OLD COURT - Wednesday, August 21st, and Thursday, August 22nd, 1861

CUBITT, Mayor Tenth Session, 1860-61

PRESENT-The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR; Mr. Justice HILL;   Mr. Ald. COPELAND, M.P.; SIR ROBERT WALTER CARDEN, Knt., Ald.;   Mr. Ald. WILLIAM LAWRENCE;   Mr. Ald. MECHI; Mr. Ald. CONDER; and   ROBERT MALCOLM KERR, Esq.

Before Mr. Justice Hill. 665.  JAMES ROE (42), Feloniously forging and uttering a warrant and order for the payment of 6,000l. with intent to defraud.
MESSRS. GIFFARD and POLAND conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES FODEN.  I am clerk to Mr. Parry, the district registrar of the Court of Probate, at Chester - I produce the original will of Edward Roe, of Sutton, near Macclesfield, dated 25th December, l858, and a codicil, dated 30th December, l858 - the attesting witnesses to those documents are Peter Wadsworth, and Joseph Chapman.  (The will was put in and taken as read: it directed the payment, by the executors, of all debts, funeral, and testamentary charges, and also directed them to take up and pay all or any unpaid checks.  It contained a variety of bequests; amongst others, one of 500l. to the prisoner, and appointed George Hartwell Roe, and John Orme Roe, residuary legatees. By the codicil, the trust property was vested in the executors, John Plant Shufflebotham, George Hartwell Roe, and James Wardle.  Both the will and codicil were attested by Joseph Chapman and Peter Wadsworth.)

EDWARD BEDELL.  I am clerk to Mr. Coleman of the principal registry of her Majesty’s Court of Probate, in London - I produce the caveat book - a caveat was entered on 7th January, at the principal registry, against grant of probate of the goods of Edward Roe, late of Sutton, in the county of Chester, by Prichard and Sons, proctors; and the caveat is signed by G.H. Rogers- it does not appear on the face of the caveat-book to have been entered on behalf of Lord Denman, Thomas Moore and James Roe- it does not appear on whose behalf the caveat was entered - I produce the court-book, showing the proceedings of the court in the case of Roe v. Sale - I believe it was a proceeding to dispute the will of Edward Roe - on 2d May, judgment was given in favour of  Roe, and Sale was condemned in costs.

WILLIAM HENRY LORDING.  I am a clerk in the Record and Writ clerk’s offices of the Court of Chancery - I produce a bill filed by the Rev. James Roe, plaintiff, against George Hartwell Roe, defendant, on 1st October, 1860; also an answer of the defendant in the suit George Hartwell Roe, filed in December, 1860 - I also produce an envelope and a paper with some writing upon it - they were deposited in the Court of Chancery under an order of the court, dated 26th January, 1861 - I have not got the order - Letter read:- “Macclesfield, December 30th, 1858.-To the Rev. James Roe- Dear James, I am being made to do what I do not want; if I am gone when you come, use this money for your family.  Yours very sincerely, E. Roe.”  Cheque read:- “Messrs. Brocklehurst and Co., bankers, pay Rev. James Roe or order, the sum of 6,000l.-E. Roe.”-The envelope was directed, “Rev. James Roe, Coomb Hay, near Bath.” (The bill in Chancery, in the cause of Sale v Roe, was here put in and read.  Filed 1st October, 1860.) - I have the original order dismissing that bill for want of prosecution (this was dated 15th April, 1861, and directed the costs to be paid by the plaintiff in the suit).

PETER WADSWORTH.   I live at Sutton, near Macclesfield - I am assistant overseer and collector of poor-rates for the parish of Sutton - I knew the deceased, Edward Roe, for thirteen or fourteen years before his death - I attested the will and codicil produced - the codicil was executed on 30th December, 1858 - I saw the testator execute it - he was very feeble that day - his hand was very much cramped - when I first went in I read the codicil over to him, then he took it up in his hands, and read it himself, after wiping his spectacles, and his hand was in this position (describing it) -he had to put his fingers so, to straighten it - he put his right hand into his left, and he put his name four or five times on a piece of blank paper before he attached it to the codicil - I saw the letters and cheque at Bow-street - these are them - in my judgement this is not the writing of the testator, Edward Roe - he could not write a hand like that at the date it purports to be written - at the time I saw the codicil executed it was getting near 4 o’clock in the afternoon - the letter and cheque may bear a little resemblance to the testator’s writing two or three years before his decease, but not for a long time before - he died on the 1st January, the next day but one, early in the morning - he was then living at Sutton, near Macclesfield - it is an adjoining township to Macclesfield, and within the Parliamentary borough.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE (with MR. MORGAN LLOYD).  Q  Were you there on the 24th, the day before the will was signed?  A.  Yes; not the will; the codicil - that was on the 30th - the will was not signed on the Christmas-day, but on Sunday the 26th - I heard of Mr. May, an attorney, being taken to him - I cannot speak to the date when Mr. John Orme Roe returned from Holland - I first saw him there on Christmas-day, in the morning - Mr. May, Mr. John Orme Roe’s attorney, was not there on that date to my knowledge - I do not know anything of it - the testator was feeble on that day, but perfectly sound in mind; quite fit to make a will - I have always said that - I was one of the witnesses called at Chester to prove that he was in a fit state - I made the will, at my own house - no one but myself was present when I made it - Mr. Edward Roe, deceased, gave me directions to make it, and no one else - I had a copy to make it from - that was an old will; a former will - he sent his man Turner for me - I saw Mr. John Orme Roe at that time - he did not see the will to my knowledge; not while it was in my possession - Mr. Hartwell Roe was not there - I did not see him until after the decease; the day of the inquest, I should say - this cheque and letter are a little like the writing of Mr. Edward Roe two or three years before his death - if it had been given to me dated two years before, I should have doubted it being his writing upon the first glance of it - I should have thought it was his, if I had not known the state of health in which he was - the envelope is worse, in my opinion, than the cheque and letter - I mean it is not such a good imitation; not nearly so like - I did not go in to see him every day - he frequently knocked for me at the window as I was passing on my business - he frequently rapped for me to come in, and I went in - I had nothing to do but to open the door, and I was in his room - his room did not open into the road; there was a lobby or passage that you went along, perhaps three yards from the front door - I generally went in the back way; the front door was often fast - if it was not, you opened the gate first, then went the three yards of lobby, and then his door was on the right-hand side, on the ground floor - the window that he tapped at overlooked the road - there is a footpath there on that side of the road - the back way into the house was at the gable end - I had to go through the yard-door to get to the back-door, and then through the kitchen into the lobby I have spoken of - there was a door between the lobby and the kitchen, which cut off his room from the kitchen - on Wednesday, the 29th, the day before the codicil was executed, I had a conversation with John Orme Roe, and I copied a draft that he brought to me - having copied it, I went to the old man on the 30th - I do not think he was looking much better on that day - I do not know that he was much better - he questioned me as to his health - I was examined on the former occasion to establish the validity of the will - I cannot say whether I stated on that occasion that the testator looked much better on that day - it is a long while ago - I have never looked at the evidence - I might have said so; I won’t dispute it - I told him the business I had come on - I first read the codicil to him; he then took it up and read it himself, and said, “That will do” - I cannot say whether he read it without his spectacles - I remember well enough his taking it up and saying, “That will do,” but I cannot remember whether he had his spectacles or not - he asked Turner to get the ink for him, and he tried the pen several times - he then said that he must attend to his books, for he had neglected them sadly of  late - they were books of his own business.

MR GIFFARD.  Q.   Do you know at all whether the window, at which he used to tap for you, opened?  A.  I never saw it opened - he ordinarily wrote his name in full, “Edward Roe” - I never saw him write “E.Roe”.

JOSEPH CHAPMAN.  I live at Sutton, near Macclesfield - I keep a shop there - I knew the deceased, Edward Roe, for seventeen years - I am one of the attesting witnesses to this will and codicil - both these signatures are my writing - I remember the day when the codicil was executed, the 30th December - Mr.. Roe was pretty well in his health that day - I remember his signing the codicil - at that time his hands were cramped in this way (contracted) - he had some difficulty in signing his name - he signed a piece of paper before he began, and tried his pen on it - I know his handwriting very well - I have seen it many and many a time - I believe this letter and cheque are not his writing, nor the envelope - he could not write in that way; not so well - he used generally to sign his name, Edward Roe - that was his regular way.

Cross-examined.  Q.  Do you mean he always signed Edward in full?  A.  Yes, in full - I used to help him gather in the taxes, and he signed his name Edward Roe on the receipts - I did not often see his letters - his mind was quite strong and clear up to the time of his death - he was quite sensible - I thought he was better that day than he had been before - I thought he was a deal better - I do not believe this to be his handwriting, because he could not write such a hand - his hand was not equal to writing such a hand as that - if I had not known the date, I should have said it was his writing; but I know he could not write so on that day - I was present when Mr. May, the attorney came; I think it was the day before Christmas - he brought a will with him - the old man refused to sign it - he got into a passion about it - Mr. May used to do business for him sometimes - Mr. Parrott was his attorney - Mr. May was the attorney employed by John Orme Roe - that will was not taken away by Mr. May; it was left - I do not know where it is now - I read it - I cannot recollect  whether there was any direction in it about paying the cheques.

JOHN TURNER.   I live near Macclesfield - I acted as servant to Mr. Edward Roe for about three years before his death - I had known him about thirty years - he died on 1st January, 1859 - I was in attendance on him for the three weeks or fortnight preceding his death - during that period he was confined to one room - I used to attend on him both day and night for that fortnight; all day and night - there was a casement at the room in which he was, which was fastened - it was fast when I went there, and had been for years - a person named Elizabeth Mycock was also in attendance on him - she is seventy-five years of age - she has fractured her thigh, and is not able to be here - I remember the day when the codicil was executed - I have seen the letter which has been produced (looking at it) - Mr. Roe was not able to write such a letter as that on that day - I was in attendance on him the whole of that day - I never left the house on that day, without it was for a few minutes to relieve nature - I did not hear of any such letter being written that day - no person could have gone into his room and out again with such a letter, without my seeing them - he used to show me all letters that he wrote - he always wrote a copy before he wrote the letter - he used to write upon small note paper, not with lines upon it; he used to rule them himself.

Cross-examined.  Q.  I thought he collected taxes, and had entries to make in books, and all that sort of thing?  A.  That was before my time - he had been a grocer - he kept his own books up to the time of his death - I can write a little - I think I can write so as persons can read it - his mind was clear and strong up to the time of his death - on the day the codicil was signed, the  30th, he was much better in his breathing, and he could talk better - I was examined at Chester - I always kept in his room - I did not take my meals in his room - I do not know that I did regularly - I might do so sometimes - I cannot say that I took all my meals in his room - I generally took them in the kitchen, and sometimes in his room - I was in the habit of doing so when he was so ill - I was never in bed for a fortnight - I slept on a chair in his room a little at night - I did not sleep much for that fortnight - in the daytime the housekeeper looked a little after him - that was at the beginning part of his illness - when she attended on him in his room I was in the kitchen, and if he wanted me she called me - I have never stated that the day before his death I was away for about three hours - that is not so - on the 26th I was away - I was examined at Macclesfield - I was not absent for three hours on the 30th or 31st - I was not absent at all unless I went into the garden, two or three minutes, that would be all - the garden was at the back of the house - it joins up to the house - you go out from the kitchen into the garden - the door between the kitchen and the lobby was generally kept open - it was not always open - it might be shut sometimes when I was in with him - it was made so as to swing to and keep shut, but we generally had a weight at the bottom to keep it open - he did not often tap at the window for persons to come in when they were passing - I cannot say that he never did so, but not often - I have not seen him do so within a week of his death - he could not walk for a week before his death, and therefore could not tap at the window - he could not walk without help - I mean to swear that he did not tap at the window during the last week of his life for persons to come in - he could not walk to the window without help - Mr. Wadsworth was not there the day before the will was executed - I did not see him during that week - I saw Mr. Peter Wadsworth - there are two Mr. Wadsworths - Mr. Peter Wadsworth was there on 30th December - I believe he was there the day before the will was signed - I was not there when he came in - I believe I was not in the house when he came - I did not see him - I saw him on the 30th in the room with my master - I did not hear of Mr. Roe writing a letter a day or two before his death - I know Mr. William Smith, who lives at Brook-street, Macclesfield - I told him, I believe, in December, that I had heard that the Rev. James Roe had produced a letter purporting to be signed by my late master two days before his death, containing a cheque for 6,000l. - I did not tell him that my master did write such a letter, but that I did not know what became of it - I swear that positively - I did not say that my master did write a letter a day or two before his death - I said that the 30th of December was one of his best days - it was - Mr. Smith did not say to me, “Do you know anything about the letter that was written by Mr. Roe a few days before he died?” nor did I say, “Yes; it was one of his best days; he did write a letter, and I do not know what has become of it” - all I said was one of his best days.

MR GIFFARD.   Q.   What was it you did say to this gentleman?    A.   He asked me whether he had written such a letter containing a cheque for 6,000l., and I said “No; nothing of the kind” - I believe that was all that passed between us with respect to my late master.

THOMAS PARROTT.  I am a solicitor, practising at Macclesfield - I am also town clerk there - I know Mr. Edward Roe very well - I knew him for forty years and upwards - I am acquainted with his handwriting - I do not believe this letter, cheque, and envelope, to be in his handwriting.

Cross-examined.   Q.  Were you solicitor to the late Mr. Roe?   A.  Occasionally; at other times Mr. Brocklehurst; he is a banker as well - I saw these documents in Mr. Johnson’s possession at Macclesfield; he brought them to me - I think that was about September or October - other gentlemen were present - it was at the execution of the commission for perpetuating testimony, under the order of the Court of Chancery - that was not the only occasion upon which the documents were shown to me; I saw them on the following day at my office - I did not on that occasion tell Mr. Johnson that I was satisfied it was the handwriting of Edward Roe; I did not tell him I believed it to be; quite the contrary - if there had been a date to the document, and I had not known anything of his illness, I should not then have believed it to be his writing - I was not asked to go up to Mr. Johnson’s to see it before the taking of the depositions at Macclesfield - I do not know that a person named Riley assisted Mr. Roe in making up his accounts. Q   Did you often visit him?  A.  On my road home I had to pass his house, and we chatted very frequently; I did not go in, he would walk along with me on the way - that was for several years before his death - I was not examined before the commission at Macclesfield - this is the first time I have been examined upon the matter; I was not at the police-court - it was a couple of years or more before his death that he used to walk with me - during the latter part of the time I did not go into his house at all - I do not think this is much like his writing two years ago; there is some resemblance, but I hardly think I should have been taken in by it for a moment - I did not often receive letters from him; I have received some, not latterly - I have seen him write; the last time was in 1857 - I had frequently seen him write up to that time - I have been acting as solicitor to Mr. John Orme Roe in this matter, in the Court of Chancery and the Court of Probate; he was acting in connexion with Mr. Hartwell Roe for the purpose of establishing the will - I never saw the previous will of 1857, it was not produced to me by my client, John Orme Roe - I never saw any previous will - there was a bill filed in chancery and an answer put in, and subsequently the suit was dismissed - I apprehend that the defendant in that suit might have had an order to examine the plaintiff - I am not aware that that step was taken - I heard of the criminal proceedings, immediately after the date of the answer; I heard it from Mr. Hartwell Roe.

MR. GIFFARD.  Q.  At that period of the suit would the proceedings have been ripe for hearing?   A.  I hardly think they would - the proceedings at Macclesfield was for the purpose of perpetuating the testimony of aged witnesses.

SAFFERY WILLIAM JOHNSON.  I am a member of the firm of Johnson and Coote, of Gray’s Inn-square, and also of Doctors’ Commons - I know the prisoner; he was a client of ours in respect of certain proceedings in the Court of Probate, of Sale v. Roe, and also in the Court of Chancery, of Roe v. Roe - on 19th June I wrote this letter, to Messrs. Brocklehurst and Bagshaw, by the instruction of the prisoner - (Read: “June 19th, 1860 - Gentlemen, - Re Edward Roe, deceased - We think it right to inform you that we have to-day had a long interview with our client, the Rev. James Roe, with reference to a letter which has been discovered, within the last few days, written by the deceased Edward Roe, dated 30th December, 1858, in which he complains of the coercion exercised towards him, and forwarding him a cheque. We intend immediately to consult counsel as to the course which should be pursued by Mr. James Roe, which we imagine will be that we should at once apply to the Court for a new trial.  We inform you of this that the executors may not proceed to distribute the estate until the questions raised by this letter have been disposed of. - We are, gentlemen, your very obedient servants, Johnson and Coote.”) - I afterwards wrote another letter of September 5th - it is my writing - (Read: September 5th, 1860 - Gentlemen, - Re Edward Roe, deceased - We think it right to inform you that, since writing our letter to you of the 19th June last, we have satisfied ourselves of the authenticity of the letter of the 30th December, 1858, which we shall be able to prove unquestionably to be in Mr. Edward Roe’s handwriting, and we shall now proceed to take such steps as counsel may advise.  Though our letter to you of the 19th June last, was, we imagine, quite sufficient to put the executor on his guard, and to caution him against distributing the estate, pending the questions raised by Mr. Edward Roe’s letter, still we think it right to give you this further notice, as, notwithstanding our letter, the executor is, we are informed, proceeding in the distribution of the estate. - We are, gentlemen, yours faithfully, Johnson and Coote.”) - I received the letter and envelope produced from the prisoner on 13th August, 1860 - I retained them in my possession until they were deposited in the Court of Chancery, under an order of Vice-Chancellor Wood, with the exception of four or five days, when I handed them to my partner, who took them into the country - I received them back again from him - on Saturday, 26th January last, I was at my office in Doctors’ Commons, in an inner room with the prisoner - I opened the door and requested Mr. Surrey to come in - after he came in, the prisoner, looking at him, said, “Who are you?” - I answered for Mr. Surrey by saying, “I think he is the son of  Mr. Surrey, of Fleet-lane;: and I said to Mr. Surrey, “Is that (pointing to the prisoner) the gentleman for whom your father made the dies?” - he said, “Yes, he is” - the prisoner seemed confounded with the accusation that seemed to be implied (I had had some conversation with him before Mr. Surrey entered the room) - he seemed confounded by the accusation; he put his hand to his head and stood aghast, and quite thunderstruck at the charge - he left our office a few minutes afterwards - these document were deposited in the Court of Chancery under an order of very nearly that date - on the morning of that day a summons was attended, which I attended myself before the chief clerk of the Vice-Chancellor - that was to deposit the documents in the hands of the Court of Chancery - that summons was taken out by the defendant’s agents, Messrs. Elsdale and Byrne.

Cross-examined.   Q.  Was the order made to deposit the documents before Mr. Surrey came in?  A.  Yes, before I saw Mr. Surrey - I did not communicate to the prisoner that the summons was taken out, or that there was an application to deposit the documents - the summons was returnable on my return to London, which was that same day - I did not communicate to the prisoner, when I saw him in my office, that there was such an application and order; I had no opportunity of doing so - I told him before Mr. Surrey came in that the order had been made to deposit the documents - I do not know exactly the day when the summons was made; it was served before my return from Macclesfield - my partner, Mr. Coote, has not attended a great deal more to this matter than myself; he attended to the trial at Chester more than myself, but I have attended all the Chancery proceedings - it was on the 29th or 30th of August that I handed these documents over to Mr. Coote for four or five days - that was in order that he might make inquiries at Macclesfield and elsewhere, about the genuineness of the documents - Mr. Coote is in London; he is not in court; I think he is at Doctors’ Commons - he is accessible at any moment - I gave him the documents, with instructions to ascertain their genuineness - he has told me that he did make inquiries, and upon his report of those inquiries I acted in the suit - it was after that report from him that I wrote the letter to Messrs. Brocklehurst, which has been read, stating that I had satisfied myself of the authenticity of the documents - after that I proceeded in the suit, filed the bill, and went to considerable expense - those expenses have not been paid - I did not undertake to carry on the suit at my own risk; merely advanced money on account - we are not out of pocket to a very large amount; only the amount expended in this suit; not in the suit of Sale v. Roe; those have been paid - I should not have undertaken the suit if I had thought there was any doubt about it - Mr. Coote conducted the trial which took place at Chester, and saw the witnesses - Mr. and Mrs. Loney were both witnesses on that trial - I know that Mr. Coote went to Macclesfield and saw Mr. and Mrs. Loney - I know also that he saw Mrs. Thompson; she was formerly a Miss Gee; a relation of the family - he also saw the postmistress at  Macclesfield, and put the envelope and stamps before her; at least, so he told me - I also know that he went to Bath, and saw the Bath postmaster, and put the envelope and stamps before him - I think he also saw Mr. Hollway, the gentleman mentioned in the bill, from whom the parcel was said to have come - after receiving the result of this information from Mr. Coote, I wrote to Messrs. Brocklehurst - I also wrote to Mr. Roe., on 5th September - being satisfied by Mr. Coote’s inquiries I then took proceedings - the 24th January was the first day that any communication was made to me by the other side about Mr. Surrey; the letter and cheque was not submitted to me before 13th August - I suppose it was to Mr. Coote - I only know that, from what Mr. Coote has said - Mr. Coote did not submit the original letter to me - he gave me some information upon which the letter of 19th June was written - the prisoner came to town on the 19th, and on that day he wrote out a copy of the letter from his own head, not having the letter with him - at the time I wrote the letter of 19th June I had not seen the original letter or cheque - I had seen a copy which the prisoner gave me - I have seen the prisoner in the presence of Mr. Coote - we were together on 19th June - the original letter was placed before Mr. Coote some time before that - I am not sure of the day - I think it was on the 4th of June - I only speak from what Mr. Coote told me - it was certainly some time before the 19th - I do not think there is any call-book at Doctors’ Commons - Mr. Coote has a journal of his own in which he makes entries, and I enter in my own journal what I do - we do not enter jointly - there is no unfriendliness between myself and Mr. Coote - I have seen the prisoner with Mr. Coote - I first saw him with him on 19th June, the day I wrote this letter I met the prisoner at Doctors’ Commons, at the request of Mr. Coote - Mr. Coote told me on that occasion that he had seen the original document; that Mr. Roe had been to town and shown him the original letter and envelope - I do not remember his saying that he had looked at the date of the stamp on the envelope - I do not recollect his telling me whether he did or not - I do not think Mr. Coote has been subpoenaed on the part of the prosecution - he was not examined at the police-court - I communicated to the other side that Mr. Coote had made inquiries about the genuineness of these documents - while the documents were in my hands persons called on behalf of Mr. Hartwell Roe to see them several times - Mr. Hartwell Roe himself called on 3d November - I do not think any one called before that - I received an answer to my letter of 19th June from Messrs Brocklehurst - when I wrote the letter of 5th September, no one called to see the documents and inquire about them - the 3d  of November was the first time that any one came to see them - on that day Mr. Hartwell Roe, and Mr. Collis, an attorney, acting for him, called - they called twice on the 3d, and remained for a long time on both occasions - I showed them the letter, cheque, and envelope, and they examined them very carefully; they used a lens, or microscope - I am not sure whether that was on the first occasion, but they did afterwards, certainly - they used very powerful lenses, I am not sure about the microscope - on 5th Mr. Collis called alone, and on 6th Mr. Collis and Mr. Hartwell Roe both called again - on 8th I endeavoured to obtain from Messrs Brocklehurst some cheques and papers so that I might compare them - I did not receive them - they attended with them - I did not have the custody of them - they brought them so that they might be compared - they brought cheques of the testators; not letters - I also procured some letters through the prisoner - Mr. Loney supplied Mr. Coote with them, and Mr. Coote gave them over to me - I think that was before he went to Macclesfield - I asked him to let me see some of the documents that I might compare them - Mr. Loney did not bring any to me - he brought them to Mr. Coote - they were writings containing accounts; not strictly letters, any of them - I think I have them here - it was such writing of the testator as he was able to furnish us with. Q.  Did you yourself compare those documents, and also the documents that Mr. Brocklehurst submitted to you with these documents that are now produced?  A.  They were compared at the time by experts - I looked at them - I compared those I received from Mr. Coote, and also those I received from Messrs. Brocklehurst - the result of that comparison in my own mind was that I was satisfied there appeared to be a great similarity in the writing, so strong that I had no doubt they were the same - the suit was commenced before that, and we went on with it - it was not commenced before the documents were received by Mr. Coote from Mr. Loney - I compared those documents with the cheque and envelope, and was satisfied with the comparison, and subsequently to that instituted the suit - I than compared them with the cheque received from Messrs. Brocklehurst, and was satisfied then - on 15th I  produced the letter, cheque, and envelope to two experts, Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Adlard - Mr. Hartwell Roe was with them, and Mr. Collis also - they brought the experts with them - they are men of great celebrity - they all four examined them for more than an hour - on 17th Mr. Cooke, another expert, compared the documents with the cheques I had obtained from Mr. Brocklehurst - Mr. Cooke was called in by us for our own protection - I think we did it as a proper precaution - we thought it a right step to take - Mr. Cooke is a gentleman of eminence as an expert - on 19th I also called in Mr. Lane - he had made an appointment to come on 17th, but did not come till the 19th - he examined them carefully on 19th, with magnifying glasses, and so on - I do not think he measured them with a compass - I think Mr. Hartwell Roe did so - I can hardly say; so much has been done - on 17th       Mr. Adlard, Mr. Hartwell Roe, and Mr. Collis again called to see them, and again examined them for a considerable time - on 28th Mr. Brocklehurst called with Mr. Hartwell Roe and Mr. Collis, and they again examined them very carefully - on 3d December Mr. Adlard, Mr. Collis, and Mr. Hartwell Roe again called and saw them, and they then examined them for a considerable time - on 15th a man named Burgess and Mr. Stainbridge called; they did not see them on that day, but they did on the 18th - they were sent by Messrs. Brocklehurst - I do not know what Burgess is - I believe he has been a policeman - Stainbridge is a clerk in the General Post Office - he came to look at the post office stamps - they inspected them carefully - the experts, introduced by Mr. Hartwell Roe, never expressed any opinion at all in my presence - having been present at all these examinations I was still satisfied and still continued the suit - on 7th January I received a letter from Messrs. Brocklehurst, asking me to give a photograph copy, and I said they could have it if they liked - I was first told anything about Mr. Surrey  on 24th January; that was by Mr. Parrott - I believe he is the attorney for John Orme Roe - up to that time I had not any reason whatever to doubt the genuineness of these documents - there were many insinuations made during my stay at Macclesfield, but no positive statement was made to me before the 24th - I discontinued the suit in consequence of what Mr. Surrey stated.   MR. GIFFARD.   Q.   When did you abandon all proceedings in the suit?  A.  I gave notice to Mr. Roe, on my interview on the 26th, that we should not continue any farther to act in the suit, and he must appoint some one else - I did not take any further steps in it, except so far as I was required to take for the purpose of depositing the documents - the prisoner did not himself come to me to demand the documents, but in consequence of the order, I deposited them in the Court of Chancery - I never saw the testator, and never saw him write - I had formed no opinion whatever of his handwriting except from comparison of documents; they appeared to me to be precisely alike - if I had know that the envelope was a forged one, probably I should have formed a different judgment as to the likeness of the handwriting - the statement of Mr. Surrey certainly influenced me in my conduct afterwards - I am not aware that Mr. Coote has been subpoenaed on behalf of the prisoner

- I first heard of the name of Mr. Hollway I think, on 19th June - if his name is not mentioned in the bill, that was the act of the counsel who drew it, not mine, I gave the name to the equity draftsman - I do not know of the name being communicated to the defendants in the suit - they attended at my office several times before the answer was put in, and during that time certainly the name of Hollway was frequently mentioned to Mr. Collis, Messrs. Brocklehurst’s clerk.

ABRAHAM SURREY.   I am a relief engraver, of 15, Fleet-lane, City - I am acquainted with a gentleman named Perraton, and have several times executed orders for him - he came to me in the course of the year 1860 with this paper, marked A 1 - I had some conversation with him, and he also gave me this other paper, marked B 2 - in consequence of receiving those papers and the directions he gave me.  I made two stamps - that was somewhere about 25th June; I cannot exactly say the day - Mr. Perraton also left with me these two other papers (produced) - they were attached to the others at the time I had them - they were in two parcels, two papers in each - they were both received at one time - I executed them - one was a stamp with four straight lines in it - since this matter has been investigated, I have made two fac-similes for the purpose of explaining my evidence - Mr. Humphreys has them - these (produced) are them, with this exception, I made a circular stamp for letters separately - I did not know what letters were wanted - this fac-simile has been set up since the occurrence has transpired - the type was not arranged when I supplied it, because I did not know how the prisoner wanted to arrange it - I made all the types that are in these two stamps - I made them circular stamps with movable letters, so that they might be put into any words which the letters would stamp - I made the letters that are on these pieces of paper - I made circular stamp with ten letters in the first instance, and a space with power to admit of one letter; ditto for four letters, and ditto for two - I afterwards received back the stamp to admit of ten letters, and altered it so as to receive twelve - I took the stamps with the letters to Mr. Perraton, I think on 29th July, having made a few more movable types - the letters which I made would form, if so disposed, the word Macclesfield and the word Bath - the initial letters D and J, and the figures 1 5 9 2 - on 8th August, I saw the prisoner at my shop, 15 Fleet-lane, between 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning - he said he was sent by Mr. Perraton, recommended to me as the maker of the stamps, and he wanted certain alterations, and asked me if I would devote a few hours with him - I agreed to do so - he brought with him the two stamps that I had done in the first place for Mr. Perraton with the fittings, and he said, :Consider yourself as working for me now, and not for Mr. Perraton: - he wanted certain technical alterations which did not seem to correspond exactly with the marks that he wanted them to correspond with, and I altered them under his own eye - I had to alter each letter separately to correspond with letters that he had with him marked in a book - it was a memorandum book with a black cover - he looked at each letter and the impressions, and got me to alter them separately - he took the impressions in my shop - I did not see the marks in the book; but he took impressions, and then looked at them with his back to me at the time, and then gave me directions to take a little bit off here, or a little bit off there, wherever he thought it might be necessary - he was with me on the first day about four or five hours I should think - my two sons, William and Henry, were there during part of that day - I had to make the stamp larger, and in doing so the centre came out, and I had to make a new stamp entirely - I asked him for his card in the evening - he did not give it me, but he gave me a half-sovereign, and said he supposed that would do as well - he came again the next day, and we were progressing with this circular stamp, the old one and the fresh one I had made - he was with me about the same time on that day, four or five hours; I cannot say exactly to an hour - he came again the day after that and stayed about the same time - he came again on the 11th, Saturday, and remained the whole of the day - I was engaged with him the whole of that day in finishing the work - I did finish it, between 6 and 7 in the evening - he brought a tracing with him, a paper similar to this, and it was from that I worked - I prepared the brass - he marked it himself to indicate where I was to pierce the brass for the fittings to go in, so that I might have it accurate - on the last occasion, he took away two or three files which I gave him - he said that he wanted to make little alterations himself - he seemed to by very ingenious - I do not say that he was a practical man - he used a magnifying glass which he had with him - he left it behind, and fetched it away on the following Monday - he was very urgent to have them accomplished all the time - I believe the impressions on this envelope to be taken from the stamps that I cut, for in the circular stamp I recollect there was a piece of what we term bad brass - it broke away in the line between the two first letters, and it seems to be here.

Cross-examined.  Q.   When did you first make any statement of this matter to the prosecution?  A.    I will tell you how it cam to light - I had to go to Cambridge last January, and a customer of mine asked me if I had ever done such a thing as in any way resembled a postage mark, and I told him I thought I had - that was Mr. Nicholls, a photographer of Cambridge - I had never seen Mr. Hartwell Roe at that time, but Mr. Nicholls was a friend of his, and there seemed to have been an inquiry about how these stamps were cut - Mr. Nicholls asked me if I had ever done such a thing in the course of my business, and singularly enough I happened to be the very person that had done it - the conversation took place in Mr. Nicholls’s shop at Cambridge - I have a number of customers there - I forget the name of the street in which Mr. Nicholls lives - it is close by Mr. Roe - I think it is St. James’s-parade, or King’s-parade - no one was present but Mr. Nicholls and myself when this conversation took place - I did not know he was a friend of Mr. Roe’s at that time - I have never worked for Mr. Roe directly or indirectly - I have never stated that I met a workman of Mr. Roe’s - I have never been examined before except at the police-court - I was at Macclesfield and saw the letter there at the time the depositions were taken, but was not examined as a witness - the conversation with Mr.,. Nicholls took place on 14th January, and on the 16th a communication was made to me on behalf of Mr. Hartwell Roe at my shop in Fleet-lane - I did not go to the post-office at Macclesfield - I think it was on the following week after Mr. Hartwell Roe called on me, that I went to Macclesfield - he did not ask me to go to the post-office to look at their stamps - I did not go there, nor to the Bath post-office either, I have never been - I went to Mr. Johnson’s on 26th January by Mr. Hartwell Roe’s direction - that was to identify the prisoner - Mr. Hartwell Roe called for me, and asked me if I would go to Mr. Johnson’s - he did not tell me that I should find the prisoner there, but I expected that he would be there - I was to be there at 1 o’clock - he came for me some part of the morning, I cannot exactly say what time - nobody came with him - I had seen him three or four times, between 14th and 26th of January.

MR GIFFARD.   Q.   I believe, although you were to go to Mr. Johnson’s office, by some mistake you went to the wrong one?  A.  Yes; it was my son who went to Mr. Johnson’s office - he was fetched by Mr. Johnson himself to Doctors’ Commons, while I was gone to Gray’s Inn Square. R>

WILLIAM SURREY.   I am the son of the last witness - I work in the shop - I was in the shop on 8th  of August when my father was making a stamp - I saw the prisoner there - he was there for six or seven hours that day - I saw him on the following day, the 9th of August; he was at the shop for some hours on that day, while my father was at work at the stamps - on 26th January I went to Doctor’s Commons to Mr. Johnson’s - he came to the shop and asked for my father, and he was not there, and I went with him - he told me to go into an outer room, while he went into an inner room - I did so - he afterwards opened the door and told me to come in - I went into the room where he was, and I saw the prisoner there - Mr. Johnson asked me if the prisoner was the man my father made the stamps for - I said he was - the prisoner looked very pale, and put his hands up to his head - he made made (sic) no remark whatever - nothing else passed on that occasion - after that I left.

Cross-examined.   Q.   When did you first see Mr. Hartwell Roe about this?  A.  In January, at our shop - I should say it was about the 15th or 16th - he asked my father about the making of the stamps then, in my presence - I only saw him once between that time and the time I went to Doctors’ Commons - I saw him on 15th or 16th, and on Saturday morning, 26th January, the day I went to Doctors’ Commons - my younger brother was not there too, when this was being talked about by Mr. Hartwell Roe - he was there when the prisoner was at our shop - I don’t know whether he was there when Mr. Hartwell Roe was there talking about it - I do not recollect - my father did not receive any money from Mr. Hartwell Roe, not to my knowledge - he went down to Macclesfield for ten days, from the 16th to 26th - he received some money then before he went - I think it was 2l. - I did not go down to Macclesfield - I have not received any money at all, none whatever, or my brother - I believe my father has received 5l. altogether, three besides the Macclesfield two - I did not go down to Cambridge - I have not been to the Macclesfield or Bath post-office - I have not been out of  London; or has anybody, on the part of the post-office, been to our place.

HENRY SURREY.   I live with my father - I remember, in August last, my father making some stamps - I saw him at work - the prisoner was present - I saw him there from Wednesday till Saturday.

ANN DUTTON.   I am a clerk at the post-office at Macclesfield - it was part of my duty in 1858 and 1859 to change the date of the post-office endorsing stamps - in the course of business at the post-office, I change the endorsing stamp at different periods of the day - it is part of my duty before I stamp any letters, to take an impression of the stamp, when changed, on a piece of paper kept for that purpose - the stamps are changed now at 12 o’clock at noon, and about 5 in the afternoon - the letter D is put in at 12 - the letter A is put in up to 12, B at 12, and C at 5 - in the month of January, 1859, the letter B was lost, we used the letter D instead - I have got the sheet here on which the impressions were made by me when I changed the stamps (produced) - I first used the letter D on 3d of January - on 1st January I used the letters A, B, and C - this envelope could not have passed through our post-office on 1st January, 1859 - I continued to use the letter D up to the 9th of May; all the letters passing through the Macclesfield post-office, which were posted between 12 and 5, from 3d of January to 9th of May in that year, would bear the letter D on them.  Q.   Some question has been raised about what you call the D on that envelope, can you tell me whether that is C turned upside down, or D?   A.   It is D, because C was not used turned upside down in that way; if the C had been turned upside down by mistake in the stamp, I should have found it on my impression - there is no impression of C turned upside down on that day; it is correct on that day - that impression is made before any letters are stamped - a letter posted at Macclesfield on 1st January, 1859, would go to Bath by railway, by the night mail, which leaves Macclesfield about quarter-past 10 in the evening - it could not in course of post arrive at Bath until after 12 o’clock on that night - I cannot say at what time it would arrive at Bath.

Cross-examined   Q.   Did Mr. Higginbotham, an attorney, come on behalf of the prisoner and request to see this book.   A.   Yes; I declined to show it to him until I had permission - the first change here is on January 1st, 1858 - the figure eight had not been changed, it was afterwards altered to nine - I accidentally omitted to change it - I altered it with a pen I believe - the second stamp was also an eight, and is now altered into a nine - that was done at the time the impression was taken - I did not stamp the letters in that way before - I altered this instead of making another impression - I altered it with a pen. Q.   The first stamp is “A, January 1, 1858,” which you altered into 1859, and the second stamp is B, that commences at 12o’clock, so that up to 12 o’clock you must have been stamping the letters 1858?   A.   I believe they are two distinct stamps; we use two stamps - we never use a D except as a substitute;  it is used at some offices - the letter B was lost on 3d January - there is no B used on the 2d, that was Sunday; we never use B on Sunday - the letter C has been used turned upside down occasionally - this letter on the envelope is not a C turned upside down; it is a different shape altogether, it is not like it at all - I think there are some days upon which I have omitted to stamp the book at all - on 2d March it is not stamped - the mode of stamping is to have a cloth or flannel saturated with ink, to place the stamp upon that, and then to stamp it on the paper - if we get the stamp full of ink we make a very strong impression; but if it only sucks up a small quantity of ink we only get a very dull impression; we stamp it on the blotting pad for each impression; it is quite necessary - if the impression is dull it would be because the pad required more ink I should think - I do not stamp all the letters myself - there are two deliveries a day from Macclesfield - we have several despatches, five now - we call these despatches - the letters are not used to indicate which despatch it is by, but to show what time it is posted - the letter A would show that it was posted before 12 - I have seen Mr. Coote - I believe he came to our office - Miss Serjeant, the postmistress, saw him, not in my presence - she is not here - I always take the impression of the stamp in this book - I did not speak to Mr. Coote when he came down to see the postmistress - I did not see him produce the envelope that has been handed in to-day - I cannot tell what month it was in that I saw him there - I do not know whether it was in September - I was not examined at Macclesfield for the purposes of the Chancery suit - I was examined at Bow-street; that was the first time - I have occasional holidays in the summer - I did not give Mr. Hartwell Roe information about this matter - I saw him once or twice in Macclesfield - he came to see the book - the postmistress gave him information - I think he saw the book; it was shown to Mr. Collis and also to Whicher, the detective - we had not permission to show it to Mr. Higginbotham.

MR. GIFFARD.   Q.   Is it part of your duty to show it unless you are permitted?   A. No - it was produced before the Magistrate at Bow-street, and I was cross-examined by some one on behalf of the prisoner on the subject - there was no omission to take the proper number of stamps on 1st January, 1859 - the letter C is not turned upside down in this impression - the letter on the envelope produced is D - (looking at a paper) this is a D like the D of our post-office - I mean the D in the stamp.

JOHN PRIOR.   I am chief clerk at the Bath post-office, and was so in January, 1859 - the Bath post mark upon this envelope is not a genuine post mark - I am able to say that positively - a letter posted at Macclesfield on 1st January, and getting to Bath by the night mail, would bear the Bath post mark of 2d January, but it would have a different index letter to that given in the stamp - I am speaking from the general routine of duty - it would have a different index letter upon the post mark - I know the prisoner - I remember his calling at the Bath post-office, sometime in the year 1860 - I cannot say distinctly what month it was in; I made no note of it - I should imagine it was somewhere in July or August - I saw him - he asked if he could be allowed to see the book in which the impressions from the date stamp were made of 1st January, 1859 - I requested him to call the following morning, and I would let him see it if it was in the office - he called the following morning; I saw him - I had searched for the book in the mean time and found that it had been sent to the General Post-office, in the ordinary course of business - I told the prisoner that it was not there.

Cross-examined.   Q.    Is it here?   A.   Not the book that he inquired for - I have not been to the General Post-office to inquire about it - it is questionable whether it could be obtained now, it is so long since - I do not know how they dispose of the book there - Mr. Coote did not come with the prisoner; Mr. Hollway of Milsom-street came with him - I do not know Mr. Coote; there is a postmaster at the office - I am chief clerk; it is my duty to assist the postmaster in his office - he would be the person to conduct the business - he is not here; he is away on sick leave - I do not know that he saw any person about this matter - I know that a post mark was presented at some time, I do not exactly remember in what month, to Mr. Weston, the postmaster, and myself; but I am not acquainted with the man who presented it - he was a stranger and came alone - it was presented for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was a genuine document - I do not know that it was Mr. Coote - he did not introduce himself when he asked the question - he asked if we would be kind enough to tell him if that was a genuine post mark of our office - to the best of my belief Mr. Weston said it was; I also said so - the index letter here is intended for A, above the work “Bath” - it was not this envelope I saw when the gentleman came - I swear that:  it was a more distinct impression of the Bath date stamp than that - I am perfectly clear on that point - I cannot say whether it was the end of August or the beginning of September that it was presented; it was about that time - I am certain it was not that letter - I have not been in court while the witnesses were examined, and have heard no evidence in the case - I mean deliberately to swear this is not the envelope; I say so positively - the A is not all that I found my opinion upon, it is not a perfect stamp; the letters are not upright, the B and the T are not perfect, they do not correspond with each other, they are not perpendicular - this envelope was shown to me for the first time this morning - I received my subpoena yesterday morning - inquiries had been previously made by some gentleman but I never saw the envelope till this morning - I was not examined at the police-court - I can hardly say where Mr. Weston is at present; I think he is in some part of Scotland - I am not aware that he has been asked to attend - the book in which I make the impressions before the letters are stamped in one similar to that produced - we use six or seven letters, or perhaps more, A, B, C, D. and so on - we do use an A - when I said that A would be the wrong index letter, I meant that it would be wrong for a letter coming from London - I thought the question I was asked was as to a letter coming by way of London - A would be the proper index letter from Macclesfield - I dare say in our office, as in others, we sometimes make a clear impression, and sometimes a dull one, according to the state of the ink.

MR. GIFFARD.   Q.   You said something about the letters not being upright, how are the post-office stamps made?   A.   The word “Bath” is cut in the solid, that is, the letters are not movable, but fixed - I should think the word “Bath” on the envelope was made by movable type; the B is not upright, and does not correspond with the other letters, they are not uniform in line - a letter posted at Macclesfield at night would come down by the Midland Railway by way of Birmingham in a sealed bag - that is called the North country mail - I have here a registered letter delivery receipt-book, which contains a stamped impression taken from the same stamp as that used in the book that was sent to the chief office - I had not looked at this at the time the opinion was expressed to the gentleman who called to inquire whether the stamp was a genuine one; he only called with one envelope with a good impression of the Bath stamp on the back, and a very good impression of the Macclesfield stamp on the front, but it was not this - I cannot say how long ago my attention was called to the date of that transaction, it was towards the end of last year - I believe that gentleman called before I saw Mr. Roe upon the subject, but I cannot speak with any positiveness.

MR. METCALFE.   Q.   Why did you not produce this book when I was asking you about the stamp?   A.   That was not the book you inquired for - this book is used for registered letters; it is a distinct book altogether - on 2d January, 1859, A was the index letter from Macclesfield - looking at this and the envelope together, there is a difference in the stamp; it is the same index letter, but it is not the impression of the same stamp - it was not so late as the latter part of August that I saw the gentleman who produced the envelope - it was earlier in the year than August. Q.   You have already told me that, to the best of your belief, it was the end of August or the beginning of September.   A.   No; I alluded to Mr. Roe calling - I believe the gentleman with the envelope called before Mr. Roe, but I cannot say the precise date - I intended to have said it was about the end of August, or the beginning of September that Mr. Roe called - there are clerks in the sorting office at Bath below me - they would not have anything to do with the stamps - it is the stamper’s duty to alter the stamps; the clerks do not do that, if they want to use it they can, but there is a distinct man for that duty, called the stamper - there are two or three stampers - the stamps are locked up in charge of the stamper then on duty - none of the stampers are here - I was subpoenaed yesterday morning - I had been given to understand I should not be required - I had seen Mr. Hartwell Roe on the previous Saturday - I only saw him once - I told Mr. Roe what I knew about it - I told him I was quite sure this was not the envelope, at least, I had not seen the envelope before this morning - he came to inquire if the prisoner had ever made inquiries about the stamp - I told him very nearly all that I have told you, not quite - I did not tell him about this envelope of course, because I had never seen it; I could not have done so - I showed him the impressions in this book - I had had an order to do so, from the Post-master general - he did not bring the order with him; but I had a written order to give information, although they had never called before - Inspector Whicher was to have called, but I never saw him till this morning - I suppose it was the end of last year that I got the order from the Post-master general to supply certain information - I was to show the book to Mr. Hartwell Roe, or any person coming on his behalf - no one came to see the book till last Saturday, and I was not shown this envelope till this morning.

MR. GIFFARD.   Q.   You say the gentleman, whoever he was, called earlier in the year than August?   A.   Yes; I cannot exactly say how much earlier, but more than a month.

MR. METCALFE.   Q.   Look at that gentleman (Mr. Coote, who had been sent for), is that the gentleman who brought the envelope?   A.   I do not recognise him as the individual - I cannot bear in mind - I see some hundreds of faces during the year. Q.   Now seeing that gentleman there, will you swear that this was not as late as the end of August?   A.   To the best of my belief it was the end of August - I did not swear just now that it was a month earlier - yes, it was before August - I cannot say when, but about a month previous to that - it was not so late as the end of August when the gentleman called and showed me the envelope - but I cannot say positively when it was.

JAMES PERRATON.   I am a stationer; and live at 22, King-street, Snow-hill - some time in the year 1860, a person called upon me in reference to the execution of some stamps - I referred him ultimately to Mr. Surrey - I identify these (produced) as the documents I received - I think I only received two by hand - I think I received the rest by post - this, marked A 1,  I think I received by hand - those that I received by post, I think I gave to Mr. Surrey - the stamps so executed were to be sent to Mr. C.J. Wyld, Cheltenham - they were to go by rail - I sent the things that I did send by rail so directed - I afterwards received the stamps back again, and I received the whole of those letters by post - I cannot give the date that I sent down a parcel to Cheltenham - it was towards the end of July I think, I should say it was in July - the stamps were afterwards returned by the same person who had ordered them, and I referred the person to Mr. Surrey - I cannot say that the prisoner is the person.

GEORGE WARD.   I am a porter in the parcel office, at the Cheltenham railway station - some time last year a gentleman called at the office - the prisoner is the person - it was the early part of July, it might have been on the 3d, but the exact day I do not know - he said, “Have you any parcel from London for Mr. Wyld?” - I said “No” - the prisoner then said, “When you have, send to the Gloucester station, to be called for” - I said I would do so - Gloucester station is eight miles from Cheltenham - a parcel did arrive from London on 5th July, by the 8.10 train - it was addressed to Mr. J.C. Wyld, Cheltenham - it might have been C.J. - I know there was a J. and a C, but which stood first I cannot recollect - I forwarded that parcel as I had been directed, and re-directed it myself to Gloucester - I afterwards received a letter, I have not got it here, we kept it in the office fearing a second parcel should come, and in the course of a month or two it was destroyed - the effect of that letter was, that on the 11th, by the 8.10 train another parcel would come, and asking me to send it to the Gloucester station - that letter was in the name of Wyld - a parcel did come on the 11th by the 8.10 train from London, addressed the same as the previous one - I forwarded that in the same way to Gloucester - we booked it on the 12th - in the early part of the following November, the prisoner called at our office at Cheltenham - he said, “Have you any parcels for the Rev. James Roe? when you have, send them to College-green, Gloucester” - I recognised the prisoner - I thought he was a gentleman I had seen before, and I pondered it over in my mind, and then thought he was the same gentleman that came to me in July, and I recognise him as such now - he is the same person.

JOSEPH HOLLWAY.   I am an engraver and lithographer, at 10 Milsom-street, Bath - I have known the prisoner for some time, and have done business for him occasionally - he was with us on many occasions in 1859 - on one occasion, I cannot say whether it was in 1859 or 1860, he asked me if I had any envelopes bearing the North country stamp upon them - I said I had not any by me - he did not tell me what he wanted them for, and I did not ask - I told him that I might have the means of getting some, for I knew solicitors in the town, and perhaps they might have kept their envelopes - he said that he should like to get them if I could procure them, and I offered to do so - in April, 1860, the prisoner went over my lithographic process - he applied to me for the purpose of going over - I was busy at the time, and I told him that our assistant would show it him - that was Francis Pyle - I am very well acquainted with the prisoner’s hand-writing; I have lithographed various writings of his - I have seen these letters written in the name of Wyld; I can recognise the prisoner’s handwriting in most of the, in some of them very distinctly - they are not in the handwriting that he was in the habit of writing to me - part of the process of lithographing is to imitate writing - at the time we were working for the prisoner I was not aware that he possessed the faculty of writing different hands - last session I was subpoenaed here by the prisoner, and then for the first time some communication was made to me by the solicitor for the prosecution.

Cross-examined.   Q.   And by Mr. Hartwell Roe also?   A.   I saw Mr. Hartwell Roe at the same time - he talked to me about this matter - Mr. Humphreys put these letters before me; Mr. Hartwell Roe was in the room - I cannot say whether it was towards the end of last year that the inquiry about the envelopes took place, it was a circumstance that did not impress me at the time - it was not as late as August or September last year, it was much earlier than that - I should think it was most likely to have been at the time he went over our premises - I did not give a written statement of the evidence I could give - Mr. Humphreys made a copy of what I stated - I should say it was in 1860 that the prisoner spoke about the envelopes; but it is a thing that I took no notice of at the time and I cannot charge my memory with it - I can give the date of his going over our premises exactly; it was 30th April, 1860 - I should say the inquiry about the stamps was before, but I really could not say - the prisoner removed from Coomb Hay to Gloucester - after his removal I continued to send him copies of the publication, back numbers, to his address at College-green, Gloucester - there were several numbers printed about the same time, in December, 1858 - I believe I printed one number before 14th February, if not more - I printed a number together - I cannot say whether I sent them all off together, most likely they have gone together - we printed generally once a week - I sent him sufficient for the current supply, and afterwards sent a parcel containing the back numbers - if several numbers were printed together, we should send him at the time sufficient for his circulation, and afterwards send the back numbers - letters were occasionally inclosed with those parcels - soon after he left Cheltenham his letters were delivered at our place in Milsom-street - two or three letters remained a considerable time at our place - the only reason why they remained was because they had been overlooked, otherwise we should have sent them off sooner - I cannot say that they were dispatched in a packet of books; the mode I adopted was to send on his letters as soon as I received them, but as time went on, from his leaving, the letters came few and far between, and then they may have laid there two or three weeks - I did not, to my knowledge, on one occasion send him a suit of regimentals in one of the packets; I do not remember it - I did not pack the parcels myself - I suppose the back numbers would not come into use till the first issue was exhausted; I do not know what he would do with them.

FRANCIS PYLE.   I am in the service of Mr. Hollway - I remember the prisoner calling at his place of business at Bath, in April, 1860 - he spoke to me - he said, with Mr. Hollway’s permission, I was to show him over the process of lithography - I did show him - he was there about three quarters of an hour altogether, I should think - he inquired very minutely into the practical working, and also as to the various kinds of pens that were used - I showed him the various sorts of pens which were used - he used one pen himself, on transfer paper, merely to try his skill in using the pen; he could use it - from the conversation I had with him, I am able to say that he had some knowledge of the art - it appeared to me, from the conversation, that there was some difficulty in the process which he could not get over, and he came to me to make it out - I know that this was 30th April, 1860 from an entry I made in the book at the time; I have it here (produced) - I speak positively to the date, from that entry - he has not examined the process on other occasions besides this once, neither before or since.

Cross-examined.   Q.   Had you ever shown other people over your works?   A.   No; nobody at all - I was not aware at the time that he had a lithographic press, I only know it from hearsay - I did not know at that time that he was proposing to take out a patent for a lithographic press - not before the last half hour - I inferred there were some difficulties from what he said; I explained the process to him as minutely as I could.

WILLIAM HARVEY.   I am a lithographer - about the month of May or June, 1860, I had a lithographic press for sale - between the latter end of May and the middle of June, 1860 the prisoner called upon me to look at the press, and afterwards purchased it of me - he called upon me from time to time after he had purchased it, and had conversations with me about the mode of working it - he seemed to understand the process pretty well I thought - I remember being at work upon a job one day when the prisoner came in - he asked me something about lithography, and he tried the press that I was using, a few times; what we call rolling - he rolled a copy of what I was doing, off; he seemed to do it pretty well, I thought.

Cross-examined.   Q.   Were you at work at that time upon the prisoner’s publication? A.   No; I was doing my own work - I did not work at all for him at that time, I did some months afterwards - he was not endeavouring to show me what he wanted done - he asked me questions - he told me he thought of having a man to do it, and ultimately employed me, but he meant on his own premises when he spoke to me about it.

JONATHON WHICHER.   I am an inspector of the M Division, detective police - I received a warrant for the apprehension of the prisoner on 9th May - I endeavoured to take him immediately, and was successful on 20th - I had been looking for him in the meantime - on Monday, 20th, I saw him in Hatton-garden between 9 and 10 in the evening - I said to him, “I believe you are the Rev. James Roe” - he made no answer, and I then said, “I believe your name is Roe, is it not?” - he said, “I decline to answer that question; but why do you ask?” - I said, “I am a police officer and hold a warrant for your apprehension, charging you with uttering a forged document for 6,000l.” - he made no reply, but turned round to a lady, his wife, who was walking with him - I then went to No.35, or 36, Hatton-wall, to his lodgings, and there read the warrant to him - he asked several times to see Mr. Roe, and I said  “Mr. Roe is at the bottom of the street if you wish to see him;” but I said if it was with a view of stopping these proceedings I could not allow him to see him, as the warrant was executed - I then took him to the police-station.

Cross-examined.   Q.   Had Mr. Roe been about with you?   A.   Yes; assisting me - Mr. Hartwell Roe had a cigar in his mouth at the time I took the prisoner - I went with Mr. Hartwell Roe to Mr. Chandler’s at Gloucester - I was introduced there by him as Mr. Wilson, an attorney from Cambridge, and I adopted that - Mr. Chandler is a very respectable man, a friend of the prisoner’s - I appeared as an attorney because I understood that Mr. Chandler could give information where the prisoner was; and I thought if I was to represent myself as a police officer, I should not, perhaps, get what I wanted - I did not go as an attorney to Mrs. Sale also - I went as Mr. Wilson; but not an attorney - she said she knew I was a lawyer, and I did not contradict her - I did not tell her I was a police-officer - nothing was said about being a friend of Mr. Roe’s - I did not ask Mrs. Sale to give evidence, nor did Mr. Roe - we asked her for the prisoner’s address - there was some conversation about her being indebted to Mr. Roe the costs of the suit - he said he could have her arrested if he thought proper - nothing was said about her giving evidence - he wanted her to give Mr. James Roe’s address - he did not say he was going to prosecute him for forgery or for anything - he said nothing at all about evidence - I don’t believe he did - we did not wish her to know that we were about apprehending him - we were endeavouring to get his address from her, and in consequence of her refusing to give it Mr. Roe said, “I thing you ought; as you know if I thought proper I could have you arrested for the costs” - Mr. Roe did not say to Mr. Chandler that he was going to prosecute the prisoner, but he would not proceed against him if he would withdraw his claim, nor anything to that effect - Mr. Chandler wanted to know what we wanted to find the prisoner for, and Mr. Roe said it was to settle the matter - that was on 15th May, after the warrant was out - I had the warrant in my pocket at that time - he did not say if a bond of indemnity was given against the claim he would withdraw the proceedings - the wanting to settle it was a mere subterfuge - no terms of settlement were named - Mr. Chandler said, “Before I give you any information, Mr. Roe is a friend of mine; you want to apprehend him, if you do, I will not give you and information,” and upon that Mr. Roe said that he wanted to settle it - I do not believe he said anything to the effect that he would withdraw from the proceedings if a bond of indemnity was given - he certainly said he wanted to see him to settle the matter.

JOHN CHARLES RICHARDS.   I am a solicitor at Gloucester - I know the prisoner - I saw him execute this deed - I attested it (This was dated 27th June, 1859, and was a deed of indemnity between James Roe, Lord Denman, and Joseph Moore, on one part; and George Hartwell Roe, and John Orme Roe, on the other part; by which, on payment to the prisoner of 500l. it was undertaken that he should make no claim upon the estate of the testator).

JOSEPH HOLLWAY (re-examined).   The signature to these two receipts are in the prisoner’s writing.  (The one was dated 25th January, 1850, for 485l., being a legacy of 500l., less legacy duty; the other was dated 20th July, 1859, and was for a sum of 392l. 8s., the balance of a sum of 500l. a gift to the prisoner from John Orme Roe.)

GEORGE HARTWELL ROE.   I am in business as a jeweller, at Cambridge - I became the acting executor under this will, the other executors having renounced - I had all the books and papers belonging to the testator, Edward Roe, amongst others, his banker’s book - at the time of his death he had at his bankers, l,699l. 3s. 3d. Cross-examined.   Q.   Were you present at the time the will was made, in 1858?   A. I was not - I was not at Macclesfield - I was not there during the last four or five days of December, nor for six months before - Mr. John Orme Roe was there at that time - I have seen the previous will of 1857 - under that the prisoner was residuary legatee with me - almost the only alteration made by this will was the substitution of John Orme Roe for the prisoner - I believe it is in court - there were several other wills, or drafts of wills - they were not sent by me to Mr. Chapman - I gave Mr. Chapman one will, and that was destroyed - he is a grocer, and has occasion for waste paper, and I gave it him amongst other waste paper - I had offered the prisoner 500l. as a present - he told me he had claims against the estate, and this deed was to indemnify me against those claims - Lord Denman had withdrawn his caveat nearly twelve months before, but he was made a party to this deed, because I would not consent to take the prisoner’s guarantee - I insisted upon having Lord Denman’s name in the indemnity - I do not know whether the prisoner’s father was the eldest brother of Edward Roe - I never knew any of the family, and therefore I cannot answer the question - I never knew any of them until this transaction - I never knew James Roe, or John Orme Roe - I knew my uncle Edward Roe - I really do not know that the prisoner’s father was Edward Roe’s elder brother - I know nothing of the prisoner being there as a boy with him - I know nothing of the family affairs - I did not know my uncle till about eight years before he died - I never heard before you mentioned it, that the prisoner was brought up with him as a boy - I think I first heard of this letter on 4th June, from my attorneys at Macclesfield - it may be that I heard that the letter was put before Mr. Coote on 4th June - it came to me of course, through my attorneys at Macclesfield - they wrote to me to say they had received a communication from Messrs. Johnson and Coote - I knew nothing at all about John Orme Roe - I knew none of them; in fact I am engaged in trade, and that has made all the difference in the family - I never knew any of my relatives - those who are in professions are separated from those who are in trade - when I heard of this cheque I went to         Mr. Johnson’s to examine it - I went frequently - I took Mr. Netherclift and Adlard, the experts, with me - I did not meet Mr. Cooke, another expert there - I did not know that he had been - I heard that Mr. Coote had had parties there, but I cannot speak of my own knowledge - I took Mr. Netherclift, and Mr. Adlard on one occasion with me to examine the documents, and on several occasions I took Mr. Adlard himself - Mr. Collis also went with me, or more properly speaking, I went with him - I also went with Mr. Brocklehrst - I got cheques from Mr. Brocklehurst for Mr. Johnson to examine - I think Mr. Collis had them - I do not know whether they were left with Mr. Johnson - I went to Mr. Chandler with the detective, and introduced him as Mr. Wilson, an attorney - I did not introduce him to Mrs. Sale as Mr. Wilson - he called himself Wilson - I did not tell Mr. Chandler that all I wanted was an indemnity against the claim, nor anything to that effect - I said we wanted to find the prisoner - I did not say I wanted to settle it - certainly not, because I did not intend to:  I made up my mind to have him - I said nothing of the kind to Mr. Chandler - I do not remember it - if Whicher has said so his memory is better than mine - something of the sort probably may have passed, because we were determined to find him - I told Mrs. Sale that she was indebted to me - we went to her for the purpose of finding out where the prisoner was - I did not tell her I wanted her to give evidence - I do not remember it - I told her she was in my power - she does owe me a large sum for costs - our taxed costs as against her are nearly 500l. - it is very likely we said that we were going to prosecute Mr. Roe, and wanted her to give evidence, although I do not remember it. The letters sent to Mr. Surrey, twelve in number, were here put in an read.  They were all dated from Cheltenham, and signed C.J. Wyld (in one instance C.M. Wylde), commencing June 28th, 1860, and ending July 31st, 1860; they referred to the stamps then in progress, giving minute details as to the make, and suggesting various alterations, to correspond with patterns sent; one letter of 26th July, stated, “As all the letters are used in the common postage stamps, they are probably in type, and you could obtain them quicker than by making.”  In the last letter of July 31st, the stamps were requested to be ready without fail by the following Friday.

GUILTY.  --Ten Years’ Penal Servitude.