be concerned in the wilful demolition of ships, the prisoner was induced to write the following letter to Mr. Ruston t " I beg to cal your attention to the enclosed advertisement (the advertisement alluded to above). . . . t Now, my intentions are, that I must either have a settlement, or 1 cannot love the opportunity the advertisement gives, of exposing our joint villany, of which you reaped all the reward. . Yon could pay Beni and Brand . r liberal sums, so I would Wane you to come to terms immediately." After writing thin letter Jamieson had an interview with Mr. Ruston, when he was told that lie was endeavouring to intimidate him. To this assertion of Itustou's the prisoner made answer Ruston I am desperate, and if you don't give me 1601., I will go to the polio. ante and swear you burnt the ship," and Mr. Rastas then gave him into custody. Mr. Pemberton, the solicitor, who appeared for the pri. loner last week, asked for an adjournment, as he said he should be able to substantiate the charges made in the prisoner's letters, and a remand was accordingly grouted. Yesterday the prisoner was again brought before the magistrates at the Liverpool police court, but was not allowed to substantiate his assertions, and was therefore committed for trial at the assizes, the magistrates coosi denog the isvestigation of the assertions made by Jamieson matter for inquiry in another court. THE MURDER AT NEWCASTLE. —On Sunday morning the river police again commenced their labours for the recovery of the body of the unfortunate man whose murder we reported yesterday. At shoot 4 o'clock in the afternoon the grappling irons fastened in the body of the object of their search, and the corpse of Patrick Rogers, alias Needle Jack, was drawn to the surface, after Levin been for twenty.su hours submerged. The body was fouled under the berth of the reseal that bad leis nearest the quay. It had been strongly embedded is the mud at the bottom of the river, and on being brought to land it was taken to the dead boom, where it awaits the coroner's in• quisition.. Pnrra✓le Chronicle. THE ALLEGED MURDER NEAR FITZROY-SQUARE. Last evening Dr. lankester resumed sod concluded the be quest on the body of Elizabeth Carley who, it was alleged, bad been murdered by Charles Francis C,otier, a furniture broker, with whom she lived at 42, Warren-street, Fitzroy square, as stated in our columns of Saturday. Mr. Sleigh again attended for the relatives of the deossioed, and a clerk from the office of Yr. Edward Lewis for the accused, who, it was stated, bad been that day c o m m itt e d f or w ilf u l murder by the magistrate of Marlborough Police-court. The coroner said he had written to the Home Secretary that the prisoner might be brought before the jury, and be reed • letter from Mr. Waddington, the tinder Secretary, which stated that the Home Secretary did not feel himself justified in ordering the prisoner to be broht up. It was not for him (the coroner) to say much on the subject, as he had not long held the office, but it did appear to him that it was portent that juries should have the parties before them who might be committed for murder or manslaughter. The coroner having read over the evidence, the jury, after Moe discussion, deliberated with closed doors, sad returned a verdict of " Mauslaughter " against Cozier, who steads nom- witted on both charge& CRYSTAL PALACZ. —ONE SHILLING DAY.— MONDAY. AUGUST 18.—Admissions on payment, 6,020; ditto, by arson tickets, 693 total, 6,723. FOOD AND ITS ADO LTZILATIOW.—" I have carefully analysed Nockey's well.known Stoats' *Wised from Ti, Daum street, at. James's, and led It to be a giamtne, most wholesome, and highly nourithlea ne.stede. lame MM. and. cieneseisswely. more elliree , lMe, than London stet hs reseeral—arthair 8111 Basalt X.D., London "—Cash of 11, 9, and le gallons at le. ad. per gallon 3a. per dozen OEM: fa tometa—amopset (late Blockeyi, rt. Duke-Week St. ams's. Zstabliabed •ow terr.-I•dvatiminnent. 114111fE: LONDON WEEKLY DOCK rS.—AUCCter 14;. ;IT. Stock Ir.l. ilapurtd. 804 es—W. I. seas Dail 3,2011 Illeurttloo boss 1,632 rest led& bags 7,00 Siam baskets Manille heel lieraos boxes 161 1.310 e Wats, r=albaseovedoerskr 2,0(4 Do. bear packed& SOO ' 061,11—Wed Delis slew Do-brie& Gaon mix 2,327 brie.* iewe dam Yetis peekaged 2( Other ii. Lodia packeeee 6,066 _Do. do. ..0 see - - 47,709 119,5.4 9- .97/1 1150,f,4 141,1165 y 4 .4 ,7 2. 1 112 251,412 924.H4 61,915 Se 9 b 6 n: 11,670 1,73:1 3.1:2 9,613 ; 33,601 2; Po, 14,Nt4 _ . Brasil d Costa Ilk& lap 2,1163 Cooo6. . haw 1,609 landpi BAY ca•ks 1456 Do. hha LI toes' 2,910 Bm/rim= NQun or Penni 760 44,7/3 2 0.426 120.4.4 28,861 14;•si con 30-10 4,196 3,54 TALLOW.—Thu tallow raerket has been fine today, sad prime are fully supported in all position.. From Peters burg the market is reported quiet at :t silver roubles • exchange, 35d. Shi ppe d off to .late 1860, 54,339 ; moo ; 1862, 5,6 A Oar closing prices are-- Spot, 1861. brack, 48a. 3d., DO DOW offering at present. Sep tember, 495. 6t1.; October to December, 50s. t o .506. 34. ; ma. 6d. ; January to March, 50a 6d. to 506. 9d. Tapnrog cheep, 49.. ; beef, 48s. South Americas, 485., Ist pips; North Americo, 485., good; 475. 61, loforior. Australian beef, 465. 6d. to 475.; good to floe, 445. to 435. low and inferior. Town tallow, 475. 3d. to 475. 61., net cosh. Cocoa nut 01l &a ; Cochisi, 565. fd. ; Carlon. 546. ; Sydney , 53.. to Ms. good to low quality. Nam oil steady, 435. &L to 445. 3d., good to 2as Lagos Comeroons,43l. ; Aocra, 41..; Windward kinds, 33.. to 375. Palm nut oil, 41s. to 421. Hass grease. :Wes ; rough fat, 2s. Bd.—Prom the circular of Mews. Smith and Charles, dated Monday 'as. COTTON.—Llvnatoot, Avner, 18.—The sales to-day have been upon a very lane scale, with an advance sin ce Friday of led. to 2d. per lb. in American, Brazil, and bop. tian. The sales are 30.000 bales, :ncluding 11.130 Amen. can, 18d. to 22d. ; 12.000 Surat, 130. to ltd. ; 3,000 Fgyp. tau", ltd. to 22d.; 700 Pernem. 1944. to 221.; 3,000 Baba and Ifaceio, 180. to 194 d.; 170 llarenharn, 190. to lid. ; of which 15,W0 ere formeculation and export. Then u DO impart this week. CATTLE—Lrrcaroot., AVOUNT 18.—The supply of stock tram less than on last Moody. The dem tod fair for both cattle sod sheep, at full prior for the best quality of each. Inferior rather cheaper. lambs sold dearer. GOALS.-Lownon, Ammer 18.-Ball's Primrose, 12.; Brant'. &beide Wist Hartley, 16s. ; Devison's Wen Bartley lbs. ; Grey's West Hartley, 14s. 6d.; llolywell Mafia, 16. N. ; Lambert's West Hartley, 16 9d. ; North Felton Gas, 18..6d.• Tanbeld Moor, 13e.; TauSeld Moot Bates, 13s. ; Walls rad Acorn Close, lbs. 9d. ; Walls End Eden, 16s. 9d. ; Ede. Main, 16 61. ; Walls End Pram. wellgate, 16 9d. ; Walls End Haswell, 17s. 6cl ; Walls Bid Hettoo, 17s. 6d. ; Walls End South Ileum. 17s. ; Walls End Stewart's, 16s. 6d.; Walls End Tuustall, 16. 6d.; Walls Eod Camp, 16e. 3d. ; Walls End Ceradon, 16s. 31; Walls Eod Hartlepool, 16a. 6d. ; Walls End Haugh Hall, 15s. 9d. ; Walls Eod Hellcat, 18e. 3d. ; Walls End South Hartlepool, lbs. 9d. ; Walls Mad South Bello°. 16e. Walls End Trim:lca Hartlepool, 16e. 6d. ; Walls Lad Trimdon Thoroley, 14.. 9d. ; Walls End Whitworth, Ms.; °army and Doffryn Anthracite, 21s. ; Cerway and buffoon Balking, ; oowpso Hartley, lbs.-Ships at market, 144 ; sold, 67. TRAFFIC RETURNS. 1 Wee Pea- Mew Total. Usk 1611W6111 open sear skeane* MU DU Week ending July EL Detroit end Iffiwsukee lgi 2,613 2,146 Week ending August L Ruffalo and Inks Huron 1611 1,740 1,21 Greet Western of Canada 146 3,048 1,814 7,702 6,618 Week ending August 16. Oss ifirfghten, and B 8414 21.7)1 3,869 28,580 114.014 Boa* lestern — 114,1411 6,5641 2e,i17 20.401 VESSKLS SPOHIN WITH. Albin (Hamburg barque', from New York for Shaugbae, July 11, Ml 29 N., lon. 36.46 W. Zmroaaael. aeon, from London for China, July 18, lat. 36 N., lon. 16 W. Use (Hamburg barque), from Tobago fur Liverpool tt days, July 24, off Sombrero Cay. laperanee ;Danlah schooner), from Hamburg for Maranlaant lot. 10.91 N.. lon. 30.26 W. Frigate Bard, from London for Vancouver's island, Aug. 13, eight miles off Falmouth, all well. Philo, Btarcleh, from la oon, for Couatantinople, July 9, of Cape Bonn. Frances. Gerard, from Ghent for Carthagena, Aug. 7, lat. 49 N., lon. 6 W. Oirondin, Devineau, from Guadeloupe for Bordeaux, Aug. 7, W. 41 N., 10u. 32 W. Moors, for Madras, lat. 9 8., lon 32 E., by the Lady ly re, Patch. lug, M Calcutta. MW,Miha (Bremen ship). from Antwerp for New York, Aug. 7, lat. 44.16 N., lou. 221 30 W. Northern Light, of London, from Liverpool for Shansime, July 2, lat. Ll 9 N.,lrse. 24.11 W. Nile, of Plymouth, from Liverpool for Shanghae supplied her with a topmast, Yoe having been dial:mated in a squall . , lat. 8., km 27 W. THE OUTWARD WIRT INDIA AND PACIFIC MAIM —Sorriurrrog, Ammer 18. —The Royal Mail Company's steamship Tumanian, Captain Sawyer sailed hence to-day, at 3 o ' clock, with the foitoightly mails for the British and Foreign West Indies, the Pacific, Central America, &c. She took out 117 passengers, including the Lord Bishop of Honolulu and family. the Most Rev. Archbishop B. Guerard, Lieutenant Salmood, Lieutenant Wright. Com. piny Sergeant Major Sullivan, Lieutenant Belcher, Captain Harvey, and the Rev. W. lbboleou. The Tasmanian took on freight--bar gold, value 420,7004 ; gold coin, 1,121!. 10s.; silver coin, 4001. ; jewellery, 2,1531. ; French jewellery, 3,3484 ; and • full cargo of general merchandise. The steamship Msngerton, Captain Blackmore, also sailed hew to-day, for Vigo and Lisbon, with 15 passengers, • large 0 , 010, and spew, 52,000 sovereigns, on freight. SOUTH Kswatscrrox Moszum.—During the week ending August 16, the visitors have been as follows :—Os Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday, free days, open from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., 26,429 ; on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, students' days (admission to the public &IA open from 10 a.m. till 6 p.m., 9,721 ; total, 36,150. From the opening of the museum, 3,115,507. (Ad vertisem nu t. OLLow•fil OINTMENT AND Elusi—Distempers of emalea —There are many derangements of the circulation and the nerves to which woman patiently, though unwisely, submits, till disease Is established and health nadarmined. In all such Irregularities Hollowaya (hutment diligently rubbed down tbs spine twice a-eLy ,will hoer the happiest effect la regulating all erroneous action, and In win bag excessive nervous sensibility. Holloway s Pills 'should be taken at the Men time to improve the digestion, parity all the mire .reAl organs, and direct the vital energies so essential to the male tenance of health. The =lattice of female., whether mastitis- Hopei or ftmetional, chronic or rec. nt, usually so his, yet so absolutely necessary for their comfort, welfare, and - nem soon AM to this vestment. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATH& BIRTHS. BAJcMY,LOR. 7 August 15, saSk Marraroad, Peckham, Mrs 11. Batchelor, of a eTn. - CONNOR.—August 16, at Deal, Kent, the wife of Crptain F. Connor, of a son. DALTON.—August 1g at Dean Lodge, near Kimbolton, the elle of H. It. 8. Dalton, Rep.. of a son. HALO: August 15, at If sazmersmith, the wile of J. Haig, Km • of a son MIRAPATIL—August 15, at Argyll-road, Kensington, the wife of 8. Berapath. leg., of a daughter. MARSB.—August IS. at Market-place, Kitipton-ou-Thames, the wife of B. Marsh. Req.. of a sou. BRALlL—August 14, ettAVest Woodhay Rectory, Berks, the wife of the Rev. X. Seale, of a son. surros.—Ataigust 14, at West Hampnett Vicarage, near Chi chester, the wife of the Rev. H. suiton. of a sou. THOMA.B.—August 14. at Warnsworth Rectory, Doncaster, the wife of the Bev. C. Y. Thomas, of a son. MARRIAGES. HAZILL-11MITH.—August Janies•the•Less, Vktoriv Mit, by the Rev. W. J. Grundy, Mr. W. L Hazel', to Miriam, daaoter of the late J. B. Smith. Fay. LEMA.N—HART.—Awud 14, at St. %lark's, Surbiton, Surrey. by the Rev. J. F. Oltiud, James Curtis, son of J. Leman, Es., Chester-terrace, Regent's-park, to June Margaret, daughter nt Colonel H. G. Hart, of Surinton. LONGDEN—CHUBB.—Augtuct 14. at West Hackney Church. by the Be,. T. D. Lamb, J. L Longdeu. t.Wytain H.R.'s roth Regt., I. Eleanor Harriet, daughter of M. Chubb, lay., ui Shacklewell. PATON—LUMSDEN.—Augnst 14, at St. James's Fulani.' Church, Aberdeen. by the Rev. T. R. Wrenford, Major J. Paton. of Orandholm, to Catherine Margaret, daughter Colonel T. Lumsden, of Belhcic le Lodge, C.B. RODY.N—REILLY.—Anguat 14, at AB Langharoplace., l l the Rev. G. W. Stratton, the hart of Roden, to Llecueutwa Janet, widow of the late Captain B. L Reilly. DEATH& ATLYKIL—Aagusi 19. at Newton, Devon, Louisa Ann LIC.) Aylmer, relict of General Lord Ay mer, 0.C.8. BROW I`4ll.—Aognet la, at Chariesatreet, Oresvenor *ism. Georgina daughter ot thg hag D. 0. Browse, Egg, ot Cagle' roacgarrott, coantY Mato, died 73. CATHCAILT.—AngnatiI, at Leamington, Lady Mary Blizahete EWAXT.-laanst if, at Paris, relict of the late 9. Pent Sm., of Panion'agreme, war hilham POUSTNIY.—Aviirat 11, at Rhyl. Aimee, daughter of the late tor. H. Pantry, ILA., Vicar of Bt. Jobs's, Wolverhalopt... aged ItlCHAloll.—aggast iA, at Ouzignuts. map Weilord. ilehards, By., 'god IL PekW cell lteldhhel l 7 Wortate Kos N^. Lashelehe the city of Louden, Printer. at Uo• Oise, it labilf44lft•et, in the Precinct of Whir. ANNIE " VOA 'TS. ISTURN !Delnert; 1,481 1,447 3,1413 •e 7 1,0.9 3,N30 377 I . F ~.„x . n 1 d! troll emb DU: Com flits