From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 18 September, 1858.

On Monday afternoon, Mr. J. C. Carttar, the coroner for West Kent, opened an inquest at the "Globe Tavern," Royal Hill, Greenwich, upon the respective bodies of Caroline Isabella Roper, aged 5 1/2 years, and her sister, Eliza Jane, aged one year and six months, who were burnt to death at a fire which occurred on Sunday morning last in the house of their father, Mr. K. Roper, a corn dealer, carrying on business in the before mentioned thoroughfare.

The inquiry created great interest, and Mr. Hodsoll attended to watch the case on behalf of the Kent Fire-office, and Inspectors Marks, Barry, and Wilson, attended to watch the case on behalf of the Commissioners of Police.

Mr. Roper, the owner of the premises destroyed, having identified the bodies of the two unfortunate children, proceeded to say that the deceased and the servant girl slept together in the attic. In the sitting-room first floor were sleeping his wife, who had been confined only the previous Thursday, the nurse, and two other children. He closed shortly before 12 o'clock. His stock consisted of straw, hay, and clover, which was placed in the ground floor, and there was some of the same material in the cellar—probably two loads. The gas had not been put out entirely, since his wife's confinement, as he thought it was more safe than common rushlights. The burners used were what are termed "fish tails." The meter was under the showboard in the shop. On Sunday morning last he was awoke by an oppressive heat. He jumped out of bed, and found the flooring quite hot. He then slipped on his drawers for the purpose of running down stairs to see what was the matter, when he was met by a body of flames on the stairs. He ran through the fire, and made for the room whore his wife was sleeping, and he got her out of the room, and assisted her out of the window. He next tried to get back to save the baby, but was unable. He spoke to the servant, who was in the attic, and he imagined that she would have been enabled to save the two children. After putting his wife out she fell into a cistern of water, owing to the woodwork giving way. He screamed, and called out "Fire," and a policeman came up soon after. As the fire had not then burst forth, he asked the first policeman who came up to lift him over Mr. Morley’s yard, so that he could get a ladder from his yard, but he would not, and several others came up, and they only pushed him about.

By the Coroner:- I entreated the officer to render me assistance to procure a ladder, but it was no good, and they then commenced pulling the shutters down, and I begged of them not to do so, as it would kill the children. I knew the nature of such a proceeding, that it would cause the fire to spread through the house more rapidly. In my opinion, it was a manifest error of judgment in breaking open the shutters and door, and the police ought to have known better than to have done so as they are instructed to do better, and if they had not done so there would have been plenty of time to have rescued the two children. When I entered into my wife’s room I got scorched, and her bed-gown became ignited.

By a Juror:- I escaped through the next house. Eight or ten minutes elapsed before the escape arrived.

Priscilla Wheeler said she had been out of bed twice before Mr. Roper came down to his wife’s room. Mrs. Roper then cried out "Get up Wheeler, for I know the house is on fire." she escaped in the manner described by Mr. Roper. She was last down stairs at eleven o’clock. Her mistress was placed on the lid of the water cistern, which broke in two, and she fell into the water. She asked the policeman if he had sent for the escapes, he said he had. She saw one of the children on the roof, and she saw the escapeman bring a girl down. There were very few people in the street when the alarm was given.

By the Coroner:- I never said that I went down stairs at half-past three o’clock to make some gruel, as I had no occasion to do so.

Elizabeth Waterfall, servant to Mrs. Roper, said that she went to bed just before Mr. Roper, who was the last person down stairs. She slept in the attic with the deceased children. There was another bed in the room, but as the boy was out it was not occupied.

By the Coroner:- I was awoke by Mr. Roper calling out, and on opening the door found the fire coming up the stairs. I did not close the door after I opened it, as I forgot to do so. I knew that it was impossible for me to save the children. I was taken down the escape, and received by Mr. Glaisher, one of the jurors. I did not hear any one about the house after I went to bed. I am 16 next birthday, I took a lighted rushlight with me to my bed-room, which I placed on a washhand-basin, but it was not lighted in the shop.

Mrs. Matilda Nash, of 8, Royal-hill (next door to Mr. Roper's), said, that hearing a noise in the street, and cries of "Murder," she got up and saw Mr. Roper and the nurse on the tiles. Had it not been for the services rendered by the police, she must have been suffocated, like the poor children were. She saw the girl brought down the escape, and she gave her some clothes to cover her, and she was taken away by four men.

By the Coroner:— I should say the fire escape arrived in twenty minutes.

Frederick Haycroft, of the R division, said he was about, twenty yards of the beat in which the fire occurred, when he heard the alarm given.

The Coroner:— Just describe which is your beat.

Inspector Marks:— This is against the orders of the Commissioner# for a police officer to describe his beat.

The Coroner:— I am sure I can legally put such a question, and the witness is bound to answer me.

The witness then proceeded to state where he was at the time of the outbreak, and noticed a light in Mr. Roper’s front shop, he went to the house and saw that the light was over the shop door. He sprang his rattle, took out his truncheon, and knocked violently at the street-door and the shutters.

By the Coroner:- It was eight minutes to four when he discovered the fire. Two police-officers came up, and he sent one for the escape and one for a ladder. The one who went for the ladder came back and said that he could not get one. Mr. Roper told him that his two children were in the house. He told him that he could not get them out, and that he had sent for the escape. A gentleman went for the escape, but it did not arrive for twelve or fifteen minutes He saw the roof fall in half an hour after the escape was brought to the spot, and after the young woman was brought down.

Ebenezer Hodd, No. 123 of the R division, said that he called Smart, the conductor of the escape, three times before he answered. He believed he was asleep at the time, and was not sober.

Smart emphatically denied this accusation, and his evidence was confirmed by several respectable tradesmen, including Mr. Moore, the Landlord of the "Globe;" and after an able summing up by the learned coroner, it was decided to adjourn the inquiry for additional evidence as to the origin of the calamity.

Great praise is due to Mr. Baldy, bootmaker, of Royal-hill, who, we believe gave up his bed for Mrs. Roper, and to whose kindness we may say Mrs. Roper owes her life.

On Monday afternoon, at three o'clock, Mr. J. C. Carttar, coroner for West Kent, resumed the inquiry at the "Globe Tavern," Greenwich, into the circumstances attending the deaths of Isabella Caroline, and Eliza Jane, the infant daughters of Mr. Richard Roper, corn chandler, of Royal Hill, Greenwich, who were destroyed by a fire, which consumed the premises of Mr. Roper, early on the morning of Sunday, the 12th Inst.

After the examination of Mr. Charlesly, a gentleman residing at 26. Circus, Greenwich, who merely proved witnessing the fire, the coroner and the foreman of the jury somewhat abruptly left the room, and were absent so long that the remaining jurymen became very impatient. It appears that in consequence of information received, the coroner deemed it necessary to confer privately with the police authorities and Mr. Hodsoll, of the Kent Fire office, and on his return to the room it soon became apparent that evidence of a painful nature, and seriously affecting the parents of the deceased children, would be forthcoming.

The first witness called in connexion with this, painful phase of the case, was a young man named Robert Morris, who stated that he had been in the service of Mr. Roper about eight months, and who endeavoured to parry with the questions put to him by the coroner, when the latter remarked that he was in possession of the whole of the information he was now seeking to elicit from the witness, who had better for his own sake speak the truth, and not endeavour to screen any person.

In reply to questions from the coroner, the witness then deposed that on the Saturday previous to the fire, the shop was well filled with goods, and on that day he brought a quartet of a load of hay, which was placed in the shop. On Saturday night, witness met the servant girl in the Circus. She had something with her, but witness did not see what it was. On the Sunday evening after the fire witness went out for a walk, and was met by two young men named Abbott and Cowell, the latter being Mrs. Roper’s brother. They told witness that they had been looking after-him, and that if he was asked any questions he was not to know anything.

Eliza Waterfall, a young woman in the service of Mr. Roper, was then urged by the coroner, for her own sake, to speak the truth; and in reply to questions, she at first denied having removed property from the premises previous to the fire. A relative of the witness, who was present, now begged of her to speak the truth, and the witness then gave the following evidence:— On the Saturday night before the fire I went to Deptford by desire of my master, Mr. Roper. I took a writing desk to the house of Mrs. Cowell, who is related to my master. The desk was very heavy, and Mr. Roper told me to cover it up and not let the boy, (the previous witness) know what it was. I recollect a service of china and a dinner service. They were removed from Mr. Roper's house to Mrs. Cowell's, two or throe days before the fire. A tea service was also sent to Mrs, Cowell's. I carried some of these articles, and others were packed up in large square boxes, and sent by the previous witness. The articles were removed constantly from Mr. Roper’s house, during a fortnight previous to the fire. Mr. Roper told witness, whilst this was going on, not to say anything to any one about the removal of the goods.

Mrs. Emily Cook, of Deptford, sister to Mr. Roper, was then examined and stated, in reply to the coroner, that she had remained in the room and heard a portion of the previous evidence. She then left the room, and went to the house opposite.

The Coroner:- Who did you see there?

Witness:- I saw Mrs. Cowell, and by brother, Mr. Roper, and his wife.

The Coroner:- Remember, this is a most important inquiry, seriously affecting several persons, and before I must ask you what conversation took place?

Witness:- I have nothing to keep back. I said to my brother, "The evidence at the inquest is of an unpleasant nature. Come and justify yourself before your good name is lost."

The Coroner:- What reply did he make?

Witness:- I left to return to this room, and he promised to come, but did not.

By the Coroner:- I will swear that none of the goods were removed to my home.

The coroner and jury, at this stage, retired, and it appeared that on the day following the fire, Mr. Roper, whose stock and furniture was insured for £300, had sent in a most elaborately detailed claim to the Kent lire office, setting forth that his loss amounted to a sum beyond the insurance, and the articles which it was now proved had been removed from the premises were entered as items in the claim. It also transpired that a large stock of flour had been claimed for, beyond the quantity which could have been on the premises.

On the return of the coroner and jury into court, other evidence was elicited of a somewhat suspicious nature, and after some remarks from the learned coroner, it was agreed to adjourn the inquiry, as several other witnesses were required, including Miss. Cowell, in whose house the goods referred to were deposited, and for whose attendance the coroner issued his warrant.

On Tuesday, the inquest was resumed, and after Mr. Roper and several witnesses were examined, the inquiry was adjourned until Monday next.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 2 October, 1858.

ADJOURNED INQUEST.

On Monday afternoon, Mr. C. J. Carttar, coroner for West Kent, resumed the inquiry at the "Globe Tavern," Greenwich, relative to the origin of the fire which consumed the premises of Mr. Richard Roper, corn-chandler, of Royal Hill, Greenwich, on the morning of Sunday, the 12th inst. The room was, as on previous occasions, densely crowded, and Mr. Ingle, solicitor of Hibernia Chambers, London-bridge, again attended on behalf of Mr. Roper.

Several of the witnesses previously examined were recalled, for the purpose of cross-examination by Mr. Ingle, with the following result:—

Mr. George Allwright, appraiser, of Lewisham-road, Greenwich, repeated his evidence as to making out the claim for £290, upon the Kent Fire Insurance Company.

By Mr. Ingle:— Mr. Roper was greatly excited on account of the loss of his children by the fire, and appeared scarcely in a condition to give me a list of the items to make the inventory. He said that an inventory made when he effected the insurance, and I then told him to give me a list, so far as he could recollect, of the property contained in such inventory, believing the whole of this property had been consumed. I continued to enter the items until the claim far exceeded the amount of the insurance, and I then said it was useless to put down any more, in reply to my questions as to the value of the stock, he said that he was unable to give the exact value — it might be £30, or it might be £100, and I then put down £70.

By the Coroner:— I considered that the inventory made was for property consumed. I wrote the letter produced to Mr. Roper, offering to make out his claim, and recommended him not to be to hasty in stating the amount of his loss. I always give such advice. I examined the ruins after the fire, in order to find a gold watch, but was unable to do so. From inspecting the premises, my opinion is that the fire broke out in the cellar, under the stairs.

Mr. Sitgrave, appraiser, of 28, Leodenhall-street, deposed he was employed by the Kent Fire-insurance Company to inspect the ruins after the fire. On examining the claim several items appeared to him to be very large, especially £155 for wearing apparel, 10 guineas for a dinner service, &c. He could find no traces of wearing apparel in the ruins, but believed he must have found the remains, such as buttons, &c, had such a large stock been on the premises. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case and the loss of the children, he was not disposed to deal harshly with Mr. Roper, but was compelled to cut down the claim of £483 to £192. He examined a wardrobe on the premises, which was not consumed, and found that the drawers contained a few articles of children’s clothing, but no clothing or property of value. A claim was made for 14 sacks of flour, but the lad in the service of Mr. Roper informed him that there was not more than a sack of flour, on the premises.

Robert Morris, a lad in the service of Mr. Roper, was then re-examined by Mr. Ingle, and stated that he was sent by his master to Mr. Denham, corndealer, of Deptford, to request the latter to attend at Mr. Roper’s house on Tuesday, the 14th inst, as a witness to an agreement respecting the letting of the business. He (witness) did not commence removing any article of furniture from his master’s house until after he had heard that the business was disposed of.

Mr. James Denham, wholesale corn factor, of Deptford, was then examined by Mr. Ingle, but his evidence was merely relating to business transactions with Mr. Roper.

Eliza Waterfall, servant to Mr. Roper, after being duly cautioned, was examined by the Coroner relative to the removal of several silk dresses belonging to Mrs. Roper, previous to the fire. This witness, as on previous occasions, parried with the questions — at first denying all knowledge of the removal of the property, but she ultimately stated that she saw a large parcel, which was packed for removal, and which contained silk dresses. She had removed articles of furniture to Mr. Cowell's house at Deptford, daily, during a fortnight previous to the fire.

Mr. John Cowell, of Deptford, Mrs. Roper’s father, to whose residence a large quantity of Mr. Roper's furniture was removed, was then examined by the Coroner; who remarked that this witness had on a former occasion so manifestly contradicted himself, and so evidently kept back the truth, that he (the Coroner) should exercise his power and proceed against the witness for perjury if he continued such a course. After this warning the witness reluctantly admitted that he had taken a parcel containing wearing apparel from Mr. Roper’s house previous to the fire, and had pawned the property at Greenwich. He did not exactly know the description of the property. He gave the ticket and the money to Mr. Roper.

Mrs. Cook, sister to Mr. Roper, now admitted receiving her brother’s writing-desk and contents.

This desk, which had been sealed by the police authorities, was now produced, it had been broken open by Mr. Roper, who had stated to the last witness that he required some of the papers.

The Coroner:— At present there is no charge against Mr. Roper but he must take any responsibility as to breaking open the desk.

Mr. Ingle:— It was not broken open my advice.

Miss Merton, a lady residing at Plaistow, was then examined by Mr. Ingle, and deposed that a few days before the fire she called at Mr. Roper's, and requested him to allow her to take away the children, on account of Mrs. Roper’s indisposition, but her request was refused.

Mr. James Seaward, printer, of London-street, Greenwich, was examined by Mr. Ingle, and proved that a few days previous to the fire he was informed by Mr. Roper that he had disposed of the business to a man who had paid him a deposit of two sovereigns.

By a Juryman:— This man has not yet been found.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Randall, pawnbrokers, of Greenwich, produced a number of articles of female wearing apparel which had been pawned by the witness Cowell, a few days previous to the fire, the tickets having been made out in the names of Buchan, and Brown, which names Cowell admitted giving to the pawnbrokers.

The proceedings were adjourned at a late hour, as several other witnesses have to be examined.

The inquest was resumed yesterday afternoon, when after Mrs. Roper had been examined at her father's house, Church-street, Deptford, the inquiry was adjourned to the Greenwich Hall, when Mr. Gandy, of Walbrook, City, was examined, and stated while in the Greenwich train, and conversing about the fire; a person said he was in treaty with Mr. Roper and had paid him a small deposit. Mr. Allwright was then examined, and said Mr. Roper only claimed for £290, and not for £483 as had been stated. After several witnesses had been examined the inquiry was adjourned until Wednesday next, Mr. Roper was given into custody on a of charge fraud, and will be examined this day at the Greenwich Police Court.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 9 October, 1858.

ADJOURNED INQUEST.

On Wednesday afternoon, at five o’clock, Mr. C. J. Carttar, coroner for West Kent, resumed the inquiry at the Literary Institution, Greenwich, into the origin of the fire which consumed the premises of Mr. Roper, corn-chandler, Royal-hill, Greenwich, on Sunday, the 12th September, and resulted in the death of Mr. Roper’s infant daughters, Isabella Caroline, and Eliza Jane.

Mr. F. Scudamore, solicitor, and Mr. C. Lendon, secretary to the Kent Fire Insurance Company, appeared to watch the proceedings on the part of the company; and Mr. Ingle, solicitor, of Hibernia chambers, London bridge, again attended on behalf of Mr. Roper.

The court was, as on former occasions, densely crowded, by respectable inhabitants of the district, and the following witnesses were now examined:—

Mr. David Dennant, of South-street, and Mr. Isaac Hurst, of Circus Villa, Greenwich, gave evidence to the effect that on the Monday after the fire they were passengers to London by the train which leaves Greenwich at 11. 45. a.m. Two other gentlemen were in the same carriage, and a conversation took place respecting the fire. One of the gentlemen said "I was in treaty with Mr. Roper, for the purchase of his business, but we could not agree about the price of the stock."

Mr. Sayers, a cornchandler, residing at Church-street, Greenwich, was now confronted with the witness, who expressed their belief that Mr. Sayers, was the gentleman they had referred to.

In reply to the coroner, Mr. Sayers stated that he went to London by the train named, and remembered a conversation respecting the fire, when witness stated that he had been in treaty respecting the purchase of the stock and business.

Other witnesses were examined, and it was evident that Mr. Sayers was the party referred to.

Cornelius Davis, a painter, employed at Woolwich Arsenal, deposed:- He is brother-in-law to Mr. Roper On the Friday evening previous to the fire, witness after leaving his work at the Arsenal, walked to Greenwich to see Mr. Roper. He had no motive for doing so, except that he had not been over for some time, and was on good terms with the family, and fond of the children. Before leaving home Mrs. Roper asked him to do her a favour, and he said that he had no objection to do so, and he then consented to take away, and pawn at Woolwich, a quantity of glass, consisting of decanters, wine-glasses, a water ewer, &c. He took away the property in a carpet bag, and on the next day he pawned it at the shop of Mr. Birt, Green’s-end, Woolwich, for £2. He returned to Greenwich on the following (Saturday) evening, and gave the money to Mrs. Roper, who told him that her husband knew nothing of the transaction. He saw Mr. Roper on the same evening, who said that he had let his shop and business.

By Mr Carpenter (a juryman):- I did not think it was wrong to pawn the property without the knowledge of Mr. Roper, as they lived on the best terms together, and I knew she was short of money, and required it for a good purpose.

Edward Davis, a joiner employed by Messrs. Rolt, and residing at Railway-grove, New-cross, gave evidence to the effect that a brother workman named Beard asked his advice relative to taking Mr. Roper’s business, which he stated he could have for £100. Witness and Beard walked past the shop to take a glance at the stock and position of the premises, and witness advised Beard to nave nothing to do with it.

By the coroner:- Have you not said that you waited outside the shop whilst Beard went in?

Witness:- No. I advised him not to go in, as it would appear that he was sweet about taking the business. I am satisfied that Beard paid no deposit.

By Mr. Ingle:- Beard had been in treaty respecting the business before we went to look at the shop.

Thomas Beard, of 242, Evelyn-street, Deptford, deposed that he had known Mr. Roper for some years, and was informed by a young man named Henry Abbott that Mr. Roper’s business was to let. Abbott proposed that witness and himself should enter into partnership, stating that a sum of £200 would be required — £100 to pay for the goodwill, fixtures, &c., and £100 to purchase stock. Witness said he would consider the matter, and spoke to the last witness (Davis), who advised him to have nothing to do with it. Abbott proposed that they should raise money by means of a loan. Witness, on Wednesday, the 8th September, received a note from Abbott, whom witness saw on the same evening, and Abbott then stated that Mr. Roper had let his business for £130.

Matthew Milestone, a cab driver, of Skelton-street, Greenwich, deposed:- He returned from London on the night of Saturday, the 11th September, and arrived at Greenwich about half past twelve o’clock (four hours before the fire.) He wanted a feed for his horse, and therefore drove up to Mr. Roper’s shop. He rang the bell, but no person came, and he could plainly see that the gas was turned full on. The shop was so light that he could have picked a pin from the floor had he been inside. He drove away, as he could not arouse any person.

The coroner:- I am not aware that we have any more witnesses; but if any person present wishes to give evidence, let him come forward.

By desire of Mr. Ingle, the name of William Layton was then called, but no answer was given.

Mr. Ingle:- I beg, Mr. Coroner, respectfully to ask for another adjournment of this inquiry. We have received a letter, dated from the "Saracen’s Head Inn," Bedford, and signed by a person named William Layton, who states that he called at Mr. Roper’s shop on the Tuesday before the fire, and paid two sovereigns deposit to Mr. Roper, on an agreement to take the business, he also states that he was unable to complete the purchase on account of the failure of a friend, who promised to lend him money, and that on reading in the public papers a report of the proceeding in connection with the fire, he felt it his duty to make himself known, and was willing to come forward and give evidence. In consequence of this letter he (Mr. Ingle) proceeded to Bedford, and ascertained that a man wrote a letter on Friday last at the "Saracen’s Head," and promised to call at the same place for a reply. The superintendent of the police at Bedford had promised to co-operate, with a view to the production of this witness, and he (Mr. Ingle) asked for an adjournment for this purpose.

The coroner, having inspected the letter, observed if its contents were true it was of the utmost importance to Mr. Roper in his present position, and he would therefore adjourn the inquiry until Friday, the 15th inst.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 23 October, 1858.

THE VERDICT.

The jury deliberated until a quarter past three o'clock on Wednesday morning, and at that hour many hundreds of persons were anxiously awaiting the verdict, which was delivered to the coroner by the foreman of the jury in the following terms:- That the jury find that Isabella Caroline, and Eliza Jane Roper, on the 12th September, 1858, were burnt to death by fire in the house No. 8, Royal-hill, Greenwich, which house was burnt down by fire; but how, or by what means, the said fire originated, there is not sufficient evidence before the jury to prove. The jury cannot return this verdict without expressing their decided conviction that the origin of the fire is involved in great doubt and mystery, and grave suspicions exist in their minds that the fire did not result from accidental circumstances, and it is only from the want of strict legal evidence and proof that the jury feel compelled to return this open verdict. And the jury is further of opinion that policeman Haycraft, 381 R, and Smart, the parish fireman, did not exhibit proper activity at the time of the fire, and that the conduct of Smart ought to be fully investigated by the parish authorities."

APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE ROPER FAMILY.

From the date of the occurrence of the fire, 12th of September last, seven adjournments of the inquiry before the coroner have taken place; (the last, in the, in the coroner's own words: "in consequence of some information received which may turn out of importance to Mr. Roper") and until the day of the trial at the sessions, nearly two months will have elapsed.

The poor mother with her lingering baby five weeks old, at her grief burdened breast, and her little lonely boy, whom God’s hand has preserved from the dreadful fate of his dear sisters, is deprived of almost every necessary of life, in the heart of that, very country which prides itself in being the upholder of Christianity — a bereaved mother utterly destitute, who confiding in God and in the clear conscience of her husband, said from her torn heart, without complaining to men, in a meek and low voice, on hearing of his having been attested:- "O! my God, Thou didst allow my dear children to be burnt, and now they take HIM TOO from me."

The distressed fattier is in jail; his heart is breaking with the idea of the probability of his being unable to meet the necessary expense for a proper defence at a higher court — a penniless man, guilty or not guilty, little does it differ in the mind of the good Samaritan, contending against a wealthy association, bound to prosecute him, and unable to avail himself in order to equalize the contest, of the means which British Law affords to the wealthy; in order to alleviate such sufferings as far as pecuniary assistance is able to do, numbered Subscription Lists have been distributed, and other numbered Copies may be had, for the present, at Circus Lodge, Royal Hill, Greenwich. Subscriptions received, will be duly acknowledged. In the Public Press. Subscriptions opened on October the 18th, 1858.

At the Greenwich Police-court, on Thursday last, Richard Roper, corn-dealer, was placed at the bar before Mr. Traill, on a charge of attempting to defraud the Kent Fire Insurance Company.

Mr. Scudamore observed: He felt it his duty on behalf of the company, to make an application to the magistrate of a most important nature as affecting the prisoner. The coroner's Inquest; as to the origin of the fire, had terminated, and the jury had (at three o'clock on Wednesday morning) returned an open verdict. After the coroner had summed up the evidence to the jury information was given of a most important and extraordinary nature, and it was this new evidence that he (Mr. Scudamore) intended to produce in that court, and upon that evidence to ask the magistrate to commit the prisoned on a charge of arson. He had at present but one witness in the court, and should be compelled to ask for another adjournment of the case, as these new facts had suddenly transpired.

Elizabeth Waterfall, Servant to Mr. Roper, who has repeatedly given evidence at the various inquiries relative to the fire, was then examined by Mr. Scudamore, and deposed:- On the Saturday night previous to the fire, my master told me to go out and fetch some turpentine. (Sensation.) It was about eleven o'clock, and I asked him how much he wanted. He replied, “Oh, see how they sell it;" and gave me fivepence or sixpence in coppers, and a large size glass bottle. He said he wanted it to clean a bookcase. I then went to an oil and colour shop in London-street, and asked how they sold turpentine, and the reply was "five pence half a pint." I then purchased a half pint, and took it to my master. I was served by a young woman, and they were shutting up the shop when I purchased it. I had occasionally purchased a pennyworth of turpentine in a small bottle, but never such a large quantity. My master was never in the habit of Cleaning furniture.

By Mr. Ingle:- I did not speak of it until last night. My master did not tell me to purchase a half pint; no one told me last night at the inquest to make this statement. Am quite sure it was on Saturday night before the fire, as I removed the desk on that night. it was my own act and deed to make this statement. I never said that I was not sure as to the night when I purchased it. At the inquest on Thursday night I was sent for by the coroner, and, in reply to his questions, I told him about it.

Mr. Traill:- I suppose it comes to this — the witness made this statement to another person, who informed the coroner, and the latter sends for the witness to investigate the matter.

Mr. Carttar, coroner, who was in the court, signified that this was the case.

By Mr. Ingle:- I did not say a few minutes since, in the yard of this court, that I did not remember the time. A policeman spoke to me about the turpentine. I met him outside the court, and said to him, "I suppose they want to examine me about the turpentine." and he said, "What about the turpentine; how was it?"

Mr. Ingle:- I may as well inform your worship that a conversation has been overheard in the yard outside the court, and this witness was heard to say that she did not remember the time.

Mr. Traill addressing Mr. Mallalieu, superintendent of the R division of police observed:- I must say that I altogether object to constables taking upon themselves to converse with witnesses who are about to give evidence in this court. Now here is a witness whose evidence is not given in the most intelligible manner, and if she is suffered to converse with three or four different people on the point upon which she is to speak, the difficulty is started that she has given various versions of her story.

After a further examination of the witness by Mr. Ingle, Mr. Traill stated, as it had been shown to him evidence had transpired-since the decision of the coroner’s court, he thought he should be justified in granting the application for an adjournment. He had not read the whole of the evidence, adduced at the inquest; and if furnished with the coroner's notes of the depositions, should be able to form an opinion, whether this additional evidence would materially affect the evidence before offered, and make out a more grave charge against the prisoner.

Mr. Scudamore said he would undertake to forward the required documents to the magistrate, and the prisoner was then remanded until that day week.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 30 October, 1858.

THE FIRE AND LOSS OF LIFE AT ROYAL HILL, GREENWICH.

On Thursday last,. Richard Roper was again brought up before Mn Traill, on a remanded charge of arson,. Elizabeth Waterfall, deposed to her purchasing a half-pint of turpentine on the night previous to the fire, at Mr. Harding’s, London-street, this statement was corroborated by Miss Maria Harding. The defence to this was that it was purchased to clean the furniture previous to the removal on the following Tuesday. After Smart, and Mr. Richard Henderson, of the London Brigade had given their testimony as to where the fire broke out, Elizabeth Waterfall was re-examined as to the removal of the straw in the cellar, and whether she assisted Mr. Roper in its removal, she first stating that she did, secondly that she was not certain, and thirdly that she did not know of the straw being removed in the cellar, but that it was in the shop. Her mode of giving evidence called forth the censure of the magistrate, Mr. Ingle exclaiming, "God help the man whose life depends on such a witness," the magistrate continuing, "God save the prosecutors whose case depends on such a witness."

Mr. Traill said that looking at the coroner’s inquisition, and the verdict of the jury in the same light as a proceeding before a grand jury at the sessions, although that verdict did not ignore the fact of suspicion in the case, it would have been an unusual thing on his part to send the case for trial for the serious offence of arson if no other evidence was before him than that given before the coroner; but since the coroner’s jury had arrived at a verdict, additional evidence of a suspicious character had been produced, and it was his (the magistrate's duty to consider whether, if such additional evidence had been, produced in the first instance, that verdict would have been different. Two facts had been brought forward — viz., the existence of the fire in the cellar, coupled with the particular position in which the straw found there had been placed, and the purchasing of turpentine as late certainly as half-past eleven on the night preceding the fire. The purchasing of the turpentine had not been sufficiently explained; and although the fire might have accidentally been occasioned, yet its being traced to the cellar got rid of one thing in his mind, for it could not have been supposed that had the shop been set on fire, either by the prisoner or any other person — and the prisoner a father and husband of persons living in the house — the person would not have remained on the premises afterwards, there still remained the question whether the fire had arisen accidentally or designedly, and looking at the conduct of the prisoner and the difficulty the prosecution had had to contend with in the witnesses who had been examined, he should not be doing his duty were he not to allow the fullest opportunity of their producing any further evidence, and to bring the witnesses together who were examined before the coroner when he should send the whole case for trial. The prisoner would therefore be again remanded for the longest time allowed by law (eight clear days), when he would be again brought up.

The prisoner was then removed.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 18 December, 1858.

"ROPER DEFENCE FUND."

We hear the following donations towards the "Roper defence fund," have been received:

Lord Haddo, £5: W. Angeratein, Esq., £5; Mr. Alderman Salomons £1; Rev. J. Pulling, £1; Rev. C. F. Money, £1; T. Glenton, Esq., £1; G. Stevenson, Esq., £1, &c.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 5 February, 1859.

Mary Brewin, a young woman, residing at Roan-street, was charged with stealing a sovereign from William Brown, who deposed that on the previous afternoon he met the prisoner at Royal-hill, and they both went to the "Globe Tavern," and called for some gin, which witness paid for. She then asked witness for a shilling which she required to complete the purchase of a pair of boots; witness took some money from his pocket intending to give the shilling, when she snatched a sovereign from him and walked off; witness pursued her, and she refusing to give up the money, he gave her into custody. When apprehended she confessed to the robbery.

Remanded.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 13 August, 1859.

Chaise Accident.

On Monday last, as our respected townsman. Mr. Moore, of the "Globe Tavern" Royal Hill was driving on the Eltham-road, his mare, a very spirited animal shied at an omnibus passing, and threw Mr. Moore out on an adjoining bank. Mr. Moore’s collar bone was found to be broken, but we are happy to say he is fast recovering.