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

COMMERCIAL AND MARKETS.

MINCING LANK—(THIS DAY.)
SCOAR.—The market has opened with only a limited
demand from the trade, and without important sales by
private contract. Refined continues dull of sale but without
further cheap in pekes.
00FILL—Thwe is a steady demand, at fully previous
priest
TEA is in limited request.
Rica has sold at improved prices. Low qualities are most
in request. Low to good old Arra= sold at 7s. 9d. to
9a. 100. Rangoon, 10a. 9d.
Rug is in fair request. Demerara sold at Is. 7d., proof.
Sturrrus.—No sales are reported, but the market is
firm. . . . . .

Corrow has again sold briskly, at a further advance d
id. per lb. Ooinn4wattee at r. 31d. to 151 d. ;
at 15,1. ; Western, for arrival, at 131 d. to 131<1. ; Dhollers.
at 14d. to 14ad. ; Tinnivelly, at 14d. ; Beepl, at 12,1.

TALLOW MARKET.-(THIS DAT).

The —market is steady. Town tallowy quoted .475. 611.
nett cub ; PetersintrgT.O. on the spot, 48s. 3d. to46e. 6d.;
August, 495. ; September, 495. 6d. ; Oct. to Dee., 50s.

SMITHFIELD HAY MARKET.--(THIS DAY.)
Hama. Haney ud Santee mart a heavy supply, at
lower prime.

DEATH ON HORREBAC/C. —Captain Shepherd, the
associate of Captain &.oresby in his somas to Greenland,
died on horseback a day or two ago. Deosesed WAS A native
of Appleton-le-Moors, to which place be retired a few years
ago, and built a mansion, church, schools, &c., his maim
object beiog the welfare of the villagers of his native
place. He went out for a ride, but quickly returned, aid,
when before the house in which he was bore, fell dead front
his horse. The remains are to be interred in the yard ad-
joining the old monastery of Lasting_ham on Monday.
THE WEATHER AND THE Kamm. —A Lugs
breadth of wheat is cut sad waiting to be carried, bat
until some drying winds sad min are experienced not as
acre can be cleared. Complaints are rife as to the preys-
lame of blight, sod numerous statements we made as to the
deficient yield. There is some set off to this in the favour-
able prospects on the good lands, but we are bound to admit
that the general estimate is not so (avowable as
it recently was, sot many opinions are confidently
stated that the wheat crop will fall decidedly short of as
average. Of oats and barley the reports are, on the other
band, generally promising. The great object now is dry
sad sunny weather, for the time has arrived when the
question of "weather" becomes a very serious osie. The
general tenor of the hop reports from East Sussex is
favourable. Not a word of mould or vermin of any sort.
Statements of "slack blue" and "weak plazas" are of
mune to be met with, but on the whole Sussex promises to
grow afaircrop,and of very excellontquality, shouldanythieg
like favourable weather prevail during the next few weeks.
Some few instances are spoken of where a large crop is
expected—twenty hundredweight and upwards to an an*,
for example. The rams sod warm temperature of the
past week have been very beneficial, and their effect will
doubtless be very speedily visible. From Kent the reports
are tubas favourable than from Sussex ; sad complaints
of the spread of mould, and the injury therefrom, are
numerous. They are, however, pirtaal, and from some
quarters the accountsare promising. But warm sunny
weather is everywhere wanted and longed for. From
Worcestershire the accounts are deplorable, and the crep
there is regarded as gone, past redemption.—Susec
Adrertiarr.
• nun or HERRING:.—Oar two nights last week
there were such immense shoals of berries. off the north-
east comet that the number brought into Whitby herbage
on the two following mornings amounted at a low amputee
tion to nearly 3,000,000, realising above 3,0001.
THE PREPARATION OF FLAX. —A new process is
recommended for conducting this operation, which com-
bines the advantages of being extremely simple, remarkably
expeditions, and perfectly effective. Tile mode proposed
consists in heating the raw material for a sufficient length
of time. seldom exceeding three hours, by steam raised to an
adequate temperature—about 3410 degrees moswerieg the
purpose—and the infusion of cold water at the regulated
moment, ascertained without difficulty by the condition of
the straw. When dried, the fibre can be easily disengaged
by ratting, while the article produced proves sound in qua-
lity on account of the absence of steeping, and bright colour
owing to partial bleaching.—Dublos Egotism Moil.
New Hors. —The first pocket of hops of the growth
of 1842 arrived at market yesterds , grown by Mr. James
Hartridge, of Yaldiog, to Masa% Beeman,
Potter. and Co., hop-facton, Bennett, sad sold to Me...
Thoibtoo, Kennedy, and Hay, at id. 10a per ewt. They
were grown from Mr. Guset's "early prohfica." For the
last four years the first pocket of sew hope met to market
has been of this sort, sod is pronounced to be an exoslleet
sample both for quality and immagemeet.
ROYAL FERE ,•tioseiTAL, GHAT'S-INN-ROAD.
The number of patients relieved at this hospital during the
week ending August 16, was 2,729, of which 912 were new
01188 A

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCB.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Gonanrosp, Arouer 18.
Wore Mr. Barup Martin and a Special Jury.)

BOUriLL AND OTRIRS T. WLITI.-RITRAORDINARI TRIAL.

•
In coosequence of the various rumours that were in carcu-
lation in reference to this cause, and the extraordinary cir-
ennistaocers connected with it, the trial appeared to create
Ye moat intense interest, and • number of persons were
present • considerable time before the usual hour for the
ocenmenoeruent of the proceediega.
The action was one of ejectment to recover possession of
• farm at Kingston, called Surbiton Farm, mid the defend.
sat pleaded that he was legally possessed of the estate is
queetion. under a deed of gift executed Sy the late Richard
Palmer limped, the owner of the property.
Serjeant Sher, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. J. Browne were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, 4.1. C., and Mr. Garth
appeared for the defendant.
Upon the application of Mr. %rill the whole of the
whoa.... were ordered out of court, and they were ex-
amined separately.
Serjeant Slice, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff
brought this action to recover au state of about 11,3 acres,
at Surbiton, near Kingston, of which the late Richard
Palmer Keelson died oeised iu September, 18513. The pleas-
tiff claimed this estate as the heir-at-law of his deceased
father, sod the defendant claimed under a deed executed by
William Roupell, the eater.' brother of the plaintiff, and
the question the jury would have to decide was whether
the deed under which this property pissed was
a genuine instrument. On the part • of the plain-
tiff he undertook to prove that it was a
forgery. Although he should, however, prove this, still
melees he should also establish that a will that purported
to have been executed by the deceased was also a forgery,
and that it was forged by William Roupell, the natural
brother of the pLtintiff, the plaintiff eyild not recover, and
be undertook to prove that fact also. The case he had to
prove, therefore, was a simple one. He should show that
the plaintiff was the beir-at-law of the deceased, and that a
will had been executed previously to the forged will, by
which the property was bequeathed to the plaintiff, and be
would have come iota possession of it but for these forged
isetrtunents. Although he had stated thus summarily the
general nature of the case, it was necessary that he should
go more into detail into the circumstances, which were
undoubtedly of the most extraordinary character, and
which not only involved a large amount of property, but also
the honour, mid perhaps the liberty,of a gentleman of high mei
tioa, and who had held a prominent position before the public
as a member for the borough of Lambeth. The testator for
many peen carried on the business of • lead merchant in
Oravel.laue, and he had a ornate residence at Brixton. He
bad five children—John, William (who was • natural sai),
Sarah, Janice, and Emma, and the plaintiff, who was bora
en the sth of July, 1640. The testator amassed a vast pro-
perty—his pereoual estate at the time of his death was
worth 120,000/., and be had invested 200,0001. in real estate
in different counties and in London, and within fifteen
years of his death he had by will disposed of all these
estates. In March, 1839, he executed one will, and three
months after the birth of the plaintiff he, by will, left
him the estate that was the subject of the pre-
sent inquiry, and he then revoked all former wills. On
the Ist of October, 1850, he executed another will, by
which he disposed of all his property, vesting his estates in
trustees for the benefit of all his children ; and he again
devised the Kingston and several other estates to his sou
Richard. the plaintiff. He was satisfied with this will, until
one of hit trustees, Mr. Patrick Hughes, died, and heap-
pointed Mr. William Clarke and Mr. James Surridge, in the
place of that gentleman. It was clear at this time that he
intruded to confirm the will of 1850, but he made some
alteration by which he gave legacies to his executors, and a
law days before his death, in 1856, be went to his proctor's
a Doctors' COMMODs, and took the will with him, and he
was informed that the attestation of the new trustees
wee not sufficient, and a codicil was dawn op, by which
be confirmed the will of 1850. This was on Saturday,
the 30th of August, I£lso, and there could be no doubt
that at this time he iatooded this will to be his last will
and testament, and by this will the plaintiff would here
become entitled to the estate in question and a considerable
portion of his other property. The learned serjeent read
the codicil, and mid it wss quite clear that the testator
intended to confirm the will of 1850, and that when they
lad heard the evidence he should lay before them he be-
lieved they would entertain no doubt upon this poiotll
When he made this codicil it was also evident that he consi-
dered himself possessed of the Surbiton estate. He
went over it a few days before his death with
Lis steward, a man named West, and be told this
person that be thought be should not live long, and that
after be was gone he would bars to manage the estate
for his eon Richard, the plaintiff. He should also prove by
ether circumstances that at this period be had not the
smallest doubt that this Kingston estate was his property.
He had laid out money upon it, and in every possible way
bad indicated his belief that it was so, and that he had done
'tithing to prevent him from disposing of it. Notwith-
otradieg this, the Kingston estate had been dealt with and
Led been alienated through the fraud of his natural son.
He should show them that William Roupell, the natural
me, was in 1855 in great pecuniary difficulties ; he must
bare lived an extravagant life, and he was much pressed by
ereditote and greatly in want of money. He seemed to have
been of opinion that by possessing himself of a
111•1111 property that adjoined the testator's estate
at Brixton. he should relieve himself to some
intuit, and the owner agreed to sell it for
8,0001., and about this time • fire insurance company bad
the intentioo to expend 50,000/. upon the Roupell Park
Mane at Brixton, sod had made William Roupell, who was
then practising as an attorney, their trustee for this per-
=fle then, it appeared, wept to his father and told him
he could purchase the estate for this sum, and that the
llsity Fire Company would give 250/. per annum, which
would increase the value of the estate, and the testator
agreed to purchase it, and gave William Roupell a cheque
for 500/. on the Bank of England as a deposit, and on the
25th of the name month another cheque for 4,500/., the
Wanes. He should show that the 500/. cheque
was paid into the Union Bank to the account of
a gentleman named Watts. but that in point of fact it
was devoted to the use of William Roupell, as was also
the cheque for 4,5001.. and that Mr. Treadwell, the owner
of the estate to which he had referred, never received one
farthing, and that his endorsement on the cheque was a for-
gery. (se the Ist of August William Roupell appointed to
pay Mr. Treadwell for the estate, and he should show them
that be raised the money upon the Kingston estate without
the knowledge of his father, and that be surreptitiously
obtained pommies° of the deeds that enabled him to effect
this object. It would be proved that he asked Lis father to
let him look at the deeds relating to the Kingston estate,
and that he represented some of them were missing, and
that he wished to take them to Messrs. Marlon and Co..
the solicitors who had acted for the testator, and he
should produce a document in the handwriting of William
Roupell, showing that he had taken ponerinn of these
steeds, and that he never took Munn to Messes. Manion, but
went to the office of Mr. Powell, a law-stationer in Perlis.
sent-street, sod requested him at once to make facsimiles
at the whole of them deeds, and at the same time mid be
desired this should he done as speedily as possible, and the
deeds were ready on Thursday, the Pith of J uly. He was'
'seder engagement to complete the purchase of the estate
es the Ist of August, and before copies of the deeds',
were completed, he endeavoured to raise a sum of 7,000/.
capon the security of the Kingston estate, which was valued
at 15,000/. The moment he got possession of the deeds he
took the genuine ones to a gentleman named Whittaker and
told him to prepare a deed of gift from his father to himself
of this Kinpton estate, and this was done. It was returned
approved, William Roupell forged his father's signature
to this deed, and be caused two respectable witnesses to
attest the signature, but he deceived them as to who the
party washy whom the deed was executed, and lie should
can them as witnesses to prove that fact. Having thus
obtained doss 'on of the deed of gift, it was necessary that
Le sLopW also deceive his father, and he forged to the coun-
terpart deeds the names of the whole of the conveying
penise to the genuine deeds, and then handed them to
Mr. Whittaker subsequently obtained a loan
of 7,0001. upon the property, and 5,0004 were
paid to Mr. Treadwell, and 2,0004 pocketed by
Vali= Hooped]. In order to defend this settee it
was incumbent on the defendant to produce the deal of gift.
and if he did so, be (the learned counsel) pledged
kilovolt to prove that it was a forgery. Although the
2.000 k relieved William Roupell fee a time, he was
still In great difficulties, and at the commencement of
the following year he had recourse to another expedieut,
end determixed to raise 12,0001. upon an estate in
Meer, belonging to his father, called the Great Warley
estate, and he should show that he forged hie father's'
signature to a deed of gift of that estate, went
through the same proceeding with Mr. Whittaker, and
smetually borrowed 15,000/. upon that r mperty. At this
time William Roswell was only Zyears old, and although
Mr. Whittaker was well aware that Kr. Reopen, his father,
/ended in London, he never had the least communi-
sation with him upon these importaut subject., sad
be could not help observing that this appeared to
Lis very extraordinary. Things went on in this way
seta January, 1856, at which time William Roupell had
played his last card. His father died in September, 11116,
sad William Roupell hail immediate notice of the fact.
Max Roupeil was overwhelmed with grief, and she pro the
keys to William }Loupe'', and be went and examined his
strong box tied the escritoire that was in his bedroom, and
be there toned the will of October, 19110. He stood face to
fees with his dead father, his dead father's will was in his
head, and that will informed him that in a very few minutes
after the body was consignel to the grave he must stand face
to face with his father's executors, all men of buisinees, anal
trustees for the" benefit of his wife and children, and
that discovery and ruin were inevitable. This will would
have been his ruin, destructive to his honour, his cha-
racter, and his liberty. He was, however, a bold and de.
terruined man, and he made up his mind what he would
Es. it would not do to destroy the will, but a new will
revoking it must be executed, and he again had recourse to
Whittaker. He had little time to do this. He slept
in the house with his dead father, and on the day after the
death he commenced his proceedinp. He went to an aged
um. Named Moggeridge, who had been for many pars in
bib hither'. service, and pee him 5/. for mourning, and
naked him for a receipt, and he resolved to forge
hie aipeture to the instrument he intended to
Indus* as a witness. It would not do to make ea
maitre! fresh will, but he wanted to have the entire
esast of his property, and lie drew op • short will, revolt.
beg the former one. and hewing the whole of the property
In hw mother, be, himself, being appointed treetee, and be
absiaki show clearly that this document was a forgery, and

that the signature of kluggetidge and those of all the other
pretended witrimses were forgeries al.o. The learned see-
, pent then pioceeled to say that Mrs. Roupell lived with
the testator for • unsiderable time before their marriage,
cud William Roupell was born before the ceremony took
place. There was no doubt that there did not at to j
time subsist that cordiality and confidence between the
testator and his wife that ought to exist between a
man and woman tin that position, and it appeared that she
was out aware of the existence of the will of 1850, and
she made no difficulty as to the dispositioe of the 1.
The will which be alleged to be forged was dated tre°:Ph:tuf
September, 1836, sod only a few days before the testator
had prepared the codicil to which he had before alluded, and
he asked them whether this was riot in itself almost con-
clusive evidence that the will was forged, and that it was
forged by William ltoupell, the natural son of the testator.
He then said that he should prove a variety of circumstances
showing how William &mien was employed on the 2nd
of September, and which would prove almost con-
clusively that he could not have attested this new will of
his father, and that he could not have been in the oom-
psoy of kluggendge, the man whose name appeared to
the will u witness. This was the general outline of
the evidence upon which he should rely to show that
the deed of gift of July, 1853, and the will of the 2nd of
September, 1856, were forgeries, but there was a variety of
other evidence all tending to establish the same fact.
He would now proceed to narrate other circumstances
in connexion with this extraordinary traosactioc.
After the fuueral, Mr. Roopell applied to the professional
gentlemen who had only twelve days before niadethe codicil,
to obtain probate. They were surprised, and suggested
that the mother ought to be the executrix, but this diffi-
culty was got over, and William Roupell ales into the
satire possession of the whole of the property? and he very
soon embarked in • career of extravagance which astonished,
and toeorne extent ecandslised, the public. He sold estate
after estate, with his mother's consent, upon • premise
that be would settle 3,0001. a year, and he at length became
hopelessly involved, and no resource was left to him but to
tell the truth, and to show that he had no right to deal
with the property aa he had done, and thus enable the
heir-at-law, Richard Roupell, to obtain his rights. The
learned serjeant then said it was only necessary for him
further to stets that William Roupell left England on the
29th of March, 1862, and that before be left he destroyed a
large quantity of papers. The learned eouosel concluded by
giving an outline of the nature of the evidence he prepared
to lay before the jury as above detailed, and he said that he
should also put William Roupell into the witness-box. He was
unwilling to make any observations with regard to his con-
duct, but it was clear that he had ruined his mother and his
brothers ; and, if he bad dose this wrong, by coming forward
to make all the reparation be could, if be was speaking
the truth, it appeared to him that he was actuated by the
highest feelings of honour and duty. No doubt the into-
nate of the defendant were deeply involved in the inquiry ;
be had purchased the property believing that William Rou-
pell could legally dispose of it ; but at the same time the
interest of the real owners of the property was quite as
much worthy of consideration as that of the defendant, aid
if he made out that he had been defrauded of his property
by the forgery and fraud of his elder brother he ought to
have a verdict in this action.

The following evidence was then adduced :
Mr. J. T. West said— l am a farmer,and reside at Surbiton.
I knew the doomed for twenty-five years. I mansged the
Surbiton estate before Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell
purchased it, and I subsequently became his bailiff. He
died in September, 18511, and I bad been his bailiff five or
six yews before, and we used to settle our accounts every
week. He came down to the farm at the latter end of
August, 1556. He was very ill at the time, and he died a
few days after. After his death I used to amount to Mr.
William Roupell, and Alpo to Mn. Roupell. Richard
Ron en built some cottages about two years before his
death, and I used to occupy one of them. l remember Mr.
Win. Roupell coming down to see the estate before his
father died. I think it was about two years before. He
was accompanied by two gentlemen, but I don't know what
they came for, except it was to look at the lead. After I
left the estate defendant took possession of it.
Croseexamined—The property was put np foe sale by
auction, and was eold to Mr. Waite for 15,0004 Some of
the carts and wagons were sold to me by valuation. There
was no alteration of any kind in the management of the
farm until after it was sold. Mr. Richard P Reopen
occupied the land and the house at this estate, and I was
employed there seven years before he died. I have never
said that the estate belonged to William Roupell. I swear
that positively, bemuse I knew that it belonged to his
father. I have not been to the office of Messrs. Linklater,
the solicitors to the plaintiff, more than once, and I have
not sent any persons there to give evidence. I never told
Mr. Lamb, the poor rate collector, that the estate at
Kingston belonged to Mr. William Roupell, and I never
asked him to alter the name in the ratobook. I won't say
that I always paid the sates in the name of Mr. Richard
Palmer Roane& After his death I paid them
in the Dime of William RoupelL The name of William
Roupell was not upon the carts and wagons before his
father died, nor upon the sacks. I never said to Mr.
Berry, a road contractor, who had threatened some legal
proceedings, that my master was Mr. William Roupall, aad
that he was a barrister, and be would not get much out of
him. (A laugh.) I never said that Mr. Richard Roupell
had given the estate to his son William, and that he was
never to turn me out of my cottage. William Roupell
never interfered with the estate until after the death of his
father.

The witness, on re-examination, identified certain re.
ceipts for poor rates that were put in, and which were
made out in the name of the deceased Richard Roupell.
He also said that he never heard such • thing said by any
one, as that his master had given the estate to his eon
William.
the
By Mr. llovill—Upon one OCCIIIiOO he received the sum of
3001. for the valuation of a farm from a gentleman named
Nightingale, and he handed over that money to Wilfiw
RoupelL
Mrs. Wood rid—l am daughter of the last witness, aid
remember his being employed upon the Surbiton-park farm
a great many years before Mr. Richard Roupell died. The
old gentleman used to come to the farm generally about
once a month, and T saw him there a fortnight before be
died. Mrs. Roupell was with him upon this occasion. (The
witness then stated that her father could not read nor write,
and she identified certain accounts that were put in, show-
ing that down to the year 1856, after the alleged deed of
gift had been executed, the teetator exercised owner-
ship to the estate in question.) I don't know who
my father settled with after the old gentleman's death, but
I used still to continue to make out his accounts for him,
and they were all kept in a book.
Cross.exaniined--1 was about fifteen years old when Mr.
Roupell died, and I made out the accounts from the time
I was eleven years old. Some of the accounts have been
destroyed because they were not thought to be of any use,
but Ido not know by whom they were destroyed. I think
they were not destroyed until after the sale of the property.
The last time I saw old Mr. Roupell upon the farm was
about a fortnight before his death. lie generallyoanie alone.
except on the last two occasions, and then Mrs. Roupell
came along with him. 1 remember finding some old leaves
that had been torn out of a book. and I gave them to Mr.
Linklater, the solicitor to the plaintiff. I know Mr. Wil-
liam Roupell. I have not seen him at Guildford during
these maims, and I don't think I have seen him since the
sale.

Me-examined—l have given Mr. Linklater every paper that
I found.

_
M.Mrs. Eleanor Wallet!, an aired lady, said—l have known
Mrs. Sarah Roupell for thirty-five years. When I first
knew her she lived in Pitt-street, Peckham, and she went
by the name of Carter. Mr. Remelt used to come and
visit her. She had four children, John, William, Sarah,
and Emma. I remember the eon Richard being born. They
were not married when they first came to live at Peckham,
and when she left, she went to live at Brixton, and she
then for the first time went by the name of Mrs. RoupelL
I saw Richard Roupell the day he was born, and I have
known him ever since. Be was born in the year INJS,
twenty-three yearn ago.
Mrs. Maria Watta said—l arn the sister of Mrs. Roupell,
and remember when she lived at Peckham. Ido not re-
collect bow many children she had at this time. I knew
her son Richard Rimmed!, the plaintiff in the present action.
She had no other children after him, and at the time be
was born she went by the name of Roupell.
Cross-examined—When I first knew Mr. Ronpell he bad
• son named John, and a daughter named Sarah ; but I did
nut know much of his family affairs, because I was a good
deal on the Continent. I have not seen my sister for four
years. I did not stay with theni when I was in Ragland.
[The witness then proceeded to say that abe could Dot tell
why she had been brought down as a withers) I have men
Mrs.Roupellaince I have been at Guildford, mid Mr.Williain
Roupell. I have visited my sister and her husband at their
residence ut Brixton.
The msr•vge register, containing an entry of the mar-
riage of Mr. and Mrs. Roupell, was then put in. It ap-
peared to have taken place at the parish church of St.
Giles, Camberwell, on the 6th of December, Is3s. William
Roupell, it will be remembered, was at this time a year old.
_ _

Mr. R. W. Parte said—l am a lead merchant in Tothill-
street, Westminster, and I was well acquainted with the
deceased Richard Palmer Itonpell, and had many business
transactious with hits. I am well acquainted with his
handwriting. He told me once that be was not married,
and he consulted me upon the propriety of his getting
married. This was soon after the death of his father. He
came to me and said that his father was a vary eccentric
man, and if he had married during his father's lifetime he
would pot have left him any property. He said be had
been living with a person and had a family by her, and her
redefines advised him not to marry her, and be wanted my
advice about it, and I told him to get married to her and to
lose no time. I beard shortly afterwards that he had
followed my advice, and that he was married.
Jane Wordley said- -I was in the service of Mrs. Roupell.
and I remember her eon Richard being born. on the 27th of
July, 1840. I knew William Roupell at this time, but I
cannot say bow old he was, but I should think he was about
five or six. John was the oldest child, then Sarah, then
William, then Emma, and thee Mr. Richard,
Cross-examined—John was ten yeses older than William.
Hs was sent abroad because be was rather wild. Old Mr.
Roupell was very fond of William, but I cannot lay that he
was more food of him than he was of the other children.
I have no memorandum of the day on which Richard
. .

&amen was born, but my burhimi's birthday is the 26th
Jely, and this makes me remember it. I remember per.
featly well that it wee ie the year 1840.
Mr. Bentley mid—l am a wpm as Brixton, and I have
known the Houpell family for many yeses. I atteeded Mn.
Roane!' during her coseammeart with her eta Rickard. Be
was hors on the 27th Judy, 1910.

Cross-axamieed—l frequently went to Mr. RonpelTs
house, and was acquainted with his family. John was •
" harum swum" fellow, cud they were obliged to send him
abroad. William was given to learniug, and his father
appeared to be particularly attached to him, arid he was
constantly with him while the buildings were going on upon
Roupell-park. I should think that more than 100,0001.
were laid out upon Roupell-park, and William Roupell was
constantly employed in superintending the buildings that
were going 00. The old 111114 was a very good man of busi-
ness, and he knew perfectly well that • large sum of money
was being expended upon Roupell-park.
The register of the birth of Richard Roupell was then
put in. The date of the birth was stated to be the 27th of
July, 1840. The certificate of the death of the testator on
the 11:th of September, 1856, was also put in. It appeared
that he was 74 years of age at the time of his death.
Mr. Joseph Sharp said—l am clerk to Mr. Ring, proctor,
of Lecture-commis, and was also clerk to his father before
his death. Our tiros acted for • great many year, profes-
sionally for the late Mr. Roupell, and be frequently more to
our office upon the subject of his will. I remember a
will being prepared in 1830, but I cannot say whether I had
any communication with the testator respecting it. I recol-
lect Mr. Halpin coining to the office in August, 18,56, and
bringing his will with him, and also • memorandum.
Mr. Sevin objected to the contents of this memorandum
being put in evidence.
Baron Martin said he thought it would be quite sufficient
to prove the will.
Examination continued—Mr. Roupell on this occasion
produced his previous will, and I looked at it and saw that
the body of it was all in niy
_handwriting. I also maw the
signature. The deceased called my attention to an altera-
tion that had been made in the will, and be showed it
to me, and I told him the alterations had not been pro-
perly executed, as they were attested by one witness only.
He then asked me to make a oodicil, and I did so, and it was
engrossed while he was in the office, and he executed it, and
took the will and the codicil away with him.
Mr. Bovill-1 object to this document being called •
will. (A laugh.)

&nicest Sbee—Well, then, the paper.
Examination continued-1 read over the codicil to the
testator before it wu *erased. This occurred in the 30th
of August, 1866. (The deceased died on the 12th of Sep-
tember following.) At the time the deceased appeared to
be in e pretty good state of health. (The witness then pro.
duced • draft of the will be referred to ; and it was sug-
gested that if it had been carried out the plaintiff would
have come into possession of the greater portion of the
testator's property.)
In answer to further questions, the witness said that he
prepared several other wills for the deceased prior to the
one in gelation, and that one of them was made on the 6th
of March, 1839, and a codicil, it appeared, was added to it
owNovember 5, 1839. No drafts or traces of any of those
wills at present remained in the aloe.
Serjeaut Mee said that on the part of the plaintiff the
suggestion was that this will of 1850 was placed in the
escritoire of the deceased, and bad never been seen since ;
and he proposed to five secondary evideuce of its contents.
Baron Martin said it appeared to him that until it was
proved that the will was either lost or destroyed, or was in
the possession of the other side, secondary evidence of its
contents could not be given.
Mr. John Tresdwell said— I reside at Streatham, and I
remember having a negotiation with Mr. William koupell
for the sale of a piece of land at Brixton.
Mr. Bovill objected that the sale of this piece of land bad
nothing to do with the question before the court.
Baron Martin thought that, upon the opening of Burnt
Slue, such evidence was relevant. The learned course was
quite right, in such a case, in taking the objection ; but he
felt bound to admit the evidence.

Mr. Treadwell then said—The negotiation took piece in
1854. Mr. William Roupell was to give me 5,0004 for •
piece of land adjoining Roupell-park, and after the transac-
tion was completed I applied to him during *eland months for
the money, and I was eventually paid on the Ist of August,
1855. I received the money from Mr. Whittaker. The
name "J. Treadwell " on these two cheques now produced,
one for 5004, and the other for 4,5001., is not my hand-
writing, and I never saw these cheques before. (These were
the cheques that were given by the deceased to his son
William to pay for the land in question, and which were
alleged to have been appropriated to his own use.) Mr.
Whittaker was the solicitor of Mr. Bourg], and he paid me
the money on his behalf.
Orme-examined—l wee paid the MOO/. in flee 1,000.
Beak of England notes. The signature on the cheques
is not at all like my signature.
14-esamioed—One of them I should all a bad imitation
of my *Datum The other is not at all like it.
Mr. Balfour, • clerk in the Bank of England, proved that
the cheques above referred to were paid in through the
Union Bank of London, at which bank William Roupell
kept an account, and where they appeared to have been
paid in to hie credit.
Mr. W. & Powell said—l am managing clerk to my father,
who carries on the business of a law-stationer in Parliament-
street. I know Mr. William Roupell, and he used fre-
quently to come to our office on business.
Berjeaet Shea here called for the production of the title
deeds relating to the Kingston property.
Mr. Bovill said they did not on produce them.
Berjeant Shee said that • notice to produce these deeds
had been served on the defendant, and he should therefore
be entitled to give secondary evidence of their contents.
Mr. Powell then proved that in July, 1855, certain deeds
having reference to the estate that was the subject of the
present action were copied in their office, but he said he
waa unable to state whether these deeds were brought by
Mr. W. Roupell, or whether he gave any instructions re-
iTedb.g them. The price of the work was debited to Mr.
P!`11-
Spirant Shee—Who paid for it !
Mr. Bovill—Were you present
Witness—My father was. (A laugh.)
Mr. B. Powell, the father of the last witness, was then
called, and he stated that the work mentioned by his boo
was paid for by Mr. William Roupell. He could not say,
however, that he was paid personally ' and all he knew was
that be got the money. Reopen generally brought the
work himself, and took it away himself, and he had re-
ceived money from him personally in payment. He also
proved that one of the entries in his books was a charge for
copying • conveyance.

S. Powell wu then re-called. and he stated that
he remembered that part of the work that was done wu to
copy a conveyance, and that it filled thirteen skins of parch-
ment. He said he also remembered that a deed of covenant
was also copied as well as a plan of the property that was to
be conveyed by the deed. The whole number of deeds that
were so copied was five.

Mr. William Roupell was then called. His appearance in
the court appeared to excite great sensation. He said—
lam the son of the late Richard Palmer Roupell, and the
brother of the plaintiff. For some time before his death I
lived at my father's house at Brixton, and I had chambers in
St. James's-equare. I had been admitted as an attorney
in the year 1854. I had an elder brother maned John,
who, oa account of some misunderstanding with his father,
went abroad. I enjoyed my father's confidence very
much during the latter part of his life. He used to sleep at
his house in Cross-street, Blackfriars, during the week, and
go to Brixton on the Saturday and remain till the Monday.
I knew be had property at Streatham and at Kingston. I
remember the negotiation with Mr. Treulwell for the per.
chase of a amen piece of laid adjoining my father's pro-
perty at Roupell-park. Pending the negotiation I spoke to
my father about it, and proposed that he should purchase
it, and told him the price was 5,000/., and I was authorised
to offer him 2504 a year for it on lease by the Unity Firs
Insurance Company. He knew I was connected with that
company, and that 1 was then trustee for a sum of money to
be invested in building. The sum was 50,00)/. that I had
to invest. I had paid my father several thousand pounds,
which I represented to be the rent of the Roupell•park estate,
and that it was paid by the Unite Company. I also showed
him a deed to explain how I lied become trades to this
company. I have not got that deed now. I burnt it
about a year and a half after my father's death. The par-
ties to this deed purported to be the Unity Company ; but
it was really executed by myself. Mr. Treadwell's piece of
land was contiguous to the Roupell-park estate, and I re.
commended my father to purchase it as being an eligible
increase to the Roupell•park property. He ultimately gave
me these two cheques, one forsoo/. sod the other for 4,5001.,
that have been produced. He gave them to me to pay for
Mr. Treadwell's land. The signature "John Treadwee on
these cheques is not John Treadwell's.
Serjsant Shoe—Whose is it!
Mr. Roupell—Mine. • (Sensation.)
Scrjeaut Shee—W hat did you do with the money?
Mr. Roupell—l appropriated it to my owe purposes.
Examiaation continued —The terms for the purchase of
Mr. Treadwell's land were finally agreed to soon after I
received the money. After this transaction I made a pro-
posal to my father relating to the Kingston estate. I think
it was in June 1853 that this occurred. _

Ifierjesat Shoe— What was the proposed?
Mr. Roapell—l proposed that he should let it to the
company, to which he believed he had let the RonpeU.perk
estate; and I said that they were partly disposed to take
the estate on a building lease ; and he replied that they
might have it for five hundred years. I said that they
would require to be satisfied as to the title being good, and
that it would be necessary to submit the title deeds of
the Kingston estate to counsel. I was aware that the
deeds were at my Wheels house is Crcesetreet, and be
took them from the strong-box and gave them to me, and I
signed an acknowledgment for them. I toll my father at
the same time that I thought all the deeds were not there,
and it would he as well to inquire of Messrs. Maroon and
Co., my father's solicitors, whether they had any deeds re-
lating to the Kingston property. I obtained possession of
the deeds, but I never took them Wes Ms. Marcos and Co.

Serjeast Shea then proposed to read the acknowledgment
given by the witness to his father.
Mr. Bovill, however, before this was done, pot some
questions to Mr. Bonnet', in answer to which be said that
when the deeds were placed on the table before him, he at
the same time signed the paper that had been produced.
Examination motioned—Messrs. Marion did afterwards
send some abstracts of title.
. . _

fferjeast ghee then again proposed to read the receipt, but
Baron Martin said be thought the document was not evi-
dence, and he should therefore reject it.
The °sides'se was pressed, and Heron Martin admitted it,
and the document was read. Itsram to this effect :

—„.
"William Itotiptill this day takes the deeds relating to the
Kinptoo estate for Yr. Minos to ioquire into the title."
Examination coatinned—The moment I obtained poises
aim of the deeds I took thaw to Yr. Powell, the law
statical, in Parliament-street, to copy, sad I re0,,j,,,g them
boa afterwards, the dogleg aad the originals. I
aingle the swim rammbis tbs atigimal title deeds.

and gave them to my father, and I afterwards burned those
deeds on the night before 1 left England. I filled up the
signatures, copied the seals, and also the attestations. I
took the real deeds to my solicitors, Messrs. Whittaker', in
Liocubis.ion•fields. I had previously told them that uly
father intended to convey the property to me, and immedi-
ately I took them the deeds they commenced preparing a
deed of gift as from my father to me of the Kingston es-
tate. They gave me a letter to my father and a draft of
the deed, but I did not deliver either of them to my father.
I took the draft back to Mr. it hittaker, and said that my
father approved of it, and told him to eogrom it. I then
caused a valuation of the tetate to be made, and after the
deed had been engrossed 1 ordered Mr. Truman and another
gentleman to attest my siguature, but I put a piece of
blotting paper so as to couoeal the place where the name
was, and I afterwards added my father'a name to the deed.
My father knew nothing whatever of this.
Baron Martin—Am Ito understand that he never, either
before or after, authorised your placing his signature to the
deed ?

Mr. Roupell— Certainly.
Examination continued—This estate was afterwards sold
by the mortgagee. and I concurred in the sale. After the
execution of the deed I instructed Mr. Whittaker to raise
money upon it, and he procured me a loan of 7,000/. Part
of thia money was expended for the puts hese of Mr. Tread-
well's land, as he was becoming impatient for his money. I
was under great pecuniary pressure at this time. I had
mortgaged the Kingston estate, and it was sold by the mort-
gagee to the defendant.
Mr. Bovill objected to this fact being taken as proved.
Berne Martin said he thought there was evidence that
the florbiton-farm estate was purchased by the defendant.
Mr. Whittaker was an important witness, and the evidence
went to show that he bad negociated the sale, and he ought
to have been called as a witness.

Se 'rut She. said that it appeared to him his learned
friend ought to have produced the deed.
After some further technical discussion, Mr. Bovill still
declined to produce the deed, unless his lordship decided u
• question of law th►t he was bound to do so.
Baron Martin said he should not do this.

Mr. Barill then consented to produce the deed, and he
put in the supposed deed of gift of the deceased to his son.
Heron Martin said he understood that the discussion had
reference to the deed to Waite. (A laugh.)
After some further legal argument, a deed was put in
showing the conveyance of the estate to the defendant.
Serjeant Shee then called for the production of the deed
of gift, and it was shown to the witness.
Mr. Roupell said—This is the deed that I affixed my
father's signature to without his consent.
Serjeant Shee—Are the deeds that are referred to in this
instrument the same deeds that you took from your father!
Mr. Roupell—They are.
Serjeant Sties—When did you last see these deeds!
Mr. Roopell—ln the presence of Mr. Whittaker, who
was the solicitor for the mortgagee.
Serjeant Shee—Where did you last see them?
Mr. Roupell—At the private residence of Mr. Whittaker.
Belleau' Shee called for the production of the mortgage
deeds.

Mr. Bovril! said he should not produce them. They were
proved to have been last in the possession of Mr. Whittaker.
Mr. Roupell was then further examined. He said—l
went to my father's house in Cross-street on the morning of
his death. Mrs. nonperson, the housekeeper, gave me the
keys, and I opened the varlets drawers. I opened his pri-
vate bureau, where I knew his will had been placed, and I
took possession of it, sod I secreted it. At the first oppor-
tunity that offered I read it, sod determined to do that
which before I had meditated—namely, to secrete it. The
will comprised several sheets, and there was a codicil on the
back of the last sheet.
_

Mr. Serjeant /Thee—What did you do with that will?
Mr. Roupell—l burnt it at my father's house at Brixton,
the night before I left England. Every sheet of the will
was signed by my father in the way he signed all important
documents, and it purported to appoint certain gentlemen
as trustees. I was one of them. Mr. Clark, Mr. Berridge,
and Mr. Richard Stevens were to be the other trustees. The
will was dated October, 1850, and the last codicil was dated
the 31st of August, 1856. The Kingston property was
divided between my brother Richard and another brother.
1 prepared a short will and wrote it upon a blank form that
I had obtained with several others from a law stationer in
Gracechinch.etreet. I slightly altered it to suit my purpose,
and then went to Mr. Muggeridge, a very old man who was
my father's rent collector, and gave him Si. as for mourning,
and obtained his signature to a receipt. I have since burned
that receipt. I copied this signature to • sheet of piper,
purporting to be an attestation to • will, and I then forged
my father's signature to the will, and added my own attes-
tation.

--Reijeant See—Whets siguature did you write last
Mr. Roupell—l think it was Ruggeridges.
A document was here handed to the witness, and he cot,
rooted himself and said that be put his father's signature
last. He said that ltuggeridge's signature was very difficult
to imitate.

Serjeant Shee—What pens did you use ?
Mr. Roupell—l wrote my father's signature with his own
quill pen and ink, Muggeridge's also with a quill pen, and
my own with a gold pen, very lightly, so as to offer as
strong a contrast as possible to the other signatures.
Serjeant She. —V6IIOO did you write out the will ?
Mr. Roupell—Two or three days after the inquest upon
my father's body.
Examination oontioued—l believe I first showed the will
to Mr. Watts, the husband of my mother's sister, on the
day of the funeral ; and on the same day I showed it to
Mr. Orme, the surgeon, and my brother Richard. I then
communicated with Mr, King, my father's proctor, and left
the will in his possession. At first he appeared to think it
was informal, but he afterwards found it wee quite
correct.

The forged will was put in and read. It will be sufficient
to lay that it conveyed the whole of the testator's ptoperty
to his wife, and made her and the wither, William Ron-
pall, executors and trustees to carry the will into execu-
tion, and it revoked all former wills.
Mr. Roupell was further examined. He said—the will was
not drawn up by me on the day it bears date, the god of
September. My father was very ill on the sth of Sep-
tember, and he continued to get worse until his death. Ify
mother was with him from this time until his death at the
house in Cross-street. No one wee aware of my intention
to make this forged will.
Sergeant Shee—Did your mother know anything of it
Mr. Itoupell—She did not.
He then went on to state how bin time was occupied
during the whole day on the 2nd of September, to @how
that he had no opportunity of attesting the will on that day.
Mr. Rotipell, on being further examined, said that he left
England on the .10th of March and went to Spain, and the
night before he left he burned a great quantity of papers at
Aspen House, the residence of his late father, at Brixton,
and where he had himself resided aims hi death.

When Sediment She. est down, Mr. Baron Martin ad-
dressed Mr. vill, and said that if he plowed he might
postpone hie crow-examination until the morning.
Mr. Bovill said he should like to ask Mr. Roupell one or
two questions. He then asked him whether he did not
swear before the surrogate that the will in question was a
genuine one, and that the signature to it was his father's
signature ?
Mr. Roupell—l am sorry to say I did.
Mr. Bovill—And did you then deliberately commit wilful
perjury ?
3dr Roupell—ln &certain seine I did.
•

Mr. Bovill—Have you not wilfully and deliberately per-
jured yourself either today or upon that occasion?
Mr. Reopen made no answer.
Mr. Davin then said he should postpone his further crow
examination.
Baron Martin—The sheriff must take this man into cu-
"Tlis was done, and the court then adjourned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before the Common Berjeent.)

_ .
Willisss eltampion Raton, 45, dealer, was indicted for
unlawfully pledging one chimney glass and other goods,
valued 1651.,with intent todefraud, he having been adjudged
a bankrupt.
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. K Bailey prosecuted, and Mr.
Ribton defended ; Mr. Orridge appearing to watch the case
upon behalf of the person who had bought the dupli-
cated of the property which had been pawned.
The case, which occupied a considerable time, was not one
presenting any peculiar features of public interest, except-
ing the fact of its being the first prosecution under the
new powers given to commissioners to commit for fraud.
The prosecutors to the indictment were Messrs. Seise, of
Moorgate-street, upholsterers, and in January last the prisoner
applied to them stating that he was aboutopesing a boarding
house and hotel in Skinner-street, City, and giving references
purchased of the prosecutors property of the value
named in the indictment, and agreed to pay au instalment
of 251. on the 15th of April and 101. a month afterwards.
The first instalment was not paid, and the prisoner, who
had previously refused to give • bill of sale to the prose-
cutors, asked for • month longer, to meet the payment,
but this was not agreed to, and upon the 30th of April
prosecutors 'erred Lim with a writ for the amount due, and
upon the 6th of May took out • trader summons, prepara-
tory to making prisoner bankrupt, and the prisoner himself
then applied, upon the 15th of May, to the court, and
upon his owe petition was adjudged& ltankrupt.
Mr. George Blames and Mr. Snell, junior, the officer
and shorthand writer to the Court of Bankruptcy,
proved the examination and cross-examination of
the prisoner before the court, and in answer to those
questions relating to the property, the prisoner stated that
upon the 14th he had pawned • portion of the property
which the prosecutors had wet to his house in Skinner
street, and upon the 15th, the day on which he had peti-
tioned the court, be pawned another lot, making in all 221.,
and that be sold the duplicates to • person for 101. The
bankrupt before the commissioners stated that his debts
amounted to 2661. 45., being only 1001. more than be
owed to the prosecutors. He stated that he had been
bankrupt before, and also an insolvent, tint be did Dot tell
the prosecutors so when they parted with their property.
His accounts showed that a portion of the 100/. which las
owed over awl above the debt to the peoseeutors, included
ie it 251. for a quarter's rent, and 401. which be should
have paid as a premium to enter the house.
Evidence wee adduced which proved the pawning of the
goods is question, and also the disposal of the duplicate*.
Mr. Itibton, in defence, contended that the conduct of the
prisoner clearly did not come within the meaning of the act
under which he was indicted. The act said that it was •
question whether the primmer intended to defraud his
arsclitars, but it was evident to this bislang* bl) suck ia-

lenient existed. This w■s not one of those cases where a
man !col obtained a large quantity of goods, and had a large
number of creditors, and bad disposed of the property for his
own benefit with an intent to defraud a Large number of
persons. It was clear from the evidence given by the prose-
cution that the prisoner was in legal difficulties. At the thee
he parted with the goods be had, iu all probability, done so
to cover those expenses, and he had every meson to believe
that in • year like the present, on account of the Exhibition,
the speculation he es tend into would not be a fallen, . .

The prisoner received a good character from win' wit.
nes,,es, and . _

The Jury, after roue deliberatios, returned s verdiet of
Not guilty.