The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-20 00:00:00

THE ROUFELL FORGERIES.

The proceedings in this extraordinary trial were resumed
on Saturday morning at Chelmsford.

—Mr. Sergeant Shee, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Mr. J. Brown, and
the Hon. Mr. Thesiger appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Garth for the
defendant s.

The cause is proceeding very slowly, and although it has
already occupied three days very little actual progress has
been made. This is partly owing to the circumstance of
the late hour at which the court sits to accommodate the
special jurymen, half-past ten o'clock, and to its rising
early, soon after five o'clock. Mr. W. Roupell is brought
down from London every day in the custody of a warder of
Pentonville prison who is dressed in plain clothes, and they
walk to and from the court arm in arm and go to a public-
house in the town and have their meals together, apparently
in the most friendly manner. On Friday evening, when the
train arrived in London, the once celebrated M.P. and his
attendant were seen to go into a little cook-shop in Shore-
ditch, where they had supper, or perhaps as Mr. Roupell,
having reference to his former position would call it dinner,
together, and then proceeded in a cab to the Model Prison
at Pentonville. Mr. Roupell has become very much thinner
since the examination at Guildford, and the removal of his
beard and moustache have male a very great change in
his looks, and given him a common appearance. Nothing
like an accurate idea can yet be formed of the duration of
the trial, but it is not expected to b, brought to a conclu-
si, n before Wednesday night at least. It is expected that
the case fur the plaintiffs will be finished to-day (Monday).
The following additional evidence was now adduced for
the plaintiffs.

Henry Muggeridge said—l am a builder in the Brixton-
road, and I was well acquainted with the late Richard Pal-
mer Roupell, and was employed by him for several years.
My father, John Muggeridge, collected rents for deceased
several years before his death. He died in 1857, aged 88. I
remember having a conversation with William Roupell
after his father's death about a will, and also about the
collection of his rents. The conversation took place very
soon after the funeral. Witness collected the rents from
this period down to March, 1862, and among the rents he
so collected were those of the Great Warley property. 11 e
obtained the receipts from Mrs. Roupell, at Aspen-house,
and he gave the money he received and always accounted to
Mrs. Roupell. The amount of rent he collected was £2OO
a year in one ease and £BO in the other (the fictitious ac-
counts were £560 and £250). The supposed deed of gift of
the Great Warley property was then shown to the witness,
and he said that he thought the signature of the old
Roupell that appeared to it was not his handwriting. He
added that "he should say" it was not. Witness's father
was very infirm in 1856. He generally went out collecting
at 12 o'clock. and aid not return till four, and did not go out
again. The alleged will of the deceased was then shown to
witness, and he said he did not think the signature of the
attesting witness, John Muggeridge, was his father's hand-
writing, but he took his stand on the " M,'' which he did
not think was his father's writing. He was also of opinion
that the signature Richard Palmer Roupell was not the
signature of the deceased. He was well acquainted with
the handwriting of the deceased, and the R of Roupell was
not the sort of R he would make.

Cross-examined—l believe that the signature of Mr.
Richard Palmer upon the paper now produced (handed to
him by Mr. Bovill) is like Mr. Roupell's signature, but I
think there is the same objection to the R.
The paper was handed to Mr. Brown, and he opened it,
apparently with the object of seeing the contents, and Mr.
Bovill complained of the proceeding, and said that the
learned counsel had been guilty of a very great impropriety.
Mr. Brown denied that his object was to see the con-
tents of the paper that had been shown to the witness. He
said that he had no such intention.

Sergeant Shee submitted that the plaintiffs were entitled
to look at any paper that was shown to a witness in the
cause.

Mr. Bovill said that the paper was not put in evidence,
and his only object was to ask the opinion of the witness as
to the validity of a particular signature.
Some technical discussion took place upon this point, but
eventually Sergeant Shee withdraw his application to be
allowed to see the paper.
Mr. Bovill said he had no objection to his lordship see-
ing the paper, and Mr. Baron Channell accordingly opened
it and examined the document.

The witness was then shown another signature, and after
looking at it for some time he said he thought the "o" and
"p" were Mr. Richard Roupell's, and he afterwards said
he thought the whole was a genuine signature. The "r"
was not like his usual signature, but still he thought it was
his handwriting. Another signature was then shown to
the witness, and he said this was very different, and he
" found fault" with the "o" and the " p," and the
flourish was not a bit like Mr. Richard Roupell's. Upon
the whole, he said he should express an opinion that the
signature was not a genuine signature of Mr. Richard
Roupell. He was aware that these signatures were photo-
graphs.

Sergeant Shee contended that Mr. Bovill had no right to
use photographed signatures.

Baron Channell said it was a new point, bat he did not
think photographs could be used in the way proposed by
Mr. Bov ill.

Mr. Bovill said if his lordship had any doubt he should
not press the matter further.
In further cross-examination the witness said he had a
lease of some of the property which had been granted him
by William Roupell, Witness had himself expended
£50,000. upon the Roupell-park estate. He got the money
on mortgage from different parties, but all these proceedings
took place in connection with Mr. Richard Roupell. Wm.
Roupell was a little boy at this time. He received a profit
rent from the leases granted him by William Roupell of
about £250 a year.
Re-examined—He was well aware that his interest would
be destroyed if the plaintiff succeeded in this action.

Mr. W. C. Longman deposed that he was a collector, and
that in the year 1856 proposals were made to him for a loan
upon the security of the property of M. Richard Palmer
Roupell. The proposals were made by Mr. Whitaker, and
in the course of the year witness advanced £6,000, and
entertained a proposition to advance more, but after con-
sulting with counsel he made a requirement that Richard
Palmer Roupell should join in the security, but could not
obtain his concurrence, and he declined to advance any
more. He was repaid the £6,000 he had already advanced
in the course of the same year,
Mr, N. Springham, the tenant of one of the farms now
in dispute, preyed that he took a lease of the farm from old
Mr. Roupell in November, 1842, for twenty-one years from
Michaelmas, 1842, at the yearly rent of £BO. Old Mr.
Roupell used to come down and visit the farm once or twice
a year, but witness generally used to go up to Cross-street
to pay him his rent. The last time he paid him was in
July, 1856. There was some back rent due at this time.
He produced the receipt, and said he saw the deceased sign
his name to it, and ho had seen him write on several other
occasions. After the death of old Mr. Roupell be paid the
rent to Mr. Muggeridge. He added that old Mr. Roupell
never upon any occasion said anything to him about having
given the estate to hie son William Roupell.
Cross-examined—Old Mr. Roupell did at one time say
that he had a dispute with the lord of the manor about the
property, and that his son William was to be their land-
lord. He believed this was some considerable time before
July, 1856—it might bo a year perhaps. He had no par-
ticular reason for recollecting the exact time. He gave Mr.
Linklater, the solicitor to the plaintiff, all the receipts that
he could find- he should think about nine or ten, and all
the ethers were destroyed or lost. (Mr. Lush produced the
receipts referred to, and they were identified by the witness).
In 1862 he received a letter offering him the farm at £lOO a
year from the solicitors to the mortgagees, and he accepted
the proposal, and he said that he was aware at this time
that Wm. Roupell had absconded, and that there was an
allegation that the deeds were forged. He was subsequently
sued by the mortgagees for two quarters' rent, as he bad
declined to pay because he did not know who was the party
really entitled to the rent, He went to Mr. Linklater be-
cause he knew he was the solicitor to the Roupell family,
and he guaranteed him against costs, and defended the ac-
tion, and witness did not trouble himself any more about
the matter. Soon afterwards, however, he was told that he
must pay the rent to the mortgagees (the present defend-
ants). Witness knew nothing about the costs, and ho had
never been asked for thheme
s.uHppeogseadvehothpeamidotnheeyoftohrehrisarretnt
to Mr. Linklater, and
but he told him tha any notice of
Mr. Linklater afterwards sterhveedwohuimld wnoitthtaakneotice eject-
ment,ofpy.
it, and he did not do so, and he heard nothing more of the
the ejectment,fraudulent
d
of
6 was like The signature
to witness's
handwriting, and he knew nothing about the existence of
such a lease until these and i
lease anlt 85 to. (A l
not au g
ath . ) a
only a
very short time
farmthoafta was the
subject of the present action,similare
character,r. Howe,a
na thehe landlord
also pdin
provedproceedings.
the
before old Mr. Roupell died, he received the rent, made al-
lowances for rates and other expenses, and ordered timber
th gaveag .
evidence
etherthat
to be cut, and acted as though the property were entirely
under his control. Immediately after old Alr. . Roupell's
death, Mr. Wm. Roupell called on him and he offered to pay
him some rent that was due, but he refused to receive it him-
self, and said an agent would apply for it. Mr. Wm. Rou-
pall after this gave him receipts as executor to his deceased
father. This witness then went on to state that no such per-
son as Josh. Goddard, whose name appeared to the fraudulent
lease of his farm as the attesting witness, lived at Great
Warley, and he had never heard of such a person.
In cross-examination he said he remembered old Mr.
Roupell coming to see him on one occasion, when he told ,