ing, Rouvelett having falsely sworn a debt against Mr. Dorant, of the York Hotel, Albemarle Street, he had her taken up for a supposed robbery, and charged her with stealing his purse in the Fleet Prison, containing forty guineas, half a guinea, and a valuable diamond. This case of singular atrocity came on at the Old Bailey, Saturday, July 5, 1806. The young woman was fashionably attired, and her appearance excited universal sympathy. Rouvelett was brought up from Ilchester gaol, ironed, to prosecute on his indictment. An application was made to put off the trial, on the affidavit of the prosecutor, which stated that some material witnesses at Liverpool had not had sufficient notice to attend. The object of this attempt was to prevent the prisoner from appearing against him on his trial for forgery, as also to prevent her becoming a witness against him in the case of perjury, as already mentioned. The recorder saw through the transactions, which he described as the most foul and audacious that ever were attempted. He ordered the trial to proceed. Rouvelett, who called himself a gentleman, stated that the prisoner was with him on the 11th of June, 1805, when he drew half a guinea from his purse, and gave it to a messenger; after which he put the purse, containing the property as stated in the indictment, into the pocket of a surtout coat, which was hanging up in the room, in which was the ring, worth thirty pounds. There were no other persons in the room but the prisoner and himself; and in twenty minutes after she was gone he missed his property from the great-coat pocket. He concluded that the money was safe, as the prisoner was gone to Dorant's Hotel, Albemarle Street, and he did not suppose her capable

of robbing him. She, however, absconded, and he never saw her again until she was arrested at his suit, jointly with Dorant, in an action of trover for twenty thousand pounds, for deeds, mortgages, and bonds, bearing interest, for which bail was given. He had no opportunity of bringing her to justice for the alleged robbery, he being himself a prisoner. [The recorder here remarked that the prosecutor could find the prisoner for a civil suit, although he could not find her for the criminal act.] On the cross-examination of the prosecutor, he said he was born at St. Martin's, in the West Iudies, and he had been at most of the islands in that quarter: his uncle was a planter in the West Indies, and he lived on such means, whilst in England, as his family afforded him: he was brought up in Amsterdam, at the house of Mr. Hope, banker; after which he became a lieutenant in the British army (the 87th regiment). He knew Mr. Hope, of Harley Street, Cavendish Square, and Mr. Hope knew him to be Mr. Rouvelett, of St. Martin's; for the two families had been closely connected for one hundred years. He lived in England on remittances from his uncle, in goods or bills, but he had no property of his own. Messrs. Stephens and Boulton used to pay witness his remittances at Liverpool, but he could not tell who paid them in London. The recorder observed that the witness should not be pressed too far in giving an account of himself, as he (the prisoner) stood charged with forgery. On being asked if he, the witness, had not said he would be revenged on the prisoner, as she was intimate with Dorant, and charge her with a felony, he answered that he did not recollect having said so; but the question being pressed, he partly acknowledged it. The purse, which

was empty, witness acknowledged was found under the pillow, on the 12th of June, the day after the alleged robbery, by his room chum, a man of the name of Cummings. The prisoner was with him in prison after the 12th of June, although he said she had absconded.

The recorder did not suffer the cause to be farther proceeded in, and directed the jury to acquit the prisoner; and observed this was the most foul charge he had ever heard of. The disgust of the persons in court was manifested by hisses and groans, as the fellow retired, in such a manner as baffled the efforts of the officers of justice for some time to suppress.

The trial of this malicious offender, who was thus happily disappointed in bis views, came on at Wells, August 12, 1806, before Baron Thompson, and excited uncommon interest throughout the county of Somerset.

The prisoner, John Docke Romney, alias Rouvelett, was indicted for having feloniously and knowingly forged a bill of exchange, dated Grenada, 10th of November, 1804, for four hundred and twenty pounds sterling, payable, at nine months' sight, to the order of George Danley, Esq. and drawn by Willis and Co. on Messrs. Child and Co. in London, with the forged acceptance of Messrs. Child and Co. on the face thereof, with intent to defraud Mary Simeon.

Mr. Burroughs entered into the details of the case, which were afterwards substantiated by the evidence. Mr. Philip George, the younger, clerk to the Mayor of Bath, stated that the bill in question was delivered to him by the Mayor of Bath, and that he had ever since kept the bill in his own custody.

Mrs. Mary Simeon, dealer in laces at Bath, was next called, and

was proceeding to give her evidence, when Mr. Jekyl, counsel for the prisoner, submitted a legal objection to the Court. He observed a difference between the bill itself, and the bill as set forth in the indictment. The words to which he alluded were Willis and C. in the bill, whereas in the indictment they were set forth Willis and Co. After some discussion, Baron Thompson and the jury agreeing that there appeared no essential difference, as the letter o could be distinguished, the objection was overruled.

Mrs. Simeon deposed that in April, 1805, she lived at Bath; the prisoner at the bar came to her house on or about the 16th of March, 1805; having looked at several articles in which she dealt, he bought a fan, paid for it, and said he should bring his wife with him in the afternoon. He accordingly did so, and brought Elizabeth Barnet as his wife, Mrs. Romney. He asked whether Mrs. Simeon had a Brussels veil of one hundred and fifty guineas value. The witness answered she had not. He then bought two yards of lace, at four guineas a yard, and went away. This happened on a Saturday. The Monday following he came again, accompanied by his wife, looked at a lace cloak, at veils worth five-andtwenty guineas, and other goods, but did not buy any. In the course of the week he called again, and proposed to the witness to purchase a quantity of goods, if she would take a bill of a long date, accepted by Messrs. Child and Co. bankers, in London. Witness answered she bad no objection to take a bill accepted by such a house. He returned in two or three days, and purchased articles to the value of about one hundred and forty pounds, which, with other goods afterwards bought, and with money advanced

by her, made the prisoner her debtor to the amount of two hundred and ninety-nine pounds. He bought all the articles himself, unaccompanied by his wife. In the month of April, between the 20th and the 24th, the prisoner proposed paying for the different articles, and he brought his wife to the house; when a meeting took place between them and the witness, and her brother, Mr. Du Hamel. He said, I am going to London, and I should like to settle with you: this is the bill I have proposed to you to take; it is accepted by Child and Co. bankers, in London; and, turning over the bill, he added, 'The indorser is as good as the acceptors.'

The bill was here produced, and proved by Mrs. Simeon to be the same which the prisoner gave to her in April, 1805.

The witness then took the bill, and her brother, Mr. Du Hamel, paid to him, for her, thirty-five pounds, which, with the articles previously bought, made the whole of the prisoner's debt to her two hundred and ninety-nine pounds. He wrote before her on the bill the name of John Romney as his name. He afterwards went to London by the mail. She sent the bill the next day to Londou.

The conversation which passed between her and the prisoner, in the presence of her brother and Eliza beth Barnet, was entirely in the French language. He left his wife at her house, where she slept. While he was absent, the witness received intelligence from London that the bill was a forgery, and she instantly wrote a letter to the prisoner, informing him of it. He came to Bath in consequence of the letter, late of a Sunday night, and a meeting took place then at her house between him, his wife, herself, her brother, and her solicitor, Mr. Luke

Evill, of Bath. The conversation then passed in English. Several questions were put to the prisoner, by herself and by Mr. Evill. Mr. Evill asked him whether he had any business with W. A. Bailey, the indorser, which induced him to take the bill. He said Mr. Bailey had sold some sugar for him. She asked him if Bailey lived in London: he replied, at some inn or coffeehouse, the name of which she did not recollect. He was then asked in what island or islands Mr. Bailey's property was situated: he mentioned two or three islands in the West Indies, but he did not know in which of them Mr. Bailey at that time was. The prisoner then inquired where the bill was; and, being informed by the witness that it was in London, he said she must write to get it sent back. She, however, declared that such an application would be unavailing, and the prisoner pressed her to go to London herself. She refused to go alone, and he entreated Mr. Evill to accompany her, saying he would give Mr. Evill twenty pounds to defray the expenses of the journey, which he accordingly did. She set out at ten o'clock that night, accompanied by Mr. Evill, and obtained the bill from Messrs. Sloper and Allen, in whose custody it was, by paying three hundred guineas, which was all the money she then had at her banker's. She brought the bill back to Bath, having stopped but one day in London; but the prisoner was not at Bath when she returned. He had left some property at her house with his wife, who had removed from Sidney House, with his clothes, &c. The bill remained after this in her custody about a twelvemonth, and was given up to Mr. Evill by her brother. Mr. Dorant paid the whole of the debt due by the prisoner, on

the 6th of May, 1805, a few days after the prisoner finally left Bath. Upon the cross-examination of Mrs. Simeon, it appeared that she considered the prisoner and Eliza beth Barnet as man and wife. It was not until May, 1806, that she appeared before the Mayor of Bath against the prisoner, whom she knew to have been in the Fleet Prison. She did not go before the magistrate at the solicitation of Mr. Dorant, nor did she at any time, nor on any account, receive any money from Dorant, but what was actually and fairly due to her by the prisoner.

Mr. Du Hamel, brother of Mrs. Simeon, corroborated all the principal facts stated by his sister.

Mr. Whelan deposed that he was a clerk in the house of Messrs. Child and Co. He had filled that situation for about nine years; and, from his knowledge of the business, he was enabled to state their manner of accepting bills. The house had no correspondents whatever at Grenada by the name of Willis and Co. and the acceptance, which appeared on the face of the bill, was not the acceptance of Messrs. Child and Co.

Mr. Luke Evill, solicitor for the prosecution, stated that he had sent the bill from Bath to his agent in London, for the purpose of its being delivered to Mr. Dorant.

Elizabeth Barnet was next called. She deposed that she became acquainted with the prisoner in the month of September, 1804, when at Liverpool. About a fortnight after she first saw him she began to live with him, and continued till the 16th of June, 1805; during all that period she passed under the name of Mrs. Romney. She left Liverpool in the month of January, 1805, and came to London with the prisoner. They then took lodgings at

Mr. Dorant's hotel, in Albemarle Street. The account he gave of himself to her was, that he was a West-Indian planter, and that he had estates in Martinique and St. Kitt's. They remained between two and three months at Mr. Dorant's hotel, during which time they were not visited by any body except a Mr. Hope, whom she remembered seeing with the prisoner. This Mr. Hope was not represented to her as being from Holland. She accompanied Mr. Romney to Bath, and on their arrival there they lodged at the White Hart Inn, for about a fortnight, previous to her lodging at Madame Simeon's. Soon after their arrival at the White Hart, she went along with the prisoner to Madame Simeon's, to look at some laces and a black cloak. None of these articles, however, were purchased at that time by the prisoner, they being afterwards bought when she was not present. She heard the prisoner state to Madame Simeon that he would give her a bill of exchange, accepted by Child and Co. of London. She did not then see any bill in his possession, but saw him writing one three days afterwards, when he sent the witness for some red-ink. She brought it to him, when he was still writing on the same piece of paper, and he soon afterwards wrote thereon with the red ink, and put it up into his pocket-book without saying any thing. The next day he told her she must go and walk with him to Madame Simeon's, as he was going to pay her for some articles he had bought, which the witness had by that time got sent home to her. She accordingly accompanied him to Madame Simeon's shop, where she saw that lady, and her brother, a Mr. Du Hamel. A conversation then took place between them, which, being entirely in French, she did not un