The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-17 00:00:00

The evidence for the Vaintiff was then proceeded with.

The first portion of the case consisted of proof that the
plaintiff was the only legitimate child of the deceased, and
that he was consequently entitled to claim in the present
action as heir-at -law. As this was, of course, merely formal
proof, it will not be necessary to give the evidence in detail.
Mr. Bovill put some questions to Mrs. Watts, the sister
of Mrs. Roupell, in reply to which she stated that through
the proceedings of her nephew, William Roupell, she had been
reduced to poverty, and was penniless. Before this she had
been in the hatdL of going to Paris, amd c ther places on the
Continent, but she was now unable to do so. She expected
to get something by the present proceedings.
The witness here became very excited, and objected to
answer such questions as had been put to her.
Baron Channell told her that she was bound to answer the
questions.
She then said that what she meant was, that Messrs.
Linklater, the solicitors for the plaintiff, had promised to in
tercede for her. She was on very intimate teams with Mr.
Roupell. She did not remember ever having said that the
property was left to Mrs. Roupell to save the 10 per cent.
legacy duty. Witness was acquainted with the eldest son,
John Roupell, and she believed that he annoyed his father
a good deal, and that he went abroad that he might reclaim
himself, and she understood that his father allowed him £'.:oo
a year. Wu.. Roupell's father was very fond of him, and
witness also was proud of him, notwithstanding his misfor-
tune. What she expected of Messrs. Linklater was to get
back a house that belonged to her which 'Wm. Roupell had
mortgaged. Ever} body was fond of Wm. Roupell, but she
could not say that he was his father's favourite son. He
used to say that West Roupell would be a great man some
day. " And so he was," said the witness. She was not
aware that old Mr. Roupell was very keen atter money
She knew nothing about his habits.

Evidenc,) was then given that the marriage of Mr. and
Mrs. Roupell took place in December, 1838, and that the
plait tiff was burn in July, 1840, that at this time Wm.
Roupell was six years old, and his brother John ten years
older than he was. It appeared that the reason for the delay
in the marriage taking place was, that Richard Palmer
Roupell believed that if he married, his father would not
leave him any of his property.
One of thr witnesses who was cross-examined said that
old Roupell was a very energetic man in business, and his
turnaces were constantly going. He carried on the business
of a lead smelter, but he was unable to say whether he
melted anything else besides lead. The peculiar tone in
which the witness said this caused a good deal of merri-
ment.
Baron Channell said he did not see that they had any
right to inquire how a man made his money. Money was
made in a variety of ways. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins asked the witness whether the furnaces
were nut always lighted and " ready for anything P" (A
laugh.)
He merely smiled, and did not answer the question.

William Roupell, the convict, was then examined, and
his appearance created a good deal of sensation in the court.
He was not dressed in the prison garb, but the large beard
and moustache he exhibited on the last occasion when he
was examined had besa removed. He gave his evidence
with the utmost coolness and self-possession. He said—l
rememb .r living at Peckham with my father and mother.
They then passed as Mr. and Mrs. Carter. I think we left
Peckham to go to live at Aspen-house, Brixton, in 1839,
and they then went by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Roupell.
I had an older brother, John, and two sisters younger than
myself at this time, and I remember the birth of my brother
Richard, the present p 1 )intfl. I think he was born in 1841.
(The witness made a mistake ; the birth took place in 1840.)
My father spent the greater part of his time at Cross-street,
Blackfriars-road, and that was in fact his dwelling-house.
His place of business was in Gravel-lane. He used only to
go to Brixton on the Sunday, and he remained all day and
returned on the Monday morning to Cross-street. He
w6„s very careful and inexpensive in his habits. v?.:
articlej in 1849 to Mr. Haslam, a solicitor, in Cop
I was afterwards gned to Mr. thaac.
court, andone p assi Rees, who a
11
round a
week.
c Mr. Bovill subtaittes4 that evidence of this ch
ertain deed
aracter was
really immaterial. The qu;2stion was whetherixl
instrument
datee the 9th of January, 16,56, was a genu
or not. , him that the evidence
Baron Channell said it appeared tt.
airt nt ca,e, and he
was admissible ; but it was a very lure
-/ thought that the
should take a note of the objectioro_aa
an
acizniseible fact
treatment of the son by the father W
in the cause. Roupell was then continued. 11
The examination of Mr
h9allowance to 258, a week ine
said—My father increased
rrie 30s. a week. I had t•
1852, and he afterwar is g,
dinner in the City, lie con
provide my clothes and In,
ce down w the period of his death. Ai
"in difficulties as to money matters.
tinned this allowance
the end of 1855 I was
father
eel.): ism() et u c ecl
additioniro m
ttoh the
tyinalle my
lowance
Those dif&ultieras
I'd
omitted to give and
in January, 1856, owed my bankers, the London and
'Westminster Bank. a large sum of money.
I kept an
at this time with Messrs, H •
account ernes and Co.,
the Bank of England, and I think also with the Unity
Bank. I owed the London and
Westminster Bank at this
time £12,000. That snm had been borrowed in August,
1855, and it was to be repaid in January, 1856. I wasver
desirous to repay this sum, but
my accounts were very low
at all my bankers, and I owed Messrs. Herries and Co.
£4,800, if not more. I also owed £lO,OOO to the Guardian
Insurance Company, and a large sum to my solicitor, Mr.
Whittaker—several thousand pounds. I had no means
whatever to pay these debts, and my father knew nothing
about them. The witness here proceeded to explain the
circumstances connected with the copyhold portion of
the Great Worley estate being surrendered in his name
in order that some beneficial arrangement might be made
I with the steward of the manor. Mr. Roupell went on
to say that in consequence of this he obtained
possession of the title deeds relating to the Essex property.
His father, he said, opened the strong box at Cross-street,
and he took the whole of the deeds relating to the Great
Worley estate, and at his father's request he gave him a
receipt, but he described the property as the " Havering
property" instead of the Great Worley property. He said
that he purp.isely confused the two properties, but his
father discovered the error and corrected it. Mr. Roupell
then went in to say that after he obtained pos. eesion of the
deeds ho made fair copies of them, and also procured
copies of the leases to the tenants, and he took all the docu-
ments except the originals afterwards to Mr. Whittaker,
his solicitor, and he kept the original deeds in his own
possession, and locked them up in his bureau.
' At this stage the cause was adjourned,

---
LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
SCOTT V. SCOTT,

This was a petition for restitution of conjugal rightis by
Captain John Sowden Scott, late of the 31st Regiment of
Foot, praying that his wife might be eompelled to re turn
to cohabitation. The respondent answered that she hi ed not
left her husband without reasonable excuse ; that the peti-
tioner had been guilty of divers acts of cruelty.
The case was opened yesterday by evidence of the wife,
who stated that her husband had been guilty of threatening
to shoot her, and had left her on several occasions without
money in a strange place.
The petitioner was examined at considerable length, to
show that nothing more than the usual quarrels that occur
when a mother-in-law is: a resident in the house ever took
place.
A number of witnesses twere examined this morning to
bear out the allegations of th.e petitioner.
The case will not conclude before late this evening.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a (Ammon Jury.)
SINGULAR ACTION UPON A PROMIS SORT NOTE.--JACOBS

V. REES.

This was an action upon a promissory note, and defend-
ant had put no less than five pleas on the record.
Mr. Thos. Angell appeared tor the, plaintiff, and Mr.
Charles Robertson, of Crosby hall Chambets, for de-
fendant.

Mr. Jacobs said he lent money, and he. advanced defend-
ant money on the promissory note int question. De-
fendant paid maLy instalments, and failing at length to
keep up the sued.payn.entwaasskedif
Mr. Robertson herethere was not an agreement
t 0A
payf te r
in writing P
Plaintiff—Not relating to that promissory
defendant was rued he called upon me and wannottede.
tt,e balance without costs.
Cross-examined—The note was made by a person named
Herne. Ido not know if Herne made the payrw nt.The
tued
book produced comes from my office. No payments have
been made that are not entered there. I cannot swear there
was not an agreement made in reference to the amount ad-
vanced on the note. 113 65. was advanced on the
eponoßtie..
The note was for £l6.
Mr. Robertson said that his client was simply in
tion of surety, and that he ought not to be liable for any
sum further than that advanced.
Mr Angell urged that plaintiff was not bound to lend his
money for nothing. A person was as much entitled to
charge a profit upon his money as a person who opened a
shop had to make profits on goods exposed for sale. Plain-
tiff had only charged £2 14s. for 12 months, and surely
that was not exorbitant.
The learned Secondary briefly summed up, and the
jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount;
The learned Secondary granted a certificate,