The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-24 00:00:00

P. tA)Nin)N, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 24, 1863

THE ROI7PELL FORGERIES.

SEVENTH DAY.
CHELMSFORD, July 23.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
ROUPELL AND ANOTHER V. HOWS AND ANOTHER.

The trial was resumed yesterday morning. William Rou-
pell was against present, in charge of the warders of Pen-
tonvi!le Prison.

Mr Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, and
the Hon. Mr. Thesiger, appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Garth were for
the defendants.

Mr. Bovill, who had only concluded his observations re-
lating to the handwriting on Wednesday at the adjournment
of the Court, resumed his summing up of the case for the
defendants. He said that he should now make some remarks
in reference to the attestation to the deed of gift, and to the
evidence with regard to the signatures of the attesting wit-
nesses Dove and Truman. His learned friena had, in the
most emphatic manner, declared that he would prove that
the signatures of those witnesses were forgeries; but, to his
utter confusion, when W m. Roupell was called into the
witness box, he distinctly stated that both those signatures
were genuine signs ures, and this had compelled the plain-
tiffs to resort to an altogether new theory, and the result
was, as it appeared to him, to involve the case for the plain-
tiffs in the utmost confusion and difficulty. What they en-
deavoured to show was that Wm. Roupell had deeeived the
witnesses, and induced them to believe that they were
merely attesting the signature of Wm. Roupell, but the fact
turned out to be that Mr. Edwin Whitaker, as appeared by
the deed itself, had himself attested the signature of Wm.
Roupell, and the story of Wm. Roupell was clearly false,
and only put forward to deceive the jury. Then as to the
date of the supposed attestation, ii was clear that it could
not have been done in the summer or autumn of 1856, be-
cause it was clear that long before that period the deed fully
executed had been placed in the hands of Mr. Whitaker.
is security for the money that had been advanced. He
then referred to the evidence of Mr. Beek, who, he said,
was one of the most eminent microscopists of the day, and
said that his statement that the name of Roupell must have
been written first, and that a portion of the signature of the
witness Truman was actually written over a portion of it,
completely negatived the story told by William Roupell as
to the circumstances under which the deed was signed. It
Truman had never attested any deed for Richard Roupell,
why did he not say so at once, and why should he say that
he would look over his memoranda, or his diary ? He said
o Mr. Covinton, when he was questioned by that gentleman,
that he did not remember having attested such a deed ; and
they would recollect that the other witness, Dove, said that
it his name appeared as the attesting witness to the deed, he
mu-t have seen it executed by the old gentleman, These
witnesses' minds had been biased by the reports that had
be n circulated relative to the forgeries that had been com-
ted by William Roupell, and he could not help sk ing
that every attempt had been made to bias the public mind,
not only by reports in the newspapers, but even by intro-
ductions, to the reports of the proceedings, which had no•
thing to do with the case,and ought never to have appeared ;
and the result very probably was that both Dove and Tru •
man might have believed that William Roupell had been
guilty of forgery; but he submitted that the only reason-
able conclusion that could be come to was, that these wit-
nesses really had attested the deed, and that they saw it
executed by Richard Roupell, although, as seven years had
elapsed, they might have forgotten the circumstances. He
gave William Roupell credit for being a most expert forger,
capable of committing any trend or deception, and this
being so, what difficulty would he have had in inducing
his father to sign any deed that he presented to him. His
father was very fond of him, he was proud of him—placed
great confidence in him, and what would have been easier
than for him to have presented a deed to his father, and
tell him that it was a lease or some other investment which
he would have been required to sign. The plaintiff, were
bound to make out satisfactorily that the signature of
Richard Palmer Roupell to the deed was a forgery, and
yet their counsel did not dare to ask the question of
Mr.Surridge, the intimate friend of the deceased, and the in-
tended executor. Then, with regard to Mr. Clark, another
intended executor, and an old friend of the deceased, the
plaintiffs' counsel ought to have called him as a wit-
ness, but they did not dare to do it, and he was obliged to
call him, and he stated the signature was, in his opinion, a
genuine one. A other important witness, Mr. Stevens, one
of the executors appointed by the codicil, was not called as
a witness, and the reason was obvious, that it was known
that if he had been, he would also have said that the signa-
ture to the deed was genuine. The same observation would
apply to Mr. King and Mr. Sharp, who had executed many
wills for the deceased, and were wed acquainted with his
handwriting. for the plaintiffs' counsel did not dare to ask
either of these gentlemen whether this signature was
genuine or not. Anotherimportant witness who might have
been called was Mrs. Roupell, who must have been perfectly
well acquainted with her husband's handwriting, and who
was proved to have been in court, and yet the plaintiffs did
not dare to call her as a witness to inform the jury whether
the signature to the deed was genuine or not. If witnesses
such as these would not venture to say that this signature
was a forgery, why should the jury be called to say so on
their oaths ? he plaintiffs sought to deprive the defendants
of property which they Ind bought and paid for, and upon
which probably their very existence depended, and they
were bound to make out their case in the clearest possible
manner, and he submitted that they had entirely failed to
do so. What was the description of evidence that had been
brought forward by the defendants ? There was Mr. Dudley,
the old family solicitor, who acted as such for a great many
years, who must have been perfectly well acquainted with
the handwri ing of the deceased, and he said in the most
distinct and emphatic manner, that the signature to the
deed was the genuine handwriting of Richard Palmer
Roupell. (Sergeant Shee here made a slight ejaculation.)
No wonder his learned friend groaned at the evidence to
which he had just alluded. (Laughter.) Besides the evi-
dence of this gentleman, there was the testimony of the
engrever to the Bank of England, the Inspector of Stamps
at he General Post-office, the witnesses from the Alliance
Fire office, the Lambeth Waterworks and the London
Joint-Stock Bank ; and they all stated most unhesitatingly
that the signature was genuine. These witnesses were all
men of eminence—men of high position—men whose re-
spectability was undoubted ; they had no interest whatever
in the result of this trial; they were not in the slightest de-
gree connected with the defendants; the allegation of forgery
had been dinned in their ears for the last twelve months ;
and yet this was the evidence they had given upon the sub-
j••ct of this important signature. The whole of the witnesses
to whom he bad just directed their attention ought to have
been called by the plaintiffs, but they did not care to call
them ; and this fact he considered was worthy the consider-
ation of the jury. If this had been an ordinary case of test-
ing the validity of the acceptance to a bill of exchange, and
they had heard the evidence of the bankers' clerks, would
they not have said at once that the signature was genuine,
and that the bill must be paid ; and they would not give the
slightest effect to evidence such as that which had been given
by the experts and the other witnesses who had been ex-
amined on the part of the plaintiffs. He reminded them that
the security of the whole property in the kiegdom depended
upon the vital.ty of solemn instruments such as the deed
that was now in question ; and if they were to give effect to
such a case as was sought to be set up by the plaintiffs, no
one would be safe The jury would remember that although
the avowed object of the present action was to obtain pos-
session of this small estate, yet there was no doubt that the
real object was to regain possession of the whole of the
property that had been squandered by Mr. William Rou-
pell. He then went on to say, Why was not Sarah Rou-
pell called as a witness? Why was there a settled deter-
mination not to call her ? Wae there some secret that would
make William Roupell quiet in the box where he was now
seated, and cause him to be carried out of court? Why he
was allowed to be in court he did not know, nor why he
should be permitted to be in constant communication and
passing notes to the solicitors who were acting for his
brother. It might be that there were secrets which the family
wished to conceal, but with regard to the letter of instruc-
tions to prepare the deed of gift, he submitted that the fact
of Wm. Roupell retaining possession of the document,
showed that he knew it was genuine, and that he kept it in
order to show that he had a title to the property. Although
Sarah Roupell was placed in the witness-box by the com-
pulsion of his lordship, the plaintiffs' counsel did not dare
to ask her whether the signature to the letter was genuine
or not. He said that whichever way they turned they were
met by falsehood and fraud—they were to rely on the evi-
dence of a man who admitted that in the presence of the
dead body of his father he stole his will, and then wanted to
make them believe he kept it in his packet a whole week
without reading it. If they wanted to confirm him why not
have called his mother, who was with him the whole time.
They knew they could net do so, and therefore the mother
was not examined. and he contended that the whole story
was a fabrication with a view to get back the property and
restore the ruined fortunes of the family. 'Wm. Roupell ac-
tually attempted to make them believe that he kept the ori-
ginal will for six years, and that he did not destroy it until
just before he left England, when, during that period he
was a member of Parliament. an officer in a rifle corps, and
constantly attending public meetings. It was idle to sup-
pose that he could have done as he had represented." The
learned counsel then proceeded at considerable length to
comment upon the other points in favour of the defendants,
e the hadca s
ebefore
rested
entirely alludedto,
upon
nd
the h e
concludedagreat many
by
y saying thatevidence of William Roupell, who was a man, upon his
own showing, utterly unworthy of credit. It might be
w
asked, what motive had Wm, Roupell to come forward and
confess himself guilty of fraud or forgery ; but it was clear
that he had every motive, for it was not disputed that he
had forged the two leases, and this forgery meet have
been discovezed, and then he confessed himself guilty of

t hese additional crimes He was under sentence of penal ser-
vitude for life. He could not have additional punishment.
A few yer rs ago he would have been hanged ; and although
he did not complain of the alteration of the law, still he did
think it was a pity that he should be in a position to come
forward and give evidence that would have the effect of de-
priving the defendants and a good many other persons of
property to which they were justly and legally entitled.
At the close of the address of the learned counsel the
Court adjourned for a short period.

Sergeant Shee then proceeded to address the jury, and
to reply upon the whole case in a speech of great power and
eloquence. He said that a week having now nearly elapsed
since he had laid before them the facts of the case, and
stated what he considered t) be the proper view to be taken
of it, and his learned friend having twice addressed them at
very great length since that period, it would be as well per-
haps for him to state again what was the real question at
issue between these parties. The plaintiff claimed the pro-
perty as heir-at-law of his father, Richard Palmer houpell;
he was admitted to be heir-at-law, and he was entitled to
recover, unless the defendants made out that the deed of
gift under which they claimed to be entitled to the property
was a genuine instrument. It did not matter which side
commenced the inquiry, the real question was whether the
defendants had made out that the deed of gift of January,
1856, was a genuine deed, and if he had failed in doing that
the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. His learned friend
had attempted to throw dirt upon the plaintiff, his family,
and those who conducted the prosecution, and he complained
of the course that had been adopted by him of suggesting
that the action was the action of Messrs. Linklater, the
solicitors for the plaintiffs, and not the actin of Mr. Richard
Roupell. He then went on to explain that all the proceed-
ings that had been taken with regard to the actions against
the tenants had been taken with the sanction of himself and
his leaned friends, and he was surprised that his learned
friend should have spoken of the Messrs. Linklater as he
had done, and charged them with suppressing the truth.
The Foreman of the Jury interposed, and said it was quite
unnecessary for the learned sergeant to say a single word in
vindication of the character of Messrs. Linklater, as they
were well aware of their high position and respectability.

Sergeant Shee went on to say that Messrs. Linklater
having ascertained that the defendants claimed to be entitled
to the property in question upon a deed of gift, obtained the
necessary authority to examine that deed, and they procured
the assistance of Mr. Thompson, a man of the most respect-
able position, the cashier for a great number of years in
Messrs. Glyn's bank, who was well acquainted with the
h indwriting of the deceased, and upon his positive state-
ment that the signature was not genuine they felt themselves
compelled to institute further inquiries, the result of which
was that they were compelled to come to the conclusion that
the signature was not genuine, and he hoped to induce the
jury to come to the same conclusion. The real question for
the jury was the simple one—Did they, or did they not, be-
lieve that the signature to this deed of gitt was gm nine or
not ? The result would not depend upon the question of
handwriting—did not depend upon how certain tides were
made, but it depended upon other and far more important
questions. The plaintiffs' counsel had called W. Roupell,
as they were bound to do. His learned friend had said,
" Why not call all the other members of the family ?" His
learned friend had been loud enough about conspiracy as it
was. What would he have said if ad the family had been
called to support the case ? They could not avoid calling
William houpell. But the facts he stated were otherwise
attested He had committed a great crime, no doubt, and
be was suffering a severe penalty for his crime. His learned
friend said, indeed, that he was not to be believed. What,
not if confirmed ? Not if repentant ? How did his learned
friend know that William Roupell during the six years
which had elapsed since his crimes had not sincerely re-
pented of them ? Even in cases of murder men were con-
victed
upon the testimony of accomplices if cenfirmed. How
did his learned friend know that William Roupell was not
like one of those as to whom it was written that there is
more joy in Heaven over the sinner who repenteth than
over ninety and nine just men who have needed no repen-
tance ? He was sorry that his learned friend should have
tormented that poor unhappy wretch, with his penal ser-
vitude and his prison dress. Poor man—he was no
longer master of his actions or his dress. He wore such
dress as was provided for him, and he came there in
obedience to the law, between two men, his gaolers.
He was allowed to kiss the sacred book and be sworn
upon it as a witness, and ha was, at least, as much
entitled to credit as the witnesses upon whose testimony, if
confirmed, murderers were hung. No doubt he had broken
the command " Thou shall not steal," and society could
not forgive his offence, and exacted the severe penalty.
But there were other and worse offences than forgery and
fraud, which were not deemed to deptive a man of credit as
a witness. Let the jury be cautious, and let them, above
all, be charitable, and not hastily discard the evidence of a
man merely because he had been convicted of crime. But
the case did not rest on the testimony of this poor, unhappy
man William Roupell. (A loud burst of applause greeted
this part of the speech.) All or most of the material facts
were proved without his evidence. That the receipt given
to his father was only for the deeds of one farm, not of both;
that the leases were forged ; that the object was to raise
money on the estate; that the attesting witnesses never saw
old Roupell sign any deed, and that, therefore, the attesta-
tions were false ; that the old man remained in possession
and received the rents and dealt with the property as owner
down to his death ; that Longman declined the transaction
on account of the father not being applied to for his con-
currence,— these ware the broad material facts of the case,
all proved without the evidence of William Roupell, and
would be better proved if he were dead, on account of the
prejudice excited against him. It was proved that the old
man would not even part with the title deeds of this pro-
perty without obtaining areceipt for them, that he continued
to exercise ownersh p over the property down to the last
moment of his existence, and that William Roupell was
unable to raise money upon the property from Mr. Long-
man because he could not get his father to join in the secu-
rity, and Mr, Longman insisted upon it. He then pro-
ceeded to argue that the whole of the proceedings of Wra.
Roupell at this time showed that he was determined to
carry out the great fraud which he ultimately succeeded in
effecting. As to the probability that old Roupell would
have given this estate to his son William, he reminded
them that he had never done one act of generosity to any
member of his family during his lifetime—that he only
allowed his wife £2OO a year to keep the establishment at
Brixton ; and that he only gave William Roupell the sor-
riest possible pittance to subsist upon, and he argued that
it was quite contrary to reason and common sense to sup
pose that the old man should have given his son an estate
of the value of £12,t;00. He then proceeded to argue that
it e as plain that the old roan had only surrendered the
copyhold portion of the farm for the purpose of " doing,"
as he termed it, the lord of the manor, and that he had not
the slightest intention of giving him entire control over the
property. He then referred to the evidence of the witnesses
Haws and Springham that old Roupell had told them that
he had given these farms to his son, and they would have
a lawyer for their landlord, and said it appeared to him
even if such a stab ment had been made by .him that it
would not bear the interpretation that was put upon it
by his learned friend, and that the facts of not having
received the rents and profits down to the very period of
his death, and his having confirmed the will of 1850,
which made a totally different disposition of the pro-
perty, were conclusive as to the fact that he had no such in-
tention. He contended that the theory of his learned friend,
that William Roupell had confessed himself guilty of the
crimes of forging the will and the deed of gift in order to
escape from the consequences of having forged the leases,
was quite inconsistent with the facts, and that if this deed
of gitt was a genuine instrument, he could have much more
easily escaped from the difficulty in which he was placed by
confeesing that the leases were forged, bat stating that the
deed of gift was a genuine instrument, and giving his con-
sent to the property being sold, and by tiles means repaying
the mortgagees the money that had been advanced by them.
He was anxious to meet all the points that had been ad •
vanced by his learned friend, and he admitted that he had
stated incorrectly that he should be able to prove that the
signatures of Truman and Dove were forged, and the ex-
planation he had to give of this fact was that the solicitors
for the plaintiffs had not the opportunity of communicating
with Wm, Roupell so fully as they would have done but for
his position as a prisoner, and therefore he had been misin-
structed upon this point. The real question, however, was,
whether this deed was a forgery, and both the, witnesses to
whom he referred swore positively that they never attested
the signature of Richard Palmer Roupell to any instrument
whatever, and this deed, therefore, must have been a for •
gery. The learned sergeant then proceeded to comment upon
the letter of instructions that was sent to Mr. Whitaker to
prepare the deed of gift. Now, unless Whitaker were a
man totally devoid of principle, and willing to conspire with
a young spendthrift not yet out of hie articles in order to
defraud his father, he would not prepare the deed of gift
without some instructions from his father. No man of
business not ready to be the accomplice in a fraud would
have done so. Accordingly, Wm. Roupell prepared and
provided the letter of instructions, dated the Bth January,
1856, and purporting to be signed by his father. He did
not quite understand what his learned friend said about that
letter. Was it genuine, or was it not PO ? Which did his
learned friend mean ? If genuine, why try to frighten
Sarah Roupell out of her wits ? (Laughter.) Why did he
cross-examine her so severely ? His learned friend was
usually so good-tempered and so polite to the ladies. Why
play " bogie to that poor young lady ? (Great laughter.)
If the letter was genuine, why did she come to say the very
thing his learned friend said he desired ? Yet she was
cross-examined in the most hostile and severe manner.
Atter all, she came to pro% e what his friend said he desired
—that it was a genuine letter; but it was plain upon the
tact) of it that it was not so. The defendants' counsel had
not ventured to ask one of their witnesses whether the let-

ter was genuine. Yes, they asked one, who said he thought
it was.

Mr. Bovill—And one of yours said it was not.

Mr. Sergeant Shea —Well, well, be it so; but, as to their
own witnesses, they only ventured to ask one of them the
question. Upon tha face of it it was forgery. It could not
have been written by the testator. How did it run?
" A.pen-house, Brixton-hill, Jan. 8, 1856.
"Dear Sir,—My son has mentioned to me that it is con,
sidered desirable for conveyances from one member of the
family to another to be drawn up by disinterested witnesses,
and therefore I beg that your will attend to this matter for
us, and prepare the conveyance to my son of the two farms
at Havering-atte-bower, in Essex, called Bolens and Herds.
The forms of leases I have already given to him.—l am,
dear sir, yours truly, " R. P. ROUPELL.

" Thomas Whittaker, Esq."
It described the farms as the memorandum in the book did
—as at Havering. That was the very error the old man
had committed in the memorandum, It was a mistake he
could never have made. There was the very same error
which he himself had corrected. There could not be a
clearer proof that he had not written the letter. The farms
were not at Havering, but at Great Warley. But there was
far more in the letter to show that it was a forgery. The
testator was a careful man of property, and personally
visited the farms and saw the tenants, received the rents,
and made allowances for repairs. Now, on Jan. 8, 1856,
he could not have written the words with which the letter
concluded :—" The forms of leases I have already given to
him." Thore forms were the forms of the forged leases.
The old leases were still running, and had years to run.
Those words could not have been written by the father ;
they must have been written to impose upon Whitaker.
They must have been written by Wm. Roupell, who was
then concocting the forgery of the leases. The " forms of
leases" there referred to were the very forms fraudulently
caused to be prepared by William Roupell. The old man
knew nothing about them. But the very day before that
letter was written William Roupell had got the re-copied
draughts from the law stationer. Apart, therefore, from
the daughter's testimony, it was plainly impossible that the
setter could have been written by the old man, or with his
knowledge; and the habit of the old man was to write every-
thing himself. The body of every receipt was in his hand-
writing. It was increnible that he should have had this
letter written. As to Sarah Roupell not being called before
the learned judge suggested it, it was to expose her to a pain-
ful ordeal, What would have been more painful than for a
young woman of five-and-twenty to be brought into court,
almost touching, as she passed along, her brother, a con-
victed felon, and to have to give evidence to convict him of
forging his father's handwriting ? He avowed that he felt
a great desire to spare her, if possible, that painful ordeal.
But when the learned judge suggestsd it, he felt that he had
no alternative but to call her. And he was anxious, more-
over, that his learned friend should call Whitaker. His
learned friend knew very well that he should never call
Whitaker. Why, who was Whitaker ? He was the man who
touched the money the defendants had lost. He had actually
had a mortgage prepared and ready to be executed. He
was liable to the bank for the £12,000, and got the money
from the mortgagees to pay himself off. And his learned
friend pretended to think that he should call Whitaker I
His friend called Whitaker. William Roupell's attorney;
but William Roupell was not his (Sergeant Shee's) client. Mr.
Whit aker had ac' ually received the most gagees' money, and
yet the mortgagees' counsel did not dare to call him. They
called his brother Edwin Whitaker, who knew nothing
about it. Whitaker was William Roupell's attorney, and had
been in communication with the mortgagees, who would
not call him. Young Roupell had fallen into the hands of
Watts, and Watts had introduced him to Whitaker; and
Watts, by Whitaker, or through the instrumentality of
Whitaker, had plundered and betrayed him; and there he
stood, a doomed and miserable man! Wretched man that he
was, he was an object of compassion after all I.—from his
earliest age, brought up without the influence of healthtul
paternal example, and falling, while a bay, into the hands
of a man like Watts I If they had dared to call Whitaker,
it would have been elicited from him that he had seen this
letter of authority written by Sarah Roupell, and signed
by her brother in her father's name. She had been called,
and his learned friend had striven in vain to break her down.
If she had net spoken truth, Mr. Whitaker could have been
called to contradict her. If that was not the letter which had
been shown to him what was the letter? Did he prepare a
transfer of the old man's property without any instructions
from him ? If not, where was the letter ? The idea of his
learned friend suggesting that he should call Whitaker. Who
had held these very deeds but Whitaker ? Who passed them
off to the mortgagees but Whitaker? Was it not his interest to
say that they were genuine, yet they durst not call him to say
so I They knew that he would have had to admit that letter.
They knew they must not call him, although all his interest
was to sustain the genuineness of the deeds he had passed to
the mortgagees. They took the deeds from him and dust
not call him I So much for that part of the case. If the
leases were forgeries, how could it be doubted that the deed
was forged ? It was clear that it had been prepared under
the authority of a forged letter. Whitaker knew that
Longman had declined the transaction without the father's
concurrence, and then he palmed it off upon the defendants,
the mortgagees, He now came to the will of the 2d Sep-
tember, 1856. Did the jury know whether his friend meant
to say that it was genuine or not?
Mr. Bovill—Whichever you like.

Mr. Sergeant Shee—Well, then, I say it is a forgery.
His learned friend seemed not to understand why it was
introduced. It was not merely to prove a title as devisee.
The important point to be shown was the destruction of the
will of 1850 ; and, as part of the transaction, it was neces-
eery to prove the substitution of the other. The evidence
about the will of 1850 was important in this way. It showed
that in 1850 the testator had made a will carefully disposing
of all his property, which he confirmed so lately as the 30th
of August, 1856, a few days before his death. This was
alter the deed of gift, which was dated in January, 1856,
and it confirmed the disposition of this estate made by
that will of MO, which was to Richard, the plaintiff.
The motive for destruction of that will by William Roupell
was that it would disclose his forgery of the deeds relating
to that estate. When his father died he had the certainty
that the fraud in the leases would be discovered if the estate
were given to Richard. Executors with z egard to fraud
and forgery could not forgive. They would have been
compelled to prosecute the forger. He saw from the will of
1850 that the property was not left to him.

Mr. Bovill—He swore that he had not read it.

Mr. Sergeant Shee--That he had not read it fully or corn-
pletely, but he looked at it. He saw fast enough that it was
not left to him. If the will stood he would have to account
to the executors. If he only destroyed the will he would
have to account to his brother as the legitimate son and
heir. Re must, therefore, substitute another will so dis-
posing of the property that there would be no probability of
his being called to account. He could not devise it to him-
self, as there must be two witnesses, and he had only one
betides himself, and a witness cannot be devisee. There-
fore, he devised the whole to his mother, and made her and
himself executors. Doing that ha only required one wit-
ness, for he could be a witness himself. He had unbounded
influence over his mother, and was certain to be free from
control. She took no part in the management of the pro-
perty, and the will answered his object. He thus con-
trived to emancipate himself from all control, and with the
assistance of Watts and Whitaker he very soon made away
with the whole of the property. He had an old man as
the other witness, then tottering to his grave, and "dead
men tell no tales." Such was the scheme about the will.
All this showed that at the time of his father's death he was
oppressed and alarmed by some imminent peril, to escape
which he shrunk from no crime and no guilt. That
was the motive of the will, and after his father's death,
he soon, by the aid of Whitaker and Watts, got rid of all
t
the property. Such was the history. The learned Sergeant
entered into an elaborate statement of the numerous
particulars in which the evidence of William Roupell was
confirmed by that of other witnesses. "W hat did the jury
think was the worth of evidence as to handwriting in such a
case ? At one time the evidence of experts was thought of
enb
great importance. But that was when juries were not
allowed to judge of handwriting by comparison. That was
by comparing
comparing it with hand-
writingnow altered by Act of' Parliament, and juries could now
j
disputedto be handwriting
ae. were far better able
genuine.
to judge in that way than by evidence of experts. And now
it did not matter what the opinions of other persons who
spoke of handwriting.
udge of
admitted

Mr. Bovill—lt was your evidence in the first instance.

Mr. Sergeant Sb.ee--We did call —some, no doubt; but we
did not rely upon the evidence, and, as my learned friend
said, we did not ask the question of most of them. We asked
it of a few, just to lead my learned friend astray, and send
him into a labyrinth from which we knew he would never
escape. (Great laughter.) But we merely showed that there
was a certain general habit of handwriting which this sig-
nature departed from. Of course, handwriting would vary
with little casual circumstances of ink or pen.

Mr. Bovill interrupted to say something•
oycLfoarugahltiettrl.e)
(Great laughter,) The ex-
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Now do, my dear friend, be quiet.
pveeerteddietthine
You have been up, lam sure, four-fifths of the time in one
decide
es
ctiod
e showthe the
case, usualhow ohvaebrit
on
way or another (Laughter.)
NNwth edroc 1 iefntj.
while the pleasure of lipeteconrin:..
writing. Instead of which his learned friend Mr. Hawkins
perts had been so far useful
hHtteddgidot,uopttaosk" cthheaff;ry
mere handwriting, but on the great facts and circumstances
of the case. In this great. case. the country
jury to decide the issue as.. it it were one raised between old
Sergeant forcibly appealed to the jury for theetrx
Roupell and his son William. In conclusion, the learned
favour of his clients.

At the Bitting of the Court this morning Baron Channell
will proceed to sum up the case to the jury,

PRICE'
STAMPED ....sd.

THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY.

(From the Special Correspondent of the Times.)
RICHMOND, June 15.
The long and protracted agony of suspense which
clusters about Vicksburg knows neither stint nor
stay. Gen. Pemberton, with n force variously esti-
mated between 12,000 and 18,000 men, and which
is probably between those two figures, still holds
gallantly out, and if his supply of munitions of
war and provisions were like the widow's cruse
there is little doubt that he could Maintain his
ground for ever in a fortress which in strength
ranks next to Quebec among the strongholds of this
Continent. General Grant, with about 100,000
men, closes in the defences of Vicksburg by means
of a cordon which stretches like an arc of a semi-
circle from the Mississippi above the town to the
Mississippi below it. It is not possible to
ascertain here whether the Federals still hold
either Haines' or Snyder's Bluff, or whether
their communication with the Yazoo is kept up (as
I believe it to be) through a little stream called the
Chickasaw Bayou, and along a shorter line than
that which intervenes between Snyder's Bluff and
Vicksburg. From General Johnstone I cannot say
that the accounts are cheering. There is a general
impression that he is despondent beyond expres-
sion—one of the very worst qualities which a soldier
can possess, and which was always regarded by
Napoleon as fatal to success. I regret to be unable
to conceal the fact that between General Johnstone
and the War Department in Richmond there is not
such harmony and kindness of feeling as are at this
moment deeply desirable. It is stated by General
Johnstone's friends that he is called upon with not
more than 35,000 men to burst the rear of General
Grant's army, 100,000 strong, in a position which is
scarcely less fortified and susceptible of defence than
Vicksburg itself. Your readers will remember that
I have again and again stated that, by reason of the
natural form of the ground, turned to advantage as
it has been by admirable military engineering,
Vicksburg is wellnigh impregnable. Very much the
same may be said about an army taking up its posi-
tion on any of the lines of tumbled hills which
stretch in the rear of Vicksburg from the Yazoo
down to the mouth of the Big Black River. By dili-
gent use of the spade, in which the Federals every-
where excel, a position may any where in this broken
country be selec:ed and rendered almost impreg-
nable within 24 hours. Unquestionably, an army
acting on the defensive in this region possesses enor-
mous advantages. It will be patent, therefore, that
while, in spite of his vastly inferior numbers, Gen.
Pemberton possesses great advantages as against
Gen. Grant, and has little to fear beyond famine
or exhaustion of ammunition, the same advantages
multiplied by possession of much greater wealth of
numbers, are wielded by Gen. Grant as against Gen.
Johnstone. The fact is that in this district of
country 30,000 men can anywhere sit down, with
their flank resting on a navigable river, and make
themselves secure by vigorously plying the spade
against 100,000 men. Here it would seem that the
case is reversed ; that about 30,000 men are called
on to attack about 100,000, with all the advantages
of position on the side of the stronger number.
It is argued by the detractors of General John-
stone that the position of affairs before Vicksburg is
very much the result of his lathes in not assisting
General Pemberton while the latter was fighting
the disastrous battles at Baker's Creek and on the
Big Black River, about the 15th and 17th of May.
It is stated that the disparity of numbers between
the two antagonists was in these battles vastly
less than it has ever been at any subsequent period ;
and that if General Johnstone had during the first
of the two battles fallen on the Yankee rear, with
even 5,000 men, he could not have failed to insure
their disastrous defeat, nor can his total inactivity
from early in May, when he first appeared upon
the scene of action in Mississippi, up to the present
time, be favourably accounted for, according to the
lights which we possess in Richmond. As matters
now stand, he has given his enemy time to make
every conceivable disposition and preparation, with
a view to securing their rear. It is known that ►he
ground where lately was fought the battle of the
Big Black River is now strongly held by the
Federals, under General Osterhaus, and that
General Johnstone cannot advance along this, the
shortest route to Vicksburg, without fighting a
battle which cannot fail to cost him dear. It is
also known that the country between the position
of General Osterhaus and the lines of Genera! Grant
is about the most difficult of approach through
which an aggressive army could be called on to ad-
vance. Steep pitches of hills, broken bridges over
innumerable gullies, acres of felled timber, oppose
almost insurmountable obstacles, and, to crown all,
these natural difficulties will be fully turned to ac-
count by the Western men under General Grant,
—hunters of the upper valley of the Mississippi,
who have in all the desperate battles of the West
acquitted themselves in a fashion very different
from that of the New Englanders and "Dutch-
men" who fight for the Union in Virginia, and are
many of them the sweepings of the kennels of
New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. It will be
seen, then, that the prospects of General John-
stone have only become more and more unpromising
in proportion as he has deferred action from week
to week. It is possible that General Johnstone
may be so much strengthened by the addi-
tion of troops drawn either from Gen. Bragg or from
elsewhere as to be enabled to drive Gen. Osterhaus
before him, or to turn his position, and to fall with
something like an equality of Strength upon Gen.
Grant's rear. Of this solution of the difficulty I en-
tertain no sanguine expectation. There appears to
me no such pressing demand for troops anywhere
else at this moment at Vicksburg. But, with faint
concert or harmony of action existing between Gen.
Johnstone and Richmond, I am apprehensive that
the great energy required -in massing silently and
swiftly such a body of troops under Johnstone will
be conspicuous for its absence. Rumours of mys-
terious movements on the part of Gen. Kirby Smith
are rife; but we know so little of his actual where-
abouts that I am unable to give any heed to them,
The situation at Port Hudson is the situation at
Vicksburg in diamond edition, except that at Port
Hudson the Federal General (Banks) has no Gen.
Johnstone acting in his rear. The Confederates at
Port Hudson under General Gardner stand savagely
at bay behind formidable works, and are likely to
defy General Banks until failing supplies 0: fail,
ing ammunition bring them to terms. The two
citadels may be regarded as two cherries upon one
stalk. The fate of one will probably be the fate of
the other. That such a disaster as the bisection of
the Confederacy by Federal possession of the entire
length of the Mississippi is probably the gravest
which has befallen the rebels since the commence-
ment of the war, not excepting the fall of New
Orleans, cannot for a moment be denied. But in
one thing the Federals will be greatly disap-
pointed. They must change the hearts of every
man, woman, and child for a length of 800 miles
along the Mississippi's course before they can re-
establish trade, emanating from St. Louis, Cin-
cinnati, and Louisville as its fountain heads, with
the residents along the mighty river's banks.
" Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." Many an
homily from this text, if Vicksburg falls, will the
Federal preachers find themselves called on to ex-
pound, if they seek to improve the occasion as
they have hitherto improved that furnished to them
by the war. It will be found if Vicksburg and
Port Hudson fall that the disaster will greatly pro-
long the war, but will be far from irremediable.
In my last letter, in which I detailed the circum-
stances accompanying the revocation of the exequa-
tur of Mr. Moore, her Majesty's Consul at Rich-
mond, I mentioned that henceforward it is the de-
termination of the President and the Confederate
Government that no communication shall be per-
mitted between British consuls resident in the
Confederacy and Lord Lyons, the Minister accre-