The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-23 00:00:00

handwriting, and he had examined the deed of gift, and
compared the signature with those upon a number of receipts
signed by the deceased, and he believed it was the genuine
signature of the persDn who had signed the receipts.
Cross-examined—Witness had sometimes been asked to
give his opinion as to a particular handwriting, but he was
not an expert, and had never given evidence in a court of
justice until the present occasion. He had observed that
there were small differences in some of the signatures, but
formed the conclusion he had arrived at from a general im-
pression of the different signatures and the character of the
handwriting. In some cases the "o" was made like an a,"
but in others it was made like the ordinary letter " o."
Re-examined—Witness spent several hours in a careful
examination of the signatures and the handwriting, and the
conclusion he arrived at was that the signature to the deed
of gift was a genuine signature. He attended to give evi-
dence on this occasion by special permission of the direc-

tors of the Bank of England.
Mr. E. Widford, a gentleman engaged in the National
Debt-office, deposed that he had great experience in connec-
tion with handwriting and signatures, and he was of opinion
that the signature to the deed of gift was the genuine sig •
nature of the person who wrote the receipts.
Mr. T. Haymers, who had been employed for 31 years
in the General Post-office, and was for a great many years
an inspector of franks, and that his present employ-
ment in the establishment was that of inspector of official
correspondence, gave similar evidence with regard to the
signature of the deceased to the deed of gift. In his opinion

it was free and natural, and a genuine signature.
Cross•examined—There were some slight differences be
tween the signatures that were shown to him and that to
the deed of gift, but the result of witness's experience was,
that hardly any one ever wrote his signature always in the

same manner.
Mr. G. J. Pickett, who said he had been occupied in the
business of an engraver for more than half a century, and
was principally engaged in engraving bank-notes, also stated
that in his opinion the signature to the deed of gift was a
genuine signature, and he said he came to this conclusion
irrespective of any comparison of handwritings. He had,
however, compared the signature with the signatures to the
receipts that had been shown him, and this confirmed the
conclusion he had arrived at.
In cross-examination, this witness, like the others, said
that he bad paid particular attention to all the peculiarities
and deviations in the signature, and he still came to the
conclusi n he had mentioned.
Mr. Edwin Whitaker said—l am a solicitor, and carry on
bnsiness with my brother in Lincoln's Inn-fields. The deed
of gift now produced was prepared in my office, and I at-
tested the signature of William Roupell that appears to it,
and at that time the deed was complete, and bore upon it
the signatures of Truman and Dove as attesting witnesses
to the signature of Richard Palmer Roupell. I had written
the words "signed, sealed,aud delivered in the presence of"
before the deed was sent away for the father's signature.
My brother acted as the solicitor for Win. Roupell, and he
prepared the deed of gift, which was to be given to him as
security for money he had advanced to Wm. Roupell.
Cross-examined—l am not in the firm with my brother,
but I carry on one portion of the business on the footing of a
partner. I have attested a great many deeds for William
Roupell—perhaps 100. I have never known a deed to be at-
tested in my office with a dry pen being drawn over a signa-
ture already written. I will swear that William Roupell
never attested a deed in that manner in my office. I was
acquainted with W. Roupell when he was an articled clerk
to Mr. Rees, of Copthall- court. Mr. Watts, his uncle, in-
troduced him to our firm. I know that Mr. Watts had been
abroad for several years prior to 1833, but I am not aware
that he was in pecuniary difficulties. I have not acted with
Wm. Roupell in procuring money to relieve Watts from his
difficulties. I know that my brother received money for
Wm. Roupell, but I know nothing about this money being
raised to pay off judgments against Watts. I know that
money has been raised, and I have myself prepared mort-
gage deeds for the purpose of raising money for W. Roupell•
I cannot state what amount of money was actually raised,
and I cannot say how much money William Roupell owed
our firm in January, 1856. The leases relating to these
farms were prepared, I believe, in our office, but I had
nothing co do with them. I remember there was some ne •
gotiations with Mr. Longman for a loan upon the Great
Warley property, but I am unable to say how these nego•
tiations went off. My brother acted in these matters, and
I knew very little about them.
Re-examined—My brother was subpceaned as a witness
for the plaintiff, but he was merely called upon to produce
certain deeds.
Mr. J. B. Gabb, secretary of the Alliance Marine Insur-
ance Company, proved that Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell
was one of the shareholders in that company. He produced
several receipts for dividends signed by the deceased, and
also some transfers of shares.
Mr. J. P. Bacon, manager of the business of Messrs.
Bacon and Co., bank-note engravers, deposed that he had
made handwriting his study for the purposes of his busi-
ness, and having examined the signatut es to the receipts and
that to the deed of gift, he was of opinion they were all
signed by the same person.
Mr. Joseph Beck, one of the Society of Friends, stated
that he was an optician, and he had carefully examined the
name of the attesting witness, John Truman, to the deed of
gift, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the letter " e"
in Roupell was under or over the "h" in the name John,
and he had ascertained that the loop of the "h" was above
the "e."—(The object of this evidence was to contradict
William Roupell as to the mode in which the attestation
—I am a builder at Grebaist
bailiff
executed.)War-
ley, and in June, 1855, kept an inn there, and w
of the manor. Lord Ileadley was the lord, and Mr. Gapp
was his agent. I remember a court being held on the 12th
of June, 1835, at which Mr. Richard Palmer
mer Roupell and
Mr. Gapp were present. During the day Roupell made
a statement to me. I was aware that his object at this time
was to enfranchise his copyhold property ; and he said he
could not come to terms with the stward, but he would wait
till the at% ernoon, and if they den ot then come to some
arrangement ho would give the estate to his son William.
In the afternoon I heard him ask Mr. Gapp if he would take
the money ho had offered, and Mr. Gapp said he could not
make any alteration in the terms ;
and upon this Mr. Row.
pell said, " Hand me over the rod, and surrender it to
my son William at once;" and the rod was handed to him,
and he did eo.
Cross-examined— I had previously ear olhde Mr. Roupell
say that if they would not agree to his terms weuld sur-
render his estate to his son, who was a lawyer, and who
would soon make them come to terms. He didh is notransacti rememboner
ever having seen Mr. Richard Roupell aftert.
Mr, Gapp deposed that he was stew rd of
ur thet
Great War-
ley manor, and remembered holding
the co on the day
mentioned by the last witness, the 12th of June, 1855. A
person pointed out to him as Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell
was present at the court, and there was a discussion as to
the amount to be paid by him for enfranchising a portion of
his property in the manor, which was copyhold, but no ar-
rangement was come to, and the deceased forma
to his son lly surWil-
ren-
li
dered the copyhuld portion of his property
liam on the 12th of June, 1855, and the surrender was COlL-
pleted on the Ist of September, 1855.
Mr.W. Downes, the agent for Lord Headley, proved that
the sum of £420 was required from old Mr. Roupell for the
enfranchisement of his copyhold property at Great Warley.
Mr. W. Roupell afterwards paid him £320 for the enfran-
chisement of the property. Old Mr. Roupell would not give
more than £4OO for the enfranchisement.
Mr. Beck, the witness who had been examined, having
prepared, at the request of the Court, the binocular micro-
scope with which he had examined the alleged forged deed
of gift in an adjoining room, the jury retired for the purpose
of themselves looking at the document through the same
instrument.
This closed the case for the defendants.
Mr. Bovill then proceeded to sum up to the jury the case
which he believed he had established on behalf of his clients.
He said he was glad that he could congratulate them upon
the approaching termination of this protracted inquiry, and
he hoped that in the result he should also be able to con-
gratulate his clients upon the decision they would arrive at.
When he last addressed them the only evidence which was
before them was that of the witnesses for the plaintiffs, one
of whom undoubtedly, Mr. Surridg, madee
to the deed the important
admission that in his opinion the seignatur
gift was the genuine signature of the deceased ; and he said
it appeared to him that the evidence he had laid before them
on behalf of the defendants had completely answered the
case for the plaintiffs,particularly upon the important ques-
tions of handwriting, and whether the signature to the deed
of gift was a genuine signature or not. His learned friend
Sergeant Shee had stated in a tone of triumph.
Richard
that he
should prove that the genuine signature of Mr
Palmer Roupell was never written without some peculiar
characteristics, one of which was the flourish at the end of
the name ; but by an almost special interposition it actu-
ally turned out that in one of th
in deeds produced by the
plaintiff the very thing occurred the signature which
his learned friend so much relied upon as having never
name;ex-
bd itself in the " flourish," as it was termed, to the
n and not only this, but Mr. Richard Roupell, who
according to the case of his learned friend was so very
careful in writing his signature, had actually spelt his name
with one "1." [The learned counsel handed the document
to which he referred to the jury, in order that they might
inspect it.] He called their attention to this fact as an
answer to the suggestion on the part of his learned friend;
but it appeared to him that the eet that was so much relied
upon in suppOrt of the plaintifff's case was really of very
little, if any, importance, and that the bundles of receipts
that had been produced made outin the clearest possible
manner that Mr. Richard Roupell had no uniform mode of
signing his name, and that he signed it in all sorts of ways.
The learned counsel then proceeded at considerable length
to comment upon the peculiarities in the different signatures
that had been produced, and he contended that, with re-
gard to this portion of the case, the plaintiff had entirely
failed. After some further observations, he said that it ap-
peared to him that the facts to which he had directed the
attention of the jury were a complete answer to the evidence
that had been given by the experts, and especially to that
of the gentleman who had bothered his father—(a laugh)—
and who might probably have succeeded in bothering them
if they had not fortunately been able to obtain possession of
the mass of receipts that had been put in, and which showed
conclusively that the points upon which he professed to
rely were not of the slightest value in the world as affecting