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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1803

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

SIXTH DAY.
CHELMSFORD, July 22.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
ROUPELL AND ANOTHEE V. ROWS AND ANOTHER.
The evidence for the defendants was again proceeded
with yesterday morning.
As on the previous day, William Roupell was brought to
the court in custody of two warders, and he took his seat in
the dock, and remained there during the whole of the pro-
ceedings. He appeared to pay close attention to the testi-
mony given by the different witnesses who were examined.
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.
Mrs. Emma Lovejoy said—l was a tenant of Mr.
Richard Roupell, and received many receipts for rent from
him. (The witness produced a number of the receipts given
by the deceased).
Mrs. Randall, another tenant of the deceased, also pro-
duced receipts for rent.
The amount of papers produced as evidence in the cause
had by this time become enormous, and in order to identify
them every letter in the alphabet had been exhausted,
and the alphabet was recommenced, with figures added,
A large box was placed by the side of the learned judge in
order to receive the different documents.
Mr. Hawkins said that a great number of tenants of the
deceased were in attendance, ready to produce their receipts,
but he did not propose to call the whole of them unless the
learned friends desired to cross-examine any of them, and in
that case any witness he desired should lee placed in the wit-

ness box.
The jury appeared to pay particular attention to the evi.
deuce as to the handwriting, and the foreman of the jury
brought with him a very powerful magnifying glass, for the
purpose of being enabled better to examine the different
signatures and compare them with the signatures that wore
alleged to be forgeries.
Mr. John Nash, clerk to Messrs. Druce, law stationers,
proved that he was a tenant of the deceased from 1851 to
1856, and was well acquainted with his handwriting. The
signature to the deed of gift was shown to him, and he said
that, to the best of his belief, it was a genuine signature.
Mr. John M'Call, a tenant of the deceased from 1849 to
1856, also expressed his belief that the signature was
genuine.
Cross-examined—Witness had compared his own receipts
with the signature to the deed, and he noticed that the sig-
natures were diversified as much as possibly could be. He
did not pay particular attention to the flourish at the end of
the word Roupell. It was, of course, possible for him or
any other man to be deceived as to handwriting, but he did
not think he was in this instance.

Mr. W. Steer, alsO a tenant of the deceased, likewise ex-
pressed a confident opinion that the signature was genuine.
Mr. W. Clark said he was employed to collect some of the
deceased's rents for 12 years, and had seen him write hun-
dreds of times, and was well acquainted with his handwrit-
ing. He had looked at the signature to the deed of gift, and
he had no doubt it was the handwriting of Mr. Richard
Roupell.
Cross-examined—Witness used to see the deceased gene-
rally every day, and he was aware that he had made a will,
and had made him executor and trustee, but he did not say
anything about a legacy. In July before his death, the de-
ceased told him to come to his office and see him execute his
will, and he did so. Witness never saw anything more of
that will. On the morning he died witness was sent for,
and he remained in the house until Wm, Roupell and his
mother arrived, and a bed was made up for Wm. Roupell
in the parlour. About two years and a half after the death
of old Roupell. William Roupell gave him £l5O. Witness
had seen the will of Sept. 2, 1854 (the will alleged to be
forged), and believed that the signature to it was genuine.
He never entertained any doubt of the fact,and he certainly
did not shake his head when he first saw it. (A laugh.) He
did express a doubt in the first instance to a gentleman
named Dyke, who resided at Kingston, whether the signa-
ture was genuine. He said that it was a very good imitation,
but that .the signature was not genuine, or he did not think
it was his. He went to Mr. Dyke afterwards, accompanied
by Mr. Harvey Linklater, and he told him that if he would
sign some paper or agreement he would guarantee him £l5O
from Mr. Richard Roupell. He was advised by Mr. Dyke
not to sign the paper, and he did not do so. He understood
that the paper he was required to sign contained a renuncia-
tion of the trusteeship under the old will, At first he was
asked to join in the action as a trustee, but he refused, and
then he was asked to renounce the trusteeship.
In answer to a question put by the foreman of the jury,
the witness said that although he had taken some time to
examine the signature, this did not arise from his entertain-
ing any doubt; and in his conscience he believed that the
signature was a genuine signature of Mr. Richard Palmer
Roupell. With regard to the " flourish" to the signature,
he had as often seen him sign his name without that flourish
as with it.

Mr. W. H. Smith, clerk in the drawing department of the
Bank of England, said he had been in the habit of paying
the deceased's cheques for twenty years, and was well ac-
quaintedwith his handwriting, and he believed the signature
to the deed of gift was the genuine signature of Mr. Richard
Palmer Roupell, and he should pay a cheque upon it. In
the signature of the decease to their signature book there
was no flourish at all.
Cross-examinnd—Prior to the trial at Guildford he had
given an opinion upon the signatures to several documents
to Mr. Linklater. rhis was the first time he had seen the
deed of gift. The signature in the signature book was
written by the deceased in 1838, at which time he opened
the account with the Bank of England. At the Bank of
England the custom would be to judge, from the general
character of the handwriting, whether the signature was
genuine or not; and they would not give any effect to the
fact of the absence or presence of a " flourish" at the end of
the signature.
By the Jury—Witness had seen the deceased at the Bank
of England, but he could not say whether he came there
often or not.
Mr. W. Dudley said he was a solicitor in the Southwark-
bridge-road, and with his partners acted in that capacity for
the deceased for a great many years, and was well acquainted
with his handwriting. He believed the signature to the
deed of gift was a genuine signature.
Cross-examined—Witness had been commissioned profes-
sionally for the purchase of one portion of the property of
the deceased. Several deeds were then shown to the wit-
ness, and he identified his signature as the attesting wit-
ness to them. They were the deeds executed by the de-
ceased.
Re•exaneined—Witness had attested the signature of the
deceased to a great many other deeds than those now pro-
duced.

Mr. Alfred Henwood. clerk and cashier in the London
Joint-Stock Bank, where the deceased also had an account
since 1833, said that he had, personally, only paid two
cheques of the deceased, but he had compared a great num-
ber of genuine cheques (about 100) with the signature to
the deed of gift, and be was of opinion that this signature
was genuine, and if he had seen it upon a eheque ho should
have paid it.
Cross-exemined—Witness formed his opinion from a com-
parison of the cheques,and also from looking at the signature
of the deceased in the signature-book. He considered there
was no difference between the signatures, and although there
might be some slight distinctions in the signatures, the gene-
ral character of the two signatures was precisely the same-
Witness was not an expert. When a cheque was presented,
he did not look for minute particulars, butexereised his best
judgmdiat whether the signature was genuine or not in order
to protect the bank. The witness added that it had for ten
years been the practice to submit doubtful signatures to
him, and he never once failed in Ihe judgment he had given.
Mr Tills, an engraver, employed in the Bank of England
in en awing bank notes, said that he had had a great deal
of experience in matters connected with engraving and