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

~.-.....1...... TEES hitiNi Losnom TUBSDAY EV NI NO, AUGUST 19, 16111# proved that one of the entries in his books was a cheque for copying a conveyance. Mr. W. S. Powell was then recalled, and he stated that he remembered that part of the work itthafituwedasl3dosnkeiowsa of p a conveyance, and that y chment. He said he also re membered that a deed of covenant was also copied , sc copying 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 w as fi ve. Mr. William Roupell was then called. His ap- pearance in the conk appeared to excite great sen sation. Ile said—l am the son of the late Richard Palmer Roupell, and the brother of the plaintiff. For soma time before his death I lived at my father's louse at Brixton, and I had chambers in st. James's-square. I had been admitted as an attorney in the year 1854. I had an elder brother named John, who, on account of some misunder standing 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-road, during the week, and go to Brixton on the Saturday and remain till the Monday. I knew he had property at Streatham and at Kingston. I remember the negotiation with Hr. Treadwell for the purchase of a small piece of land adjoining my father's property at Iteupell 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 J was authorised to offer £250 a-year for it upon lease by the Unity Fire Insurance Company. He knew I was connected with that company, and that ',was their trustee for a sum of money to be invested in building. The sum was £50,000 that 1 had to invest. I had paid my father several thousand pounds which I represented to be the rent of the Roup3ll Park estate, and that it was paid by the Unity Company. I also showed him a deed to ex plain how I had become trustee 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 parties to the deed purported to be the Unity Company, but it was many executedby myself. Mr. Treadwell's piece of land was contiguous to the Roupell Park estate, and I recommended my father to purchase it, as being an eligible increase to the Roupell Park pro perty. He ultimately gave me these two cheques — one for £5OO and the other for £4,500 —that have been produced. He gave them to me to pay for Mr, Treadwell'sland. The signature, " John Treadwell," on those cheques is not John Treadwell's. Sergeant Shee—Whose is it ? Mr. Roupell—Mine. (Sensation.) Sergeant Shee—What did you do with the money ? Mr. Roupell—l appropriated it to my own pur poses. Examination continued—The terms for the pur chase of Mr. Treadwell's land were finally agreed to soon after I received the money. After this tran saction I made a proposal to my father relating to the Kingston estate. I think it was in June, 1855, that this occurred. Sergeant Shee—What was the proposal ? Mr. Roupell—l proposed that he should let it to the company to which he believed he had let the Roupell Park estate, and I said they were partly disposed to take the estate on a building lease, and he replied that they might have it for five hun dred 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 father's house, in Cross-street, and he took them from the strong box and gave them to me, and I signed an acknowledgment for them. I told my father, at the same time, that I thought all the deeds were not there, and it would be as well to inquire of Messrs. Marson and Co., my father's solicitors, whether they had any deeds relating to the Kingston property. I obtained pos session of the deeds, but I never took them to Messrs. Marson and Co. Sergeant Shee then proposed to read the acknow ledgment given by the witness to his father. Mr. Bovill, however, before this was done put some questions to Mr. Roupell, in answer to which he 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 continued—Messrs. Marson did afterwards send some abstracts of title. Sergeant Shee then again proposed to read the receipt, but Baron Martin said he thought the document was not evidence, and he should therefore reject it. The evidence was pressed, and Baron Martin ad mitted it, and the document was read. It was to this effect : "William Roupell this day takes the deeds re lating to the Kingston estate for Mr. Marson to in quire into the title." Examination continued—The moment I obtained possession of the deeds I took them to Mr. Powell, law stationer in Parliament-street, to copy, and I received them back afterwards, the conies and the originals. I made the copies resemble the original title deeds, and gave them to my father, and I after wards burned those deeds on the night before I left England. I folded up the signatures, copied the seals, and also the attestations. I took the real deeds to my solicitors, Messrs. Whittaker's, in Lincoln's inn-fields. I had previously told them that my father intended to convey the property to me, and immediately I took them the deeds they commenced preparing a deed of gift as from my father to me of the Kingston estate. 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. William Whittaker and said that my father approved of it, and told him to engross it. I then caused a valuation of the estate to be made, and after the deed had been engrossed I induced Mr. Truman and another gentleman to attest my sig nature, but I put a piece of blotting-paper so as to conceal the place where the name was, and I after wards added my father's name to the deed. My father knew nothing whatever of this. Baron Martin—Am I to understand that he never, either before or after, authorised your plac ing his signature to the deed? Mr. Roupell—Certainly. Examination continued—The estate was after wards sold by the mortgagee, and I concurred in the sale. After .the execution of the deed I in structed Mr. Whittaker to raise money upon it, and he procured me a loan of £7,000. Part of this money was expended for the purchase of Mr. Treadwell'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 mortgagee to the defendant. Mr. Bovill objected to this fact being taken as proved. Baron Martin said he thought there was evidence that the Norbiton Farm estate was purchased by the defendant. Mr. Whittaker was an important witness, and the evidence went to show that he had negotiated the sale, and he ought tohave been called as a witness. Sergeant Shee said that it appeared to him his learned friend ought to have produced the deed. After some further technical discusiion, Mr. Bovill still declined to produce the deed, unless his lordship decided, as a question of law, that he was bound to do so. Baron Martin said he should not do this. Mr. Bovill then consented to produce the deed, and he put in the supposed deed of gift of the de ceased to his son. Baron Martin said he understood that the discus sion had reference to the deed to Waite. (A laugh.) After some further legal argument, a deed was I put in showing the conveyance of the estate to the defendant. Sergeant Shee then called for the production of the deed of gift, and it was shown to the witness. Mr. Roupell said—That is the deed 1 affixed my father's signature to without his consent. Sergeant Shee—Are the deeds that are referred to in this instrument the same deeds that you took from your father ? Mr. Roupell—They are. Sergeant Shee—Where did you last see these deeds ? Mr. Roupell—ln the Possession of Mr. Whittaker, who was the solicitor for the mortgagee. Sergeant Shee—When did you last see them? Mr. Roupell—At the private residence of Mr. Whittaker. Sergeant Shee called for the production of the mortgage deeds. Mr. Bovill said he should not produce them. They were proved to have been last in the posses sion 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. Hunnerson, the housekeeper, gave me the keys and I opened the various drawers. I opened the private bureau when I knew his will had been placed, and I took posses sion of it, and I secreted it. At the first opportunity that offered I read it, and determined to do that which before I had meditated—viz„ to secrete it. The will comprised several sheets, and there was a codicil on the back of the last sheet. Sergeant Shee—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 pur ported to assign certain gentlemen as trustees. I was one of theni. Mr. Clark, Mr. Surridge, and Mr. Richard Stevens were to be the other trustees. The will was dated October, 1850, and the last codicil was dated Aug. 31, 1856. The Kingston property was divided between mybrother Richard and another brother. I prepared a short will, and wrote it on a blank form I had obtained with several others from a law stationer in Gracechurch-street. I slightly altered it to suit my purpose, and went to Mr. Mug.. b geridge, a very old man, who was my father's rent collector, and gave him £5 as for mourning, and ob tained his signature to a receipt. I copied this signa ture to a sheet of paper purporting to be an attesta tion to a will, and then forged my father's signature to the will, and added my own attestation. Sergt. Shee—Whose signature did you write last? Mr. Roupell—l think it was Muggeridge's. A document was here handed to the witness, and he corrected himself and said he put his father's signature last. He said that Muggeridge's signature wa s very difficult to imitate. Sergeant Shee—What pens did ycu 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 pos sible to the other signatures. Sergt. Shee—When did you write out this will ? Mr. Roupell—Two er three days after the inquest upon my father's body. Examination continued—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 surveyor, and my brother Richard. I then communicated with Mr. Ring, my father's proctor, and left the will in his possession. At first he appeared to think it was in formal, but he afterwards found it was quite correct. The forged will was put in and read. It will be sufficient to say that it conveyed the whole of the testator's property to his wife, and made her and the witness Win. Roupell executors and trustees to carry the will into execution, and it revoked all for mer wills. Mr. Roupell was then further examined. He said —The will was not drawn up by me on the day it bears date, Sept. 2. My father was very ill on Sept. sth, and he continued to get worse until his death. My mother was with him from this time until his death at the house in Cross-street. No one was aware of my intention to make this forged will. Sergeant Shee—Did your mother know anything of it ? Mr Roupell—She did not He then went on to state how his time was occu pied during the whole day on Sept. 2d, to show that he had no opportunity of attesting the will on that day. Mr. Roupell, on being further examined, said that he left England on the 30th 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 since his death. When Serjeant Shee sat down, Mr. Baron Martin addressed Mr. Bovill, and said that if he pleased he might postpone his cross-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 signa ture to it was his father's signature ? Mr. Roupell—l am sorry to say I did. Mr. Bovill—And did you then deliberately com mit wilful perjury ? Mr. Roupell—ln a certain sense I did. Mr. Bovill—Have you not wilfully and delibe rately perjured yourself, either to-day or upon that occasion ? Mr. Roupell made no answer. Mr. Bovill then said he should postpone his further cross-examination. Mr. Baron Martin—The sheriff must take this man into custody. This was done, and the court then adjourned. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Aug. 18. MURDER AT CHELTENHAM. Elizabeth Hale, a domestic servant, aged 26, was charged with the wilful murder of her child, aged 3 months, on the 21st of Jan. last. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Puller conducted the prose cution, and Mr. James defended the prisoner. Mr. Cooke, having opened the case in a very temperate address, called a number of witnesses, who deposed to facts, of which the following is a summary : The prisoner had been in the service of Mrs. Smith, of Brunswick House, Cheltenham, where she had formed an improper connexion with some person, and at the end of November, being in the family way, she went to the house of a woman named Est, where she was confined, on the 22d of November, of a female child. She remained at Mrs. Est's about a month after this, when she left (just before Christmas-day) to go to her service again, leaving the child in the care of Mrs. Est, and agree ing to pay her ss. a week for its maintenance. The child remained with Mrs. Est until the 21st of January, when the prisoner came to her, and, tell ing her she wanted to remove it to a nurse nearer to her, took the child away. Mrs. Est dressed the child in the usual way that children were attired, and the prisoner asked to have some more of her clothes sent to her next day. Accordingly more clothes were sent, and three weeks later, when a messenger was sent by Mrs. Est to the prisoner for some money for the maintenance of the child while under her care, she was asked how the child was. She answered it was going on nicely. Nothing was seen of the child after it was taken from Mrs. Est's, and the prisoner remained in her situation up to the sth of April, when the dead body of the child was found in the scullery, shrivelled up, and with a pocket handkerchief tightly tied across its mouth. Suspicion then fell upon the prisoner, who being challenged with it (having previously said that the child was out at nurse with her mother), admitted that the body was the body of her child. The clothes sent by the nurse after the child was re ; moved by the prisoner were found in the prisoner's box, and the child when discovered was proved to be dressed precisely as it had been attired by Mrs, Est when it was taken away. A statement of the prisoner made before the coroner was read. She said she had taken the child from Mrs. Est's to place it with Mrs. Torkin, who had told her she lived near the burying-ground,that she could not find her,and that afterwards she found the child was dead in her arms ; that she then tied up its jaw with a handkerchief and put it in the scullery at Mrs. Smith, where she thought no one would be likely to find it, intending,when she went away in the summer, to bury it. Mr. James addressed the jury in a powerful speech for the prisoner, contending that the evi dence was not sufficiently conclusive to convict the prisoner of a charge which would lead to the for feiture of her life if substantiated. His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to the jury that there could be no question of concealment of birth in this case. Either the prisoner was guilty of murder or not guilty. He then minutely examined the evidence that had been produced on the trial. The jury found a verdict of not guilty. MURDER BY A FATHER. James Roberts was arraigned for the murder of his child Clara Roberts, aged 14 months, at Bristol, on the Bth of May last. Mr. Cooke conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Motteram defended the prisoner. This was a melancholy case. The prisoner was only 25 years of age, and was one of the heroes of the Redan. He entered the army at 18 and went to the Crimea, where, in the taking of the Redan, he lost one foot, and returned home with a pension. He then married, and at the time of the alleged murder be had two children, Elizabeth, aged five years, and Clara, the deceased, aged 14 months. On the evening of May 8 last the prisoner was at the house of his sister in Great George-street, Bris tol, with his wife. They left there in good spirits. Ten minutes after the wife came back to the house with the deceased child in her arms and leading the other by the arm. Both were bleeding, and the youngest appeared to be dying; she died next day. It seemed that the prisoner, on arriving at home, had gone upstairs, and with a poker had beaten the children on the head as they lay in bed. The poker, covered with blood, was found on the children's pillow, on which blood was also visible. When ap prehended he said it was all owing to the drink and his own bad temper, adding "I'd ra th er b e dead than lead the life rye been living." He had latterly taken to drinking, and had sold some of his furni ture in order to pander to this indulgence. The facts were undisputed. Mr. Motteram, for the prisoner, resting his defence on the allegation that the prisoner at the time when he struck his children with the poker was not in a state in which he could be considered responsible for his acts. It was proved by the prisoner's father and mother that he had been guilty of silly acts in his youth, and that his grandfather and greatuncle had been insane. Verdict—Not guilty, on the ground of insanity. The prisoner was ordered to be kept in custody 1 until her Majesty's pl easure should be known. 13 TAKE OF HERRINGS--On two nights last week there were such-immense shoals of herrings of the north east coast that the number brought into Whitby harbour on the two following mornings amounted at a low compu tation to nearly 3 ,000,000 realising above £3,000. [ADVE RTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.— The Invalid's Hope.—ln wet and changeable weather numerous diseases of the skin, complicated sometimes with deeper and more serious maladies, appear in every district, and if negl ec t e d or improper ly treated p ro d uce th e most hideous disfigurements. Holloway's medicaments, ex tracted with the greatest care from the purest balsams, may be used with the certainty of repelling or expelling the long catalogue of skin affections which mar the happiness of thousands. Pimples, flushes, erysiplas, boils, and car buncles readily yield to these remedies without leaving any scar or blemish behind. Both Ointment and Pills act by casting out everything morbid from both solids and fluids, by purifying the blood, by regulating its distribution, by reducing ever nervous ssizslbilith awl 1)y giving toot i saw Richard Roupoll the day he was born, and I have known him ever since. lie was born in the ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Aug. 18. (Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.) EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL ROUPELL AND OTHERS V. WAITE. In consequence of the various rumours that were in circulation in reference to this cause, and the extraordinary circumstances connected with it, the trial appeared to create the most intense interest, and a number of persons were present a considerable time before the usual hour for the commencement of the proceedings. The action was one of ejectment to recover possession of a farm at Kingston, called "Norbiton Farm," and the defendant pleaded that he was legally possessed of the estate in question under a deed of gift executed by the late Richard Palmer Roupell, the owner of the property. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. J. Browne, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Garth, appeared for the defendant. Upon the application of Mr. Bovill the whole of the witnesses were ordered out of court, and they were examined separately. Serjeant Shee, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff brought this action to recover an estate of about 163 acres, at Norbiton, near Kingston, of which the late Richard Palmer Roupell died seised in September, 1856, The plaintiff claimed this estate as the heir-at-law of his deceased father, and the defendant claimed under a deed executed by William Roupell, the natural brother of the plaintiff, and the question the jury would have to decide was whether the deed under which this Property passed was a genuine instrument ; and on the part of the plaintiff he undertook to prove that it was a forgery. Although he should prove this, still, unless he should also establish that a will Purported to have been executed by the deceased was also a forgery, and that it was forged by Wm. Roupell, the natural brother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not recover, and he undertook to prove that fact also. He should show that the plaintiff was the heir-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 he would have come into pos session of it but for those forged instruments. Although he had stated thus summarily the general nature of the case, it was necessary that he should go more into the circumstances of the case, which was undoubtedly of the most extraordinary charac ter, and which not only involved a large amount of property, but also the honour and perhaps the liberty of a gentleman of high position, and who had held a prominent position before the public as a member for the borough of Lambeth. The testator for many years carried on the business of a lead merchant in Gravel-lane, and he had a private resi dence at Brixton. He had five children, John, William (who was a natural son), Sarah, James, and Emma, and the plaintiff, who was born on the sth of July 1840. The testator amassed a vast property, his personal estate at the time of his death was worth £120,000, and he had invested £200,000 in real estates in different counties and in London, and within fifteen years of his death he had by wil e l disposed of all these estates. In March, 1839, h executed one will, and three months after the birth of the plain tiff he, by will, left him the estate that was the subject of the present inquiry, and he then re voked all former wills. On Oct. 1, 1850, he exe cuted 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 son Richard, the plaintiff. He was satisfied with this will until one of his trustees, Mr. Patrick Hughes, died, and he appointed Mr. William Clarke and Mr. James Surridge in the place of that gentleman. It was clear at this time that he intended to confirm the will of 1850, but he made some alteration by which he gave legacies to his executors; and a few days before his death, in 1856, he went to his proc tors, in Doctors'-commons, and took the will with him, and he was informed that the attestations of the new trustees was not sufficient, and a codicil was drawn up, by which he confirmed the will of 1850. This was on Saturday, the 30th of August, 1856, and there could be no doubt that at this time he intended this will to be his last will and testament, and by this will the plaintiff would have become entitled to the estate in question and a considerable portion of his other property. The learned sergeant read the codicil, and said it was quite clear that the testator intended to confirm the will of 1850, and that when they had heard the evidence he should lay before them he be lieved they would entertain no doubt upon this point. When he made this codicil it was also evi dent that he considered himself possessed of the Norbit on estate. He went over it a few days before his death with his steward, a man named West, and he told this person that he thought he should not live long, and that after he was gone he would have to manage the estate for his son Richard, the plain tiff. He should also prove, by other circumstances, that at this period he had not the smallest doubt that this Kingston estate was his property. He had laid out money upon it, and in every possible way had indicated his belief that it was so, and that he had done nothing to prevent him from disposing of it. Notwithstanding this, the Kingston estate had been dealt with and had been alienated, through the fraud of his natural son. He should show them that William Roupell, the natural son, was, in 1855, in great pecuniary difficulties. He must have lived an extravagant life, and was much pressed by creditors and greatly in want of money. He seemed to have been of opinion that by possess ing himself of a small property that adjoined to the testator's estate at Brixton, he should relieve him self to some extent, and the owner agreed to sell it for £5,000; and about this time a fire insurance company had the intention to expend £50,000 upon the Roupell Park estate at Brixton, and had made Wm. Roupell, who was then practising as an attor ney, their trustee for this purpose. He then, it appeared, went to his father and told him that he could purchase the estate for that sum, and that the Unity 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 £5OO on the Bank of England as a deposit, and on the 25th of the same month another cheque for £4,500, the balance. He should show that the £5OO cheque was paid in to 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 £4,500, and that Mr. Treadwell, the owner of the estate to which he had referred, never received a farthing, and that his endorsement on the cheque was a forgery. On the Ist of August William Roupell appointed to pay Mr. Tread -well for the estate, and he should show them that he received the money upon the Kingston estate without the knowledge of his father , a nd that he surreptitiously obtained possession of the deeds that enabled him to effect this object. It woul d be proved that he asked his father to let him look at the deeds relating to the Kingston estate, and that he represented that some of them were missing, and t Marson and Co.,jhhe wished to take them to Messrs. testator; an i;e the solicitors who had acted for the eh ru ou_ld produce a document in the handwriting a w o:pell, showing that he had ta k e n possession these deeds, and that he never t oo k them to Messrs. Marson and Co., but went to the office of Mr._ Powell, a law stationer in Parlia ment-street, and requested binto make fac-similes of the whole of those atdeeds,and_e a the same time on s Thursday, said he desir ed this should be dun quickly as poss ible, and the deeds were ready July 19. He was under an engage ment to complete the purchase of th e estate Aug,on I, and before IL copies of the deeds were completed, , endeavoured to raise a sum of £7,000 upon the security of the deeds he Kingston estate, which was valued at £l5 :an The moment he got possession of t he genuine ones to a gentleman named. \\Thitt. the told him to produce a deed of gift from hi and her_at to himself of this Kingston estate, i s was done, and it was returned approved, and William Roupell forged his fathers signa ture to this deed, and he caused two respectable w itnesses to attest the signature, but he (1 e °deed them as to who the party was by whom the s ceived was executed, and he should call them as witnesses to prove that fact. Having thus obtained posses sion of the deed of gift, it was necessary that he should also deceive his father, and he forged to the counterfeit deeds the names of the whole of the con veying parties ta the genuine deeds, and then handed them to him. Mr. Whittaker subsequently obtained a loan of £7,000 upon the property, and £5,000 were paid to Mr. Treadwell and £2,000 pocketed by W. Roupell. In order to defendthis action it was incumbent on defendant to produce the deed of gift, and if he did sohe pledged himself to prove that it was a forgery. Although the £2,000 relieved W. Roupell for a time he was still in great difficulties, and at the commencement of the following year he had recourse to another expedient, and he determined to raise £12,000 up on an estate in Essex , belonging to his father, calle d the Great Warley estate , and he shouid sh e , the der that he forged his father's signature to ed a the same proceeding of that estate, and he went through teeeding with Mr. Whittaker, and he eventuallyborrowed £15,000 on that property. At this time Wm. R o upell was only 25years old • and - a lthough Mr. Whit taker was well aware that ' Mr. Roupell, his father, resided in London, ho never had the least communication with him on these impor tant subjects; and he could not help observing that thi s appeared to him very e xtraordinary. Things went on in this Way until 3-annul., 1856, at which last card. His time Wm. Roupell had played his 1856, and W m . father died in Sept., Roupell had i mme di a t e notice of the f a c t . Mr s. Roupell was • overwhelmed with grief, and she gave the keys to Roupell, and he went and examined the strong Wm. box and the escritoire that was in his bedroom, and h e there found the will of Oct., 1850. He stood face to face with his dead father—his dead father's will in his hand—and that will informed him that in a L very few minutes after he was ccnveyed to the grave he must stand face to face with his father's executors, all men of business, and trustees for the benefit of his wife and children, and that discovery and ruin were inevitabie. This will would have been his ruin, destruction to his home, his charac- Iter, and his liberty. He was, however, a bold and determined man, and standing face to face with his dead father he made up his mind what he would do. It would not do to destroy the will, but a new will revoking it must be executed, and he again had re course to Mr. Whittaker. He had little time to do this. He slept in the house with his dead father. The day after the death he commenced his proceed ings. He went to an aged man named Muggeridge, who had been for many years in his father's ser vice, and gave him for mourning, and asked him for a receipt, and he resolved to forge his signature to the instrument he intended to produce as a witness. It would not do to make an entirely fresh will, but he wanted to have the entire con trol of his property, and he drew up a short will re voking the former one, and leaving the whole of the property to his mother, he himself being appointed trustee ; and he should show clearly that this docu ment was a forgery, and that the signature of Mug geridge and those of all the other pretended wit- nesses were forgeries also. The learned sergeant then proceeded to say that Mrs. Roupell lived with the testator for a considerable time before their mar riage, and William Roupell was born before the ceremony took place, and he said there was no doubt that there did not at any time subsist that cordiality and confidence between the testator and his wife that ought to exist between a man and woman in that position, and it appeared she was not aware of the existence of the will of 1850, and she made no diffi culty as to the disposition of the property. Thewill which he alleged to be forged was dated the 2d h ot September, 1856, and only a few days before_ t e e . testator had prepared the codicil to which he had D fore alluded ; an d and he would ask them whether this u m .ti tnhc n e es was not in itself almost conclusive evidereltvbialtlitahme will was forged, and that it was forgedr _ Roupell, the natural son of the testositcoir _set a .. said that he should prove a v ariety ' oed on the showing how William Roupell was l 1 2d of September, and which -won am p prov y e almost heuld not have been co conclusively that he coul d not have attested this new will of his father , a nd that in the company of Muggeridge, the man whose name appeared to the will as witness. This was the general outline of the evidence upon which he should rely to show that the deedof gift of July, 1855, and the will of the 2d Sept., 1856, were forgeries ; but there was a variety of other evidence all tending to establish the same fact, and he would now proceed to narrate other circumstances in connexion with this extraordinary transaction. After the funeral Mr. Roupell applied to the professional gentlemen who had only 12 days before made the codicil, to obtain probate. They were surprised, and sug gested that the mother ought to be executrix; but this difficulty was got over and William Roupell came into the entire possession of the whole of the property, . and he very soon embarked in a career of extravagance which astonished and to some extent scandalised the public. He sold estate after estate with his mother's consent, upon a promise that he would settle £3,000 a year on her, 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 as he had done, and thus enable the heir at-law, Richard Roupell, to obtain his rights. The learned sergeant then said it was only necessary further to state that Wm. Roupell left England on the 29th March, 1862, and that before he left he destroyed a large quantity of papers; and he con cluded by giving an outline of the nature of the evidence he proposed to lay before the jury as above detailed, and he said that he should also put Wm. 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 had done this wrong, by coming forward to make all the reparation he could, if he was speaking the truth, it appeared to him that he was actuated by the highest feelings of honour and duty. No doubt the interests of the defendant were deeply involved in the inquiry ; he had purchased this property, believing that Wm. Roupell could legally dispose of it, but at the same time the interest of the real owner of the property was quite as much worthy of consideration as that of the defendant, and 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 ver dict in this action. The following evidence was then adduced : Mr. J. T. "West said—l am a farmer, and reside at Norbiton. I knew the deceased for 25 years. I managed the Norbiton estate before Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell purchased it, and I subsequently became his bailiff. He died in 5ept.,1856, and I had been his bailiff five or six years before, and we used to settle our accounts every week. He came down to the farm at the latter end of August, 1856. He was very ill at this time, and he died a few days after. After his death I used to account to Mr. W. Roupell, and also to Mrs.Roupell. Richard Roupell built some cottages about two years before his death, and I used to occupy one of them. I remember Mr. 'William 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 land. After I left the estate, the defendant took possession of it. Cross-examined—The property was put up for sale by auction, and was sold to Mr. Waite for £15,000. Some of the carts and waggons 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 Palmer Roupell occupied the land and the house at this estate, and I was em ployed there seven years before he died. I have never said that the estate belonged to William Roupell. I swear that positively, because 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 rate-book. I won't say that I always paid the rates in the name of Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell. After his death I paid them in the name of William Roupell. The name of William Roupell was not upon the carts and waggons before his father died, nor upon the sacks. I never said to Mr. Berry, a road contrac tor, who had threatened some legal proceedings , that my master was Mr. William Roupell, that he was a barrister, and he would not get much good 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 receipts 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 a thing said by any one as that his masten had given the estate to his son William. By Mr. Bovill—Upon one occasion he received the sum of £3OO for the valuation of a farm from a gentleman named Nightingale, and he handed over that money to William Roupell. Mrs. Woods said—l am daughter of the last witness, and remember his being employed upon the Norbiton 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 I saw him there a fortnight before he died. Mrs. Roupell was with him upon that occasion. (The witness then stated that her father could not read or write, and she identified certain ac counts_ that were put in, showing that down to the J e zr ea l te Bs 4 6, after the alleged deed of gift had been the testator exercised ownership and pro pety to ' estate in question.) I do not know who m y 1:7 settled with after the old gentle any 117 ;mile of think the were man's death, b ut n ut used still to continue to make out his account s or him, and they were all kept in a book. Cross-examinea, - s and about made ls yearsout the of age ae when Mr. Roupell destroyed. the n a t e s eo f u ro u ni ts t h h a e v t e im be e en gust 11 years old. Some of ed because they were $ but I do not know bnyotvtihhooumghtht e t y o w b e e r.e. of not destroyed until after the occasions property. Roupell te The last time I saw old Mr. upon was about a fortnight before his dent rally h f arm t on the last te o) Re gene rally came alone excep and then Mrs. Roupell came along w i th him. re member finding some old leav e s that had been torn out of a book, and I gave the m t. 9 Mr. Li nk _ later, the solicitor to the plaint iff. .1 know ; q r. seen him at n —uild. William Roupell. I have not ford during these assizes, and I do not think I have seen him since the sale. ' Re-examined—l have given Mr. L i nklater every paper that I found. .d...... 1 have Mrs. Eleanor Wallett, an aged lady, sai known Mrs. Sarah Roupell for thirty years. When I first knew her she lived in Pitt -street, Pockham, and she went by the name of Carter. Mr. Rou p e ll used to come and visit her. She had four children. John,_ William, Sarah , and Emma. I remembe r the son 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 be then for the first time went by the name of 'Mrs. Roupell. year 1839, twenty-three years ago. Mrs. Maria Watts said—l am the sister of Mrs. Roupell, and remember when she lived at Peckham. I do not recollect how many children she had at this time. I know her son Richard Roupell, the plaintiff in the present action. She had no other children in the present action. She had no other children after him, and at the time he was born she went by the name of Roupell. Cross-examined--When I first knew Mr. Roupell he had a son named John, and a daughter named Sarah, but I did not know much of his family af fairs, because I was a good deal on the Continent. I have not seen my sister for tour years. I did not stay with them when I was in England. (The witness then proceeded to say that she could not tell why she had been brought down as a witness.) I have seen Mrs. Roupell since I have been at Guild ford, and Mr. Wm. Roupell. I have visited my sister and her husband at theirresidence at Brixton. The marriage register containing an entry of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Roupell was then put in. It appeared to have taken place at the parish church of St. Giles, Camberwell, on the 6th of December, 1838. William Roupell, it will be remembered, was at this time a year old. Mr. R. W. Tarte said—l am a lead merchant, in Tothill-street, Westminster, and I was well ac quainted with the deceasedßichard Palmer Roupell, h r s n s h a a c n t t i w n s r t w i n i g t h . h H i m e t . andam well ha a n: ciannayi acquainted s i n w e i s i g h t old l me once that he was7.not married, and he consulted me upon the propriety of his getting married. a nd if he had married during his This was soon after the death of his father. He he would not have left him any came to me and said that his father was a very y e h b a y d h be e e r, n a li n v d ing hi w s it r h el a at p ie e n r ; f s a o t n h p, e eccen tri caeristdy lifetimebm a a d H n a s f a a i m d i h l o him u t noti it, and to marry taorlrdyhhiemr,taondhme married dtetdo hermy aaa th ddn a vvd t ii he had followed my a dvice , se t ee o dab lose no time. I h eard g et dviee s , h a o n rt d ly th a a f t te h r e wa w r a d s s married. Jane Woodley said—l was in the service of Mrs. Roupell, and I remember her son Richard being born on the 27th of July, 1840. I knew William Roupell at that time, but I cannot say how old he was; but I should think he was about five or six. John was the oldest child, then Sarah, then Wil liam, then Emma, and then Mr. Richard. Cross-examined—John was ten years older than William. He was sent abroad because he was rather wild. Old Mr. Roupell was very fond of William, but I cannot say he was more fond of him than he was of the other children. I have no memorandum of the day on which Richard Roupell was born, but my husband's birthday is the 26th of July, and that makes me remember it. I re member perfectly well that it was in the year 1840. Mr. Huntley said—l am a surgeon at Brixton, and I have known the Roupell family for many , years. I attended Mrs. Roupell during her con finement with her son Richard. He was born on the 27th July, 1840. Cross-examined I frequently went to Mr. Roupell's house, and was acquainted with his family. John was a harum scarum fellow, and they were obliged to send him abroad. William was given to learning, and his father appeared to be particularly attached to him, and he was constantly with him while the buildings were going on upon Roupell Park. I should think that more than £lOO,OOO was laid out upon Roupell Park, and William Roupell was constantly employed in su perintending the buildings that were going on. The old man was a very good man of business, and he knew perfectly well that a 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 July, 1840. The certificate of the death of the testator on the 12th Sept., 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 Doctor's-commons, and was also clerk to his father before his death. Our firm acted for a great many years professionally for the late Mr. Roupell, and he frequently came to our office upon the subject of his will. I remember a will being prepared in 1850 ; but I cannot say whether I had any communication with the testator respecting it. I recollect Mr. Roupell coming to the office in August, 1856, and bringing his will with him, and also a memorandum. Mr. Bovill objected to the contents of this me morandum being put in evidence. Baron Martin said he thought it would be quite sufficient to prove the will. Examination continued—Mr. Roupell on this oc casion produced his previous will, and I looked at it, and saw that the body of it was all in my hand writing. I also saw the signature. The deceased called my attention to an alteration that had been made in the will, and that he showed it to me, and I told him the alteration had not been :properly executed, as it was attested by one witness only. He then asked me to make a codicil, 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—l object to this document being called a will, (A laugh.) Sergeant Shee—Well, then, the paper. Examination continued—l read over the codicil to the testator before it was engrossed. This occurred on August 30, 1856. (The deceased died on September 12 following.) At this time the de ceased appeared to be in a pretty good state of health. (The witness then produced a draft of the will he referred to, and it was suggested that if it had been carried out the plaintiff would have come into possession of the greater portion of the testa tor's property.) In answer to further questions, The witness said that he prepared several : other wills for the deceased prior to the one in question, and that one of these was made on March 6, 1839, and a codicil, it appeared, was added to it on No vember 5, 1839. No drafts or traces of any of these wills at present remained in the office. Sergeant Shee said that, on the part of the plain tiff, the suggestion was that this will of 1850 was placed in the escritoire of the deceased, and had never been seen since, and he proposed to give secondary evidence of its contents. Baron Martin said it appeared to him that until it was proved that the will was either lost or de stroyed, or was in the possession of the other side, secondary evidence of its contents could not be given. Mr. John Treadwell said—l reside at Streatham, and I remember having a negotiation with Mr. William Roupell for the sale of a piece of land at Brixton. Mr. Bovill objected that the sale of this piece of land had nothing to do with the question before the court. Baron Martin thought that, upon the opening of Sergeant Shee, such evidence was relevant. The learned counsel 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 place in 1854. Mr. William Roupell was to give me £5,000 for a piece of land adjoining Roupell Park, and after the transaction was completed I ap plied to him during several months for the money, and I was eventually paid on Aug. 1, 1855. I re ceived the money from Mr. Whittaker. The name, " J. Treadwell," on these two cheques now pro duced, one for £5OO and the other for £4,500, is not my handwriting, and I never saw those cheques before. (Those were the cheques that vere given by the deceased to his son William, to paay for the land in question, and which were allegel to have been appropriated to his own use.) Mr. Whittaker was the solicitor of Mr. Roupell, and he paid me the money on his behalf. Cross-examined—l was paid the £5,000 in five £l,OOO Bank of England notes, The signature on the cheques is not at all like my signature. Re-examined—One of them I should call a bad imitation of my signature. The other is not at all like it. Mr. Balfour, a 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 W. Roupell kept an account, and where they appeared to have been paid in to his credit. Mr. W. S. 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 frequently to come to our office on business. Sergeant Shee here called for the production of the title-deeds relating to the Kingston property. Mr. Bovill said they did not produce them. Sergeant Shee said that a notice to produce these deeds had been served on the defendant, and he should therefore be entitled to give secondary evi dence of their contents. Mr. Powell then proved that in July, 1855, cer t,lxlse tain deeds having reference to the estate that was the subject of the present action were cotied in their office, but he said he was unable to state whether deeds were brought by Mr. W. Roupell, or w r itn is ea v a Lll 7.. .W ere ethey he gave any instructions respecting them. The se p_rice of the work was debited to M. Roupell. m fg!ant . Shee—Who paid for it ? you present ? then l Mr. S. Aly father was, (A laugh) zn e a ll, h the father of the last fitness, was by his ca lled,s stated that the wort mentioned sonally, and all he knew He could net 84,1f"by Mr. Willian Roupell. however, that he wa paid per gr. Roupell generally bra that he pith, money. himself, the with himself, and took it away , and he had received mo ney from him personally in PaYment. Ho also r - - =NM POLICE INTELLIUENCE.-Auy. 18. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. CHARGE OF MURDER.--Charles Francis Cotier, furniture broker, No. 42, Warren -street, Fitzroy-square, was brought up for final examination, charged with the wilful murder of Elizabeth Carly on the Bth August last. Mr. Sleigh was for the prosecution ; and Mr. Edward Lewis for the .prisoner. The evidence on the former occasion was to the effect that the deceased had lived with the prisoner as his wife for some years, and had borne him seve ral children. On the Bth August the prisoner was seen to tear the clothes from the deceased, was heard to threaten to murder her, and afterwards was seen to inflict blows on the deceased. It was also proved that the prisoner admitted he had just previously broken three of the ribs of the deceased, and that he would break three more before he had done with her. At the request of Mr. Lewis, Mrs. IVl'Arthur, the principal witness examined last week, Was called and cross-examined. She said she had not been drinking with the deceased on the day in question, but the prisoner might have been drink ing on that day. Both deceased and the prisoner were of very intemperate habits. Had only heard the deceased call " murder" on one occasion. Saw her clothes torn off by the prisoner. Mrs. Elizabeth Southgate examined—l have often heard cries of " murder," both day and night, from the deceased. I saw her early in the evening before her death in the street ; she was then going on like a mad woman. I did not think she was the worse for drink, but out of her mind. She called out to the prisoner that she would fight him. The prisoner pulled her indoors, but she came out, got into a cab, and went away. Mrs. Susan Spinks—l live in the house occupied by the prisoner and deceased. About six o'clock on Friday evening week I heard a noise in the passage. I came down stairs, and saw the prisoner struggling with the deceased, who wanted to go out, but he said she should not. The prisoner tore her clothes, and in the struggle caught hold of her hair, and both fell, the deceased undermost, and her head came with violence against one of the stairs. I took her down stairs, and pinned her clothes toge ther, and she left me. About 12 o'clock that night I.heard cries of murder from the deceased. I heard her scream repeatedly. I heard the voice of the prisoner. The noise went on for about half an hour. Heard a kind of knocking and a rumbling noise in the room, which gradually ceased. About 6 o'clock the next morning the prisoner, who was dressed, called me into his room. He said, "I am afraid my wife is no more." I saw she was lying on the couch quite naked, except a bandage round her, and I felt that her face was getting cold. There was somb of the hair of the deceased on the couch. The deceased's hair was disordered as if there had been a struggle. I collected the hair, and it is the same now produced. The head of deceased was bare of hair on one side. Before this the deceased appeared to have the usual complement of hair. There was a bruise on her left eye, and the opposite side of her face was also badly bruised. There were marks on the floor as if she had been lying there all night. Cross-examined—She was a very violent person when drunk. When I saw the prisoner struggling with her he was only trying to keep her within doors. He was in a great passion. The deceased was in liquor at the time. Elizabeth Spinks, sister to the last witness, said —I saw the prisoner and the deceased struggling together in the passage. I saw the prisoner with his hand twisted in her hair, striking her with his other hand. I saw them fall together, and then I saw the prisoner tear off the clothes of the deceased. The deceased seemed excited either from drink or fright. Police-sergeant Franklin, C 20, took the prisoner into custody. The prisoner said, " This is spite ; the charge is got up against me about some money transactions." He told the prisoner he had nothing to do with that; he must go with him. The pri soner, on the road to the station-house, said, " All I did was to tear her clothes off, to prevent her going out." Mr. Mason, the surgeon, was recalled, and cross examined—There were bruises on one arm and one knee. Had attended the deceased for delirium tremens. The injuries on the head might have been caused by a fall. Mr. Lewis, addressing the court on behalf of the prisoner, said, had all the witnesses been called he felt confident that the magistrate would not have sent the case before a jury at all. It would be ab surd to commit the prisoner, on the evidence before the court, for wilful murder. If committed at all, he hoped it would only be for manslaughter. Mr. Tyrwhitt considered that it was his duty to commit the prisoner for murder. If there were any circumstances that could be adduced on the trial to favour the presumption that the case did not amount to murder the jury would be ready to re ceive and to act upon them. He should commit the prisoner for murder. Mr. Lewis applied for bail. Mr. Tyrwhitt said these cases of death by violence so increased that he must refuse the application. The indictment cou id be preferred at once. Mr. Lewis said he had a great number of wit- nesses to look up, and such a speedy course of pro ceeding would very much prejudice the prisoner. Mr. Tyrwhitt replied that when the bill was found further time might be asked. The prisoner was then fully committed. THE ALLEGED MURDER NEAR FITZ ROY-SQUARE. Last evening Dr. Lankester, the Central Middle sex coroner, resumed for the second time an inqui sition at the White Horse Tavern, North-street, Fitzroy-square, on the body of Elizabeth Carley, aged 48, cohabiting with Chas. Francis Cotier, furniture dealer, No. 42, Warren-street. In consequence of Cotier being charged with murdering the deceared, by violently assaulting her in a quarrel, the inquest room was crowded with persons, as on the former occasion on Friday last, when the second adjournment was made, mainly in the hope that the Home Secretary would allow the accused to be present on this occasion. The Coroner, in opening the proceedings, an nounced his regret that the accused man was not present. He had made an application to have him there, because he (the coroner) thought if that Court by the laws of the country had a right to record a verdict of murder or manslaughter, the person affected by the verdict should have the right which every Englishman claimed, namely, to be present whenever evidence was given against him, more especially as counsel could not be heard in his defence in a coroner's court. But the Home Secretary had been unable to grant his application, and the accused was committed for trial. After other evidence had been adduced, The Coroner summed up, and in doing so pointed out that although there was little doubt deceased had died from the mortal effects of external vio lence, apparently from the hands of Cotier, still, as a medical coroner, he thought it his duty to ex press his belief that Cotier did not intend to kill deceased ; and that there were diseased conditions of the brain, arising out of her previous state of health, which rendered her more liable to the effu sion of blood on the brain, which caused her death, than if she had been healthy. The Jury deliberated, and returned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against Charles Francis Cotier. ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER OF A WOMAN BY HER HUSBAND. Yesterday morning an inquiry was resumed at the Prince of Orange Tavern, Phillip-street, St. George's-in -the-East, by Mr. H. R. Walthew, deputy coroner for East Middlesex, respecting the death of Catherine Donovan, aged 30, who was alleged to have lost her life through injuries inflicted on her by her husband, a soap boiler, in the public street. Sarah Potter, nurse in St. George's Union-house, said that the deceased was admitted to the house suf fering from severe injuries. There were several bruises over her body, and she had a serious wound in her mouth. She stated to witness that she went to her husband in a public-house, where some words ensued, and she left. Her husband followed her, and dealt her a heavy blow in the mouth, knocking her down with great force into the road, and she added, "It was that brought me to this." Every effort was made to save the deceased's life, but death took place in three days. Dr, G. Kay said he was called to see the deceased, who was suffering from a sever e cancer in the m n a u t h e and bruises ove r th e p erson . Th e c ancer migh. t The have been caused by such a blow as that deser f ibed bruises would be occasi o ned by violent road. The injuries to the mouth were imme diate cause of death. th e a lls in the Sarah Sullivan, sister of deceased, month before deceased's d two cuts of a knife S and e a stab on the collar thwitness saw her and said that a her husband together. at the back of the head, mark of a kick from a hev bone. There was th e She had various brui a ses y boot under the rig ht ear • on her person. Wi tne ss asked her who had st a bb e d a,n said eagerly that Bartholomew her, and Don °vhour, had done it. Deceased seemed Grace, a neighbour, afraid t k o spea before her husband, frightened an was se sure sai d she h e r wouldhnsb abned mur deredhad but soon Witnessafttet.gsrhdes frequently saw them guar r stabbede l quar relling, n g b , but yh heri na, never actually saw Donovan strike her. After some further evidence, Dr. Crouch said the actual cause of death wrap -~~„ pericarditis, which might have been caused by' a blow on the side. The Coroner then summed up, and said that the evidence was very conflicting as to the husband hav ing inflicted the injuries upon the deceased. It wee very doubtful whether the injuries alleged to b . ave been inflicted by Grace, of which the only d i rect evidence was that of the husband, had been the tm mediato cause of death. The Jury, after a long consultation, returned a verdict " That deceased died from the effects of certain injuries ; but by whom or how inflicted there was no evidence to show." THE FATAL CATASTROPHE TO THE IRON SHIP GANGES IN 2HE RIVER. Yesterday afternoon Mr. J. Humphreys, th e coroner, resumed and concluded the inquiry touch" ing the death of the four lascars and boy, who were drowned by the capsizing of the iron ship Gange s in the river, of Shadwell, at the Albion Tavern, High-street, Shadwell. Mr. Poland, the barrister, wl - ,o appeared for the owners, produced the ship's register, by which it was shown that Captain Nourse, the commander, owned 48 shares of the ship, and other gentlemen 38 shares. Charles Lewis, a waterman, said he acted 0. 9 pilot in transporting ship from dock to dock. On Tuesday last he was on the river in his boat and followed the Ganges. As soon as she turned round to go into the dry dock the ship came down on the port side and went over. Considered the accident was caused by the things in the hold. not being made fast, and when she took a ca nt the thing gave way and she fell over. If the things were fast, then he should say it was owing to her not having sufficient weight. Robert Osgood was then examined, and after the usual caution from the coroner, he stated that he was a transporting pilot, but not connected with the Trinity House. He had a licence. li e took charge of the Ganges at the Limehous e entrance to the West India Dock. She was towed by a tug, and she went up steadily. When she got abreast of the graving dock, commenced to put the ship round. The steam-tug slacked the rope, and the ship had swung round sufficient to ap proach the dry dock. The tug was eased to alloW a ship which was coming out of a dock above to get out of the way, and while in that state the Ganges went over. She was not across the stream , and the tide would have little or no effect upon her. The tow-rope was loose, and the bight hanging down. By the Coroner—Neither the tug nor the tide caused the ship to go over. He could not account for her doing so, and he did not think that any living man could do so. He would guarantee If move the ship again with the same ballast. she had had 100 tons more ballast in her he could not tell whether she would or would not have gone over. She was just as likely to have gone over she had had 100 tons more ballast in her. By Mr. Poland—He never had a more easy shill' and she steered like a little boat. He had seen the ship since she was raised, and when the water WO pumped out, and although her ballast had shifted, she was quite stiff. Considered she was sufficiently ballasted when she left the dock. _ _ Capt. Nourse was re-called—He stated that when he was examined on Saturday he mentioned the ship was uninsured ; he had since been informed that she was half insured, having been chartered for a voyage out to Australia. The Coroner summed up, and left the jury to sal whether the loss of life resulted from the ship being insufficiently ballasted, and whether there was any one to blame. The jury, after considering a short time, returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased lost their lives by the capsizint of the ship Ganges, and that the cause of her capsizing was the insufficiency of ballast; and they further were of opinion that shiPs were too frequently sent out from docks to dry docks in a dangerous condition from the same CAW. COUN2.RI MABRJ2 S. !, COLCHESTER—Auo. 16. The supply of wheat to-day at market was lirettY good, principally new, varying in quality, and prices 1 0 higher for dry parcels. A sample or two of new barley at _ late quotations. In beans and peas the prices of last week advanced ls. Wheat, white. 60s 6 66 s Bemanidsctazsc mz.4 a s gan s ..3 o B s s 0 4 1 red 52s 0s Barley 3Bs 40s Peas, white 42s 44 2 Oats GLOUCESTER—AUG. 16. To-day there was a moderate supply of wheat at market, which brought last week's prices. A sample of new wheat of fair quality brought 60s per 496 lbs. Foreign wheat 0 1 retail demand. Barley firm. Beans and oats at the rates of last week. ~~--_ CHELMSFORD-Atm. 15. ThetradeinwlmAtwasfirutto-day,andpricesasoflate . A few samples of new were sold, but of indifferent quality. Spring corn stationary. Wheat, old white 448 618,1"eas Partlidge.... 37o 410 new —s —s White 39 0 420 old red....49s b7s Boiling ... 41s 44s new —s —s Dun 36s 400 Barley ..300 398 Ditto new .. — s s Chevalier ... 300 42s Beans, Tick, old ..350 39s Grinding 24s 32s new..- 0 ---44 Malt. 6lB 67s Harrow Ticks ..358 400 Chevalier . 64s 69s new..—s --a Oats 22s 29s Mazagan ..... ..34s 380 KIRKCALDY GRAIN—Au a. 16. A fair show of wheat and oats to •day, and only two samples of barley. A slow trade, at former prices for wheat ; oats 6d to is cheaper. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First....4Bs Od 35s Od 29s Od Second ..57s Od I 36s 6d I 308 Od Third ....60s 6d —s Od 32s Od .ARK ET. the close of the market Walls End. Byass's Bebside West Whitworth 15 9 Hartley ... 15 0 Heughl44.ll 15 , 2 Eden Main ..15 6 South Kelloe.. ....... .16 no Camay and Duffryn Acorn Close ~1 5 Maltinc , Do. ° Anthracite.. 21 0 Framwellgate .... 15 6 ' Bell's Primrose l2 0 Hetton ........ 17 0 Holywell 16 0 South Hetton ......... 17 n Tanfield Moor 13 0 Eden 15 Tanfield Moor Butes ..13 0 Trimdon Thornley.• •• 14 15 6 Lambert's West Hart- Tunstall ley l4 9 Tzimdon Hartlepool...l6 6 Davison's West Hart- Hartlepool. ... . ..... 16 9 ley ..15 0 I South Hartlepool.... • . 15 3 Grey's West Hartley.. 14 6 i Caradoc " " "i 0 North Pelton Ga 5,.... 12 6' Stewart's.... ........ 1. Cowpen Hartley 15 0 'Haswell l7 6' COAL M (niece of Coal per Ton al S. d. Ships at market, 144 ; sold, 67. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. i ,a Aue.ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton .. Aug. ..;‘,°‘ via Marseilles .. Aug. I ,` drazil and Cape Verde, by British packet. Sept. o• Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena.. Sept. L a China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. Aug. 1 ' via Marseilles ...Aug. I '' Falkland Islands • . Sept. 3. Gibraltar, via Southampton Aug. r India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Aug. 1 " via Marseilles Aug. 12 ' India (Bombay), via Southampton .. Aug. I ' L via Marseilles 23 Aug. , Lisbon Sept. 0; Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Aug. 0 I,*' via Marseilles Aug. Newfoundland g. ' Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet Aug' ' l 7 by U.S. packet . 4 by Canadian packet.A,ug. I ,,ii W.C. of Africa, Madeira , and Teneriffe Aug iv. Bahamas, via New York' Aug. A Mexico.. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, 1 Aug. la California, and British C01umbia........... 1 BIRTHS. e A P l lvooilwnliteaargu:;:l ASKWITH.—On the 16th inst., atWaltham Abbey, the wi of Colonel W. H. Askwith, R A., of a son. anc: y sf t H. G . la e e y2 r n a l MANCHESTER.—On the 15th inst., at 1, Great Stanho) street, the Duchess of Manchester, of a daughter. town, the : POWMIt.—On the 16th inst., at 2, Martello-terrace, Kin a son. W p m o L rt i rn am en s late of 10, upper Brook -street, of a eon. - 1 MARRIAGES. is;aner oe,tflithCe;win:67dhoiswsi ~r _ sc n oLEs.--On the 14th inst., at St. Alpl' DuLßondoin-wall, daughter Durrant, of Ureat St. Bele El i za third of the late Mr. John Soho to 4 7 p s p m l g Tll ate-buildings.on the 14th hist:, at St. George's, II over -square, S. Francis Sorties, Esq , of Fortis Muswell-hill, to Harriet-Ella, eldest daughter of Prot roe Smith, Esq., M.D., of 25, Park-street, Grosvell square. SonfinCs--ri DEATHS. , BARRETT.—On th e 15 t h inst at his residence, 9, GO Cu mberland - street, Hyde-Park, S. U. Barrett, Esq., , 46, and hi s c hil aren, Julia Victoria, age d 9 y ea rs, al Helena Blanche, aged 3 years. CASSATETTI.—O n th e 17th i ns t., a t his residence, 47, t cheater terrace, Bayswater, Alexander G. Osmotic:, Esq., aged 49. CHALLIS.—On the 17th inst., Henry Williams Chao, of Vassal-road, Brixton. place, Chelsea, Mrs, Anna Maria D'olley , in her is D'OLLEY.—On the 17th inst., at her reside nce, Balit., year. RICE.—On the 15th inst., at Oddington, Gloucestersit the Hon. and Very Rev. Edward Rice, 11),D., Delos Gloucester, aged 85. LONDON: Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPagt of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tou SVN Office Noll/ Strand, in the Precinct of the;Savoy, in the.Cour of Middlcogas—queigiah AtiadYs 1862. I c