The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-21 00:00:00

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

The proceedings in this case were resumed before
Mr. Baron Channeil and the special jury at Chelms-
ford yesterday. The court was crowded during the
whole of the day, the galleries being almost exclu-

sively occupied by ladies. William Roupell was
again in attendance as on the previous days. The
case of the plaintiff was brought to a close before
the court rose, and the defendants' case will be com-

menced the first thing this (Tuesday) morning.
Mr. Francis Thompson, clerk at Mr. Glyn's, the
banker's, and who had been examined on Saturday
by Mr. Lush, was recalled and cross-examined by

Mr. Hawkins. It will be recollected that in his

evidence on Saturday the witness expressed his

opinion very strongly that the signatures to the
deed of gift, the letter of instructions to Mr. Whit-
takei, and the will, were all forgeries and imita-
tions of the handwriting of the late Mr. Richard
Palmer Roupell. In answer to questions put by
Mr, Hawkins yesterday, the witness repeated his
belief that the signatures to the three documents
mentioned were forgeries, and stated, that when he

was first taken to see the signatures he did not
know that he was going to see some documents
which were alleged to be forged. He was merely told

,hat there was adocument upon which he would have

to give evidence, and was asked if he would like to
see it ; he said that he should, and then he was
taken to an office by Mr. Linklater, where he had an

opportunity of inspecting the documents, upon the
genuineness of which he had now given his opinion.
In re-examination by Mr. Sergeant Shee, the
witness said he did not believe the signature of Mug-

geridge in the will was the writing of an aged man
•

in an infirm state of health.

Mr. Fred. Muggeridge, clerk to Messrs. Rees,
solicitors, was examined by Mr. Brown, and said
that the John Muggeridge whose name appeared in

the will was his grandfather, and that he used to
collect some of old Mr. Reupell's rents. He recol-

leeted staying with his grandfather for about five

or six weeks before old Mr. Ronpell died, and dnr•

ing that time he was in the habit of going out with

him when he went to collect the rents. He went to

Lant-street with his grandfather every time the old
gentleman went while he remained there. His grand-

father was at that time more than eighty years of
age, and being very infirm did not like to go out
alone. He used to leave home between eleven and
twelve o'clock and return between three and four.
He never knew him to go out after he had come in
from collecting the rents. He did not recollect that
his grandfather ever went to o'd Mr. Roupell's place
in Cross-street on the same day as that on which he

collected the rents. He generally collected the rents
on Monday and Tuesday, and went to Cross-street
with them on Friday. He used to take a little book
with him when collecting the rents, and make en-
tries in them. (The book was produced and identi-
fied by the witness,) There were four entries in
that day. They wore all entries of recent received on
the 2d of September, 1856, and, to the best of wit-
ness's belief, his grandfather made those entries in
Lant-street. Witness recollected being with his
grandfather on that day. He could only recollect
that he did not go out on that day after getting home
from collecting his rents, from knowing that it was
his general habit not to go out. Witness did not
see either old Mr. Roupell or William Roupell
that day, and he should say that his grand-
father did not see either of those gentlemen. He
was sure he did not see them at his own house, and
ho believed his grandfather would not have gone
to Cross-street without his knowing of it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—He always went
with his grandfather to Lant. street while he was
staying at the house. He was about 13 years old
at the time, and he went to help his grandfather
make up some of his books. Witness was occasion-
ally in the habit of going to Lant-street by himself,
but not very often. He sometimes went to Cross-
street with his grandfather, but he could not now
tell how many times. It might have been three or
four times, but he was not prepared to say positively
how many times it was. The entries of rent re-
ceived in the books produced were in his grand-
father's writing.
Mrs. Sophia Muegeridge (examined by Mr. Ser-
jeant Shee) said ahe was the widow of the late Mr.
John Muggeridge, who died in the year 1857, at
the age of 85. Her husband had for some time been
collector of some of the rents of old Mr. Roupell,
but towards the latter end of his life, as he was very
infirm and did not like going out by himself, witness
used to accompany him when he went to collect the
rents. He used to account to Mr. Roupell foe the
rent on Fridays. They generally went in a cab,and
were sometimes kept about for some time in getting
the money, in consequence of some of the tenants
not being at home. She only went out with her
husband in this way for the last three or four years
of his life. She recollected the last witness staying
at their house, and that while he was there he ge-
nerally went out with his grandfather collecting the
rents. He used to make the entries in a small book
at the time he received the rents, and then copy
them into a larger book when he got home. The
tenants also kept a book each, which he signed as a
receipt for their rent. She could not say exactly what
time he went out on the 2d Sept., 1856, but his usual
time was between eleven and twelve o'clock. She
supposed, from the entries in the book, that he
must have been out on that day, but she
could not recollect that day particularly.
Mr. Roupell never came to their house. Mr. Wm.
Roupell never came before his father's death, but he
came just before the funeral and gave her husband
L 5 to buy some mourning with. The signature of
her husband as the attesting witness to the will was
not in the handwriting of her husband. (Several
signatures were produced, which the witness said
were in her husband's writing.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—She did not think
the signature was like her husband's writing at all.
His writing was much better than that was. She
did not know whether anybody who knew her hus-
band's writing could be taken in by the signature
or not. Her grandson used to do some writing for
her husband, but as she did nut like him to write
all day she sometimes used to send him out for u
run. but he was never away long. Her husband
very seldom went out in the afternoon, even when he
had not been out in the morning. Sho sometimes
used to go with her husband to old Mr. Reupell's,
but as that was not far he generally went there by
himself. She did not think he was in the habit of
going there much, except when he went on business,
but sometimes when he went he would have a long
chat with Mr. Roupell, and they would have some
refreshments and make themselves comfortable.
(Laughter.) Mr. Roupell was very partial to her
husband. Her husband was very moderate in what
he had, but she could always tell when he had been
to Mr. Roupell's and "made himself comfortable."

Mr. Bovill said the first documents he had shown
the witness were those containing the signatures of
her husband, which she had before said were
genuine, and the last one was the will, with her
husband's signature as one of the attesting wit-
nesses.

Mr. Knott (who had been examined before) was
recalled by Mr. Bovill, and said he knew the hand-
writing of the late Mr. Roupell very well, from hav-
ing had receipts from him for rent. He had looked
at the signature to the deed of gift, and though
there was some slight difference between that and
Mr. Roupell's ordinary writing ; yet to the best of
his belief it was a genuine signature. If an order
had been sent to him for goods with that signature
he should have sent them.

The witness, at the request of Mr. Sergeant Shee,
having compared the signature in the deed of gift
with some genuine signatures of Mr. Roupell's, said
he could certainly see a difference between them.
Mr. Sharp, recalled by Mr. Bovill, said he recol-
lected Mr. Roupell calling on him on the 30th
August, 1856, and he did not then notice that he
was in a bad state of health.

Louisa Turuer, examined by the Hon. F. Thesi-
ger, said she was the wife of John Turner, of No,
6, Little Lant-street, who was tenant of part of that
house to the late Mr. Roupell. They paid their rent
to Mr. Muggeridge between one and three o'clock
sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly. In the lat.
ter part of his life he was generally accompanied by
his wife. She remembered that sometimes he was
accompanied by his grandson. He entered the re-
ceipt of the rent in a book belonging to her, which
she kept. The book now produced was hers, and
looking at it she could say that she paid him 10s.
on the 2d September, 1856. Her father lived next
door, and was also a tenant of Mr. Roupell's. The
entry in her book of the 10s. on the 2d of Sep-
tember was in the handwriting of Mr. Mug-
geridge. She also paid the rent for her father, and
entries were made in a book belonging to him. The
book now produced was the one. Looking at it,
she could say that she paid 15s. for rent to Mr.
Muggeridge on the 2d of September. The
entry was in the writing of Mr. Muggeridge. She
saw him write it.
Sarah Chadwick, examined by Mr. Lush, said—
She was also a tenant of Mr. Roupell's and lived
in a house in Lent-street. She used to pay her rent
to Mr. Muggeridge, and kept a book in which Mr.
Muggeridge used to enter a receipt of the rent ; but
the book had been lost. When she left the house
she did not take any particular care of it. Mrs.
Ray used to live next door to her. Witness did not
see Mrs. Ray pay any rent on the 2d September,
1856 ; but she knew that she did pay it. The book
now produced was the book in which Mr.
Muggeridge used to enter Mrs. Ray's receipts, and
the entry of the 2d of September was in his writing.
The corresponding entry in Mr. Muggeridge's book
for that date was also in Mr. Muggeridge's hand-
writing. Mrs. Ray was ill, and unable to give
evidence.
The Court here adjourned for a short time.
Mr. Bucksworthy, examined by Mr. Brown, said
he was now managing clerk for Messrs. Wilkinson,
solicitors, at Walsall, and was formerly managing
clerk for a firm in the Southwark Bridge-road. He
was there from 1845 till 1859. When he first went
there, in 1845, they were the acting solicitors for
old Mr. Roupell, and continued so till 1852. Soon
after he went there he took the management of old
Mr. Roupell's business. While he was acting in
that capacity Mr. Roupell bought severul proper-
ties and granted several leases, which leases witness
either perused or prepared, and afterwards saw
signed and executed by Mr. Roupell. Witness was
shown the deed of gift, the will, and the letter of
instructions, and said it was his firm belief, from
what he knew of the handwriting of the late Mr.
Roupell, that those documents had never been
signed by him.
Mr. Thomas George, examined by Mr. Sergeant
Shee, said he acted as collector of rents for the late
Mr. Roupell for sixteen or seventeen years. He
was well acquainted with Mr. Roupell's handwrit-
ing, and did not believe that the signature to the
will was ever written by the late Mr. Roupell. The
capital "P," the " o," and the small " p," were un-
like those letters in Mr. Roupell's ordinary writing.
Mr. Roupell's "o" generally commenced from the
bottom and went to the top, and was more like an
"a" than an " o." There was not so much freedom
in the " P" in the will as there was in Mr. Rou-
pell's usual capital " P." Mr. Roupell's small "p"
was more like the letter " f" than a " p," but in
the signature in the will the small part of the letter
did not join the stroke. He did not believe the
signature to the deed of gift (which was shown to
him) was the signature of Mr. Roupell. The flou•
rich in that signature differed from the flourish in
Mr. Roupell's general signature. Mr. Roupell
used, when he got to the final " 1" in his name, to
make the flourish first and the straight stroke after-
wards. He was speaking now from his actual ob-
servation of Mr. Roupell's handwriting. In his
belief the signature to the letter of instructions of
January 8 was not the signature of Mr. Roupell.
There was not freedom enough in the capital " P,"
the " o" commenced from the top, and the " p" was
too plain. 'the dissimilarity which he had pointed
out in the first document existed in the others.
By the Court—He had never seen William Rou-
pell write.
By Mr. Sergeant Shee—The signature now
placed in his hands was a genuine signature of Mr.
Roupell's to an agreement for a tenancy attested by
the witness, and was very different from the signa-
tures to the deed of gift, the will, and the letter of
instructions.

I
said
n hc
er ohs
as -de xn ae iern as
et ieonn by
eMdr. eeßn ill, l,
ts t he w
whichi t nheasds
j.ust been shown him before, although ho had been
court during the whole of the previous proceed-
ings.
Mr. William Alder, examined by Mr. Lush, said
he was for three years a tenant of the late Mr.
Roupell. Ile used to pay his rent to Mr. Roupell,
and book receipts from him. There was a peculia
rity in the signature which he noticed at the time.
He did not notice at the time that Mr. Itoupell
wrote the whole signature without taking his pen
off, but he had examined the signature to his re-
ceipts since. He had seen the signature to
the will,
and was of opinion that it was not tae
s writi
h no isn.
such
g of
old Mr. Roupell. In all the sin
there was e.
ccipts, there was a bream at the lower part of the
invery time
was more
capital
it
ne‘ tits
inheo 's ign
which cl t°r
uwru occurred in i nnt' on' the
t b
thet
h receipts,
case
I.E
the Will,
it
The small part of the "p" also. joined the stroke in
the genuine signature, whereas it did not do so in the
will. The general character of the writing
more studied than Mr.pßosuepss theell's ordina
the ry writing,signa.
lure
possess
and did not appear toordinaryfreeness
of l‘ei to h
rr. Rtouo letterpelrsw friotinign. He thought
instructions
With
av
ery
bad

Mr. Theanas Brown, examined by Mr. Joseph
Brown, said he was now assistant-manager of the
Imperial Bank, Lothbury, and was formerly a clerk
in the London Joint-Stock Bank. The laic Mr.
Roupell kept an account at that bank, and witness
had repeatedly cashed cheques belonging to him.
The cheques now shown to him were some of the
late Mr. Roupell's. [A. large bundle of cheques
from May, 1855, till June, 1856, was put in.] He
had seen Mr. Roupell's will, but he did not believe
the signature to it was that of Mr. Roupell. It was
too studied, too firm, and too good to be the signa-
ture of Mr. Roupell.
By the Juiy—He should not pay a cheque on
that signature without consultation.
By the Judge—He meant that he should not pay
a cheque with that signature over the counter as a
matter of course, but should require the confirms•
tion of a person acquainted with the writing. He

should not, perhaps, pronounce it a forgery on the
face of it, but he should require some confirmation.
By Mr. Joseph Brown—He had not yet seen the
deed of gift, nrr the letter of instructions. Le 4 .r,
now at the deed of gift, he could not say positively
whether the signature to it was genuine or not.
He thought it was a very good imitation. There
was a discrepancy at the end which he had never
seen in any other signature of Mr. Roupell's.
Mr. Dart was recalled by the Hon. F. Thesiger,
and shown the deed of gift, the will, and the letter
of instructions, and stated his belief that the signa-
tures to those documents were not in the writing of
the late Mr. Roupell.
Mr. Halstead, in answer to Mr. Lush, said he was
acquainted with the writing of Mr. Richard Rou-
pell, but he could not tell whether the signatures
in dispute were genuine or not.
Mr. George Hind, also a tenant of Mr. Roupell's,
said he did not believe the signatures to the docu-
ment in question were the genuine signatures of
Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell.
Mr. Frederick George Nethercliffe, examined by
Mr. Sergeant Shee, said he was a lithographer, fac-
similist, and inspector of writings, and had been in
that profession for more than twenty-five years.
He was facesimilist to the British Museum. His
father had been in the same profession for many
years. He had compared the signatures to the
documents now in dispute with what were admitted
to be the genuine signatures of Mr. Roupell, and
was prepared to state that they were all three for-
geries. He believed they were forgeries from the
general character of the writing, and his opinion
was confirmed by subsequently comparing the sig-
natures with the genuine ones. (The witness then
went to the learned Judge, and pointed out to him
the various differences which existed between the
signatures in the documents referred to and the
genuine signatures of Mr. Roupell, drawing parti-
cular attention to the letters " p," " o," and "
which had been before pointed out by other wit-
nesses.) He considered the letter of instructions to be
a worse forgery than the others, and having seen some
of the handwriting of Wiliam Roupell, he was con-
vinced that that letter, as well as the body of the
will, was written by him. His attention had been
called the signature of Mr. J. Muggeridge, one of
the attesting witnesses to the will, and his opinion
was that it was an attempt to imitate the writing
of an infirm old man, bat it was a bad attempt, in-
asmuch as the writing got much firmer towards the
end of the signature than it was at the beginning.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins—His business
was that of a lithographer, and he was not employed
chiefly as as a professional witness. He was some-
times called upon to give evidence upon hand-
writing, but he would rather not do it. It was not
his principal occupation, but he was frequently con-
sulted by solicitors, sometimes for the purpose of
supporting handwriting, and sometimes for the pur-
pose of proving forgeries. When he went to inspect
the will about which he had just been examined,
he did not know there was any dispute about it.
He was asked to go and see if it was a genuine sig-
nature or not. He did not then know that any
question had arisen upon it. He had seen genuine
signatures of Mr. Roupell's, and had compared them
with the signature to the will. He thought no one
who was reasonably acquainted with Mr. Roupell's
writing ought to be deceived by the letter of in-
structions, because it was so bad an imitation. He
did not know that eminent authorities on hand-
writing had sometimes differed from him. He was
not educated as an expert by his father. There was
no education for an expert but what came from ex-
perience. His father was a very shrewd and intel-
ligent man, but he never took to the profession of
an expert till a few years before his death. He re-
collected a case in which his father differed from
him, and he swore one way and his father another,
but it was only on one occasion. It was about an
anonymous letter, and his father thought the father
had written it, and he thought the son had written
it, but his father had never seen the son's hand-
writing in his life, whereas he had. The learned
counsel should not say anything about his (witness's)
father, for he was now dead and gone, and
should be let rest. (Laughter.) It was only that
once that they had disagreed. From that time
he had not a special retainer, so that he might
not appear on a different side from his father,
but it was a fact that he never did appear on a
trial after that in opposition to his father. He
believed he could imitate a person's handwriting in
such a way as would have bothered his father, and
his father could have done the same so as to have
bothered him. Other experts could have bothered
both him and his father, and they in return
have written so as to have bothered a good many
other people. (Loud laughter.) Of course, they could
were not infallible. He now had some special re-
tainers for cases at York and Newcastle' but he
had no " refreshers." (Roars
recalled to prove
of laughter.)
Mr. Henry Muggeridge was
some of his father's signatures, 50 that they
might
be compared with his signature as an attesting wit-
ness to the will.
another lithographer and
Mr. Charles Chapot,
expert andand
and gave evidence inspector of writing was called
to the
examined by Mr. Brown'
last
witness,
same effect as that of the stating his
natures to the will
belief that the signatures I the letter of
the .
deedof
instructions, and gift, were forgeries,
• out the differences
and pointing between the signa-
turesin those documents and the
genuine signatures
of Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell.
Mr. Mathieson, examined by Mr. Lush, said he
had been for 33 years a lithographer, and had been
constantly engagPd in snaking • • -
tacsimilies of writ-
ing. He had heard the evidence of the other two
gentlemen, and quite agreed with them in what
they had baid as to the •
signatures to the deed of
gift, the letter of • •
instructions, and the will. He
firmly believed
them all to be forgeries of the sig-
nature of Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell.
Herbert
Cullen (examined by Mr. Lush) said he
was a fly-master, and used occasionally to drive
Mr. William Roupell. He kept his flys near Aspen
House, and recollected driving Mr. William Roupell
to Cross-street ami St. James's every day during the
week old Mr. Roupell was lying dead. He was ge-
nerally with him all day, and then drove him home
at night. He recollected a writing-desk which Mr.
Roupell carried with him in the carriage every day.
He never knew him to be without it. He drove
him for about twelve months after the funeral, and
he carried the writing-desk during the whole of that

time.
Mr. Serjeant Shoe said this was the whole of the
plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Bovill then rose to open the case on behalf of

as each mounted the steps, a few words of explana-
tion relative to the prize and the circumstances
under which it had been won. Necessarily, this
was to a great extent a recapitulation of points
with which the public aro familiar, but there were
some incidental features of interest and novelty.
A rifle, mounted with silver, and not included in
the list of prizes won at Wimbledon, was presented
to Captain E. Ross, Cambridge University. This
weapon had been purchased with a sum of £l5O,
subscribed by the Australian colonists on hearing of
his original success. Captain Horatio Ross, father
of Captain E. Ross, appeared not long afterwards
to receive one of the extra prizes, and being very
warmly greeted, Lord Elcho told the assembly
liey would have constant opportunities of seeing
*his ger4.leman, and one or other of his four sons,
b r .-ts with the rifle. Of clay, Mr R q,
the ise,,igal CiviF SerTi.,,,, it Wa
during the mutiny, with the assistance of aLe
natives, he had kept an entire army at bay, and
prevented it from crossing a river. Lieutenant
Harris, 20th Regiment, whose name had been a
household word in camp, received two prizes, and
had they been ten would have carried them off with
the same good wishes on the part of every one ac-
quainted with his indefatigable exertions. Sergeant
Martin Smith, of the Victorias, having received
one of the small bore prizes from the hand of the
Commander-in-Chiethad to double round as quickly
as possible, after the manner of stage processions,
to present himself as the recipient of the next
prize, value £lOO, given by the Prince of Wales.
The Master of Lovat reappeared frequently, and
representatives of Cambridge University also came
upon the dais more than once ; but Oxford, un-
fortunately, had Bo corresponding share in the
honours. Lord Elcho, in introducing the winner
of Mr. Mont Storm's prize, stated that this was
I given under peculiar conditions ; to military men
especially it had been one of the most interest-
ing and important contests at Wimbledon. A
breech-loading rifle, on Mr. Mont Storm's prin-
ciple, was placed in the hands of competitors, who
were each only allowed two minutes to fire at the
target, making as large a score as possible in that
time. The winner, Ensign Starkie, of the Queen's
Westminsters, fired 11 shots within the prescribed
interval, and made 34 points—that is to say, an
average of centres every shot, and one bull's•eye
into the bargain ! Ensign Deane of the London
Rifle Brigade, who gained the second prize, was
only two points behind. The next prize of magni-
tude was that given in honour of the Princess
Alexandra, and called by her name. As the winner,
Private Mackenzie, of the London Scottish, a stal-
wart Highlander with a patriarchalbeard, advanced
to receive it, the band of the London Rifle Brigade,
which was stationed in the vicinity of the grand
organ, played the Danish National Anthem,
and there was a burst of cheering on the part of
the spectators. Captain Heaton, one of the won-
derful shots developed by the rifle movement, next
received the Association Cup, for which he had made
the high score of SO, the maximum being 84. The
representative Eight of Eton Alen marched up
to receive the Ashburton Shield, which they
had won in the match with the public
schools, and carried it off joyfully, but still
in solemn procession. The next ceremony of in-
terest was the public declaration of the result of
the International Match. Lord Elcho was sorry to
say that Scotland had waited for " the third time
of asking," and, pending the completion of the
shield, the losers were compelled to present the
winners with miniature duplicates in silver of the
prize. Lord Bury and the other members of
the English Eight, as they advanced to receive
these, were cordially cheered by both Volunteers
and the public. The "Consolation" Prizes, sub-
scribed by the ladies of England, at the suggestion
of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge,
for competition by those Volunteers who had not
been successful in any other contest at Wimbledon,
were next awarded; after which the
House of
Lords' prizes—which acquired so much popularity,
and were acknowledged yesterday to be solely duo
to the efforts of Lord Ducie—were distributed.
Colonel the Hon. C. H. Lindsay, in Placing in the
hands of the Commander-in-Chief the St. ...xeorge's
'tied the principles
battalions of England, explained Vase, annually offered for competition to Volun-
teerthe..eofwtihneneArsssoicniatthioen,firhset
on which that contest was carried out, and stated
year been instrumental in
that whereas it had last
over 105 "dragon" Bove-
adding £95 to the resoureTesh
Prize flowed over the platform
was now prepared to hand
reigns to the treasurer..
to receive the Association
stage of the Queen's
badges and banknoteto which
thread ere entitled
ies ey y possessed.
a Sergeant Roberts, of the
in a continuous streams
fl the
—the
Volunteer whose name will be most
associated with the meeting of 1863.
and when he had been put in posses-
sion band
honour theplayed " See the conquering
12th Salop,
hie
11)nrcn
of x;250 and the gold medal of the Association,
hero comes,"
muster roll of fame was exhausted for this occa-
sion. The competitive examination had closed, the
prizes had been awarded, and the great Wimbledon
sion
academy was about
to disperse.