The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-18 00:00:00

given—that of Mr. Thwaites, the chairman of the
Board of Works, and Mr. Bazalgette, his chief
engineer, being greeted with much enthusiasm.
In the afternoon thevisitors returned to town, hav-
ing enjoyed an agreeable, and, we, may add, an in-
structive excursion.
'I he total length of the three rows of intercepting
sewers, the course of which we have sketched on
each side of the river, will be 50 miles, and before
all the works are completed 800,000 cubic yards of
concrete will be consumed, upwards of 300,000,000
of bricks, and 4,000,000 cubic yards of earthwork.

THE ROUPELL 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
defend an. 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 ci, cumstance 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 atter five o'clock. Mr. NV. Roupell is brought
down from London every day in the custody of a wardpr 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 made 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 be brought to a conclu-
si before Wednesday night at least. It is expected that
the case for 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. lie
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 ar d £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 did not return till four, and did not go out
again. The alleged will of the deceased was then shown to
witness, and he said ho 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 Rof 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 Shea submitted that the plaintiff,' 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 withdrew 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.