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

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

SIXTH DAY.
CHELMSFORD, July 22,
(Before Mr, Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
ROUPELL AND ANOTHEE V. MOWS 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 Shoe, 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 be 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 verypowerful magnifying glass, for the
purpose of being enabled better to examine the different
signatures and compare them with the signatures that were
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 aft erwards, 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-
quainted with 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 deceased 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. This was the first time he had seen the
deed of gift. The signature in the signature hook 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 band writing, 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 fora great many years, and was well acquainted
with his handwriting. He believed the signature to the
deed of gift wa4 a genuine signature.

Cross-examined—Witness had been commissioned profes-
sionally for the purchase of one portion of tho 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.

Reexamined—Witness had atteeted the signature of the
deceased to a great many other deeds than those now pro-
duced.

Mr. Alfred kenwood, clerk and cashier in the London
Joint-Stock lank, 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 genuint cheques (about 100) with the signature to
the deed of gift, and he was of opinion that this signature
was genuine, and if ho had seen it upon a cheque he should
have paid it.

Cross-exoreined—Witness formed his opinion from a com-
parison of the cheques,and also from looking at the signature
of the deueastd in the signature-hook. 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, but exercised his best
judgment whether the signature was genuine or not in order
to protect the bank. The witness added that it had for ten
years been tle practice to submit doubtful signatures to
him, and he never once failed in the judgment he had given.
Mr. Mills,an engraver, employed in the Bank of England
in engraving bank notes, said that he had had a great deal
of experience in 'natters connected with engraving and

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 person 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 three-
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
ihe 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 had 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
business with my brother in Lincoln's Inn-fields. The deed
of gift now produced was prepared in my office, and I at-
tested tae 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,and delivered in the presence of"
before the deed was sent away for the father's signature.
My brother acted as the solicitor for Wm. 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 to 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 subpeeaned 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 top to the receipts and
that to the deed of gift, he was of nion 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 tho attestation
was executed.)
Mr. John Hammond said—l am a builder at Great War-
ley, and in June, 1855, I kept an inn there, and was bailiff
of the manor. Lord Headley 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 Roupell and
Mr. Gapp were present. During the day Mr. Roupell made
a statement to me. I was aware that his object at this time
he
was to enfranchise his copyhold property ;
and he said
could not come to terms with the steward, but he would wait
till the afternoon, and if they did not then come to some
arrangement he would give the estate to his son William.
In the afternoon I heard him ask Mr. Gapp if ho would take
the money he had offered, and Mr. Gapp said he could not
make any alteration in the terms ; and upon this Mr. Row.
poll said, " Hand me over the rod, and I'll surrender it to
my son William at once ;" and the rod was handed to him,
and he did so.
Cross-examined—l had previously heard old Mr. Roupell
say that if they would not agree to his terms he would sur-
render his estate to his son, who was a lawyer, and who
would soon make them come to terms. Ho did not remember
ever having seen Mr. Richard Roupell after this transaction.
Mr. Gapp deposed that he was steward of the Great War-
ley manor, and remembered holding the court 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
but porno ar-
tion of
his property in the manor, which was copyhold,
rangement was come to, and the deceased formally surren-
dered the copyhold portion of his property to his son Wil-
liam on the 12th of June, 1855, and the surrender was com-
peted on the Ist of September, 1855.
Mr.W. Downes, the agent for Lord Headley, proved that
tie 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 ho 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. Surridge, made the important
admission that in his opinion the signature to the deed of
Oft 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 Shea 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 the deeds produced by the
plaintiff the very thing occurred in the signature which
his learned friend so much relied upon as having never ex-
hibited itself in the " flourish," as it was termed, to the
name ; 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 fa3t that was so mach relied
upon in support of the plaintiff'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 tlaeworld as affecting

the present question. The learned counsel next called at-
tention to the evidence that had been given by the clerks
from the Bank of England and the London Joint-Stock
Bank, men who, he said, were not hackneyed experts, but
men who were in the habit of paying large sums of money
upon their knowledge of handwriting, and who by their great
experience were able to detect a forgery in an instant, and he
urged that it was impossible not to give the greatest possible
effect to evidence of such a character. He next went on to
give a general outline of the case that had been set up for
the plaintiff, and asked the jury whether they thought that
upon the facts before them they would be justified in re-
turning a verdict that would deprive the poor ladies who
were the real defendants in the action and their children
of this property, and enable Mr. IV. Roupell to obtain
MOd,ooo worth of property for his family, upon the sup-
position that the deeds by which he had passed the property
away were forged and counterfeited,

. _
Mr.Bovill had not concluded his address when the court
rose.

The Attempted Murder in a Railway

Carriage.

On Wednesday morning Michael Lyons, aged 40,
of Bampark, BEalymascall, near Dundalk, Ireland,
was brought before the magistrates at Newport
Pagnell, charged, under the 20th section of the 2414
and 25th of Victoria, cap. 100, with having unlaw-
fully and maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm
upon the persons of one James Worland and Peter
M'Llean. The magistrates present were Mr. M. G.
Duncan (chairman), Mr. C. M. Chester, Mr. J. C.
Maul, the Rev. C. Selby Lowndes, and the Rev. J.
Tarver.

The prisoner since he has been under confinement
has appeared to be perfectly rational. He has re-
peatedly stated that he had no reason for committing
the assault beyond the belief that the two persons
whom he assaulted in the carriage were about to rob
him. He has written two letters, one to his wife
and the other to a solicitor at Aylesbury, who ap-
peared for him.

Upon the prisoner being placed at the bar Mr.
Inspector Cox, of the S division, who had charge, of
the case from the Marylebone Police-court, stated, in
reply to Mr. Powell, the clerk to the bench of magis-
trates, that the medical gentleman who had been
attending the two sufferers, Dr. Bain, of Blackwell,
had handed him a certificate at the Euston station
jest prior to the starting of the train. It certified
that Mr. M'Lean and Mr. Worland were both so ill
as to be unable to leave the house, and that Mr.
M'Lean had that morning lost a child. Inspector
Cox added that he had no evidence to offer at pre-
sent, and that he had to ask for a remand.
John Orpen, the constable who took the prisoner
into custody, was sworn to his information, and the
following letters were handed to the bench for
perusal :

"Ravensdale-park, Newry, July 20.
" Sir,—Having just been informed of the arrest of Mr.
Michael Lyons, a schoolmaster, residing on my estate in the
county of Louth for assaulting persons in a railway carriage
while in a state of insanity, I beg leave to say that I am
aware that upon another occasion, about three years ago,
Lyons was attacked with insanity. His wife goes by the
steamer to-night to try to see him, with a hope to be allowed
to do so. As he is a respectable man, I trust he will be
treated with every consideration under the unfortunate cir-
cumstances into which his dangerous malady has misled
him.—l. am, Sir, your obedient servant,

" To Inspector Breary, Fenny Stratford,"CLARIIMONT.
Inspector Breary said that letter was from Lord
Claremont.

The next letter was in the following terms :
" -University of London, Burlington-house, July 20.
"Sir,—Having read an account of the assault committed
in a railway carriage by Michael Lyons, and having seen
that he has been brought up before you, and is to appear
again on Thursday next, I think it well to inform you that
I have reason to believe in the correctness of his statement,
that he was on his way to undergo an examination here.
He had requested me to enter his name as a candidate for
the first Bachelor of Science examination, which commenced
this morning, and had furnished to me the necessary certi-
ficates, and I consequently expected him here yesterday.
I shall be ready to put his communications on the subject in
evidence if it should be considered desirable. It seems to me
not unlikely that his brain has been unsettled by overwork
and by anxiety about his examination.—l remain, Sir, your
obedient servant,

" WILLIAM B. CARPENTER, 111. D., Registrar.
" To -. Lowndes, Esq."
The solicitor for the defence applied to have a
sum of money, amounting to £8 3s. given up
to the prisoner for the purposes of the defence.
After some consultation the Bench agreed that
the sum of two guineas might be given up for the
purposes of the defence.

The prisoner said hs would willingly undertake
his own defence if the money could be given to his
wife, who had no means of support either for her-
self or the four young children she had left. Lord
Claremont had generously given her money to get
to London, but she had no means of returning. He
(the prisoner) desired to ask the Bench whether
the railway would let her use his return-ticket
home.
The Chairman said that the company would de-
cide that, and the Bench desired Mr. Orpen to
state to the proper officials of the company the
suggestion which the Bench wished to make, that
the company should take into consideration the con-
dition of the woman and act according to their dis-
cretion.
Mr. Orpen undertook to convey to the railway
authorities the opinion of the Bench, and the fur-
ther hearing of the case was adjourned for a week.
It appears that the old lady who was in the car-
riage was Mrs. Eaton, of 21, Herbert-street, Hox-
ton. Although 80 years of age, she so far preserved
her presence of mind that on recovering from the
shock which induced a sudden faintness, she 'bound
up Mr. Worland's forehead with the handkerchief,
and that she took two others out of the bag she had
with her, in order to stanch the blood, and she
maintained her self-possession throughout the jour,
ney, and was enabled to tell Orpen, the constable,
what had taken place, It Was Orpen who secured
the knife which the prisoner had firmly held in his
hand, although both M'Lean and Worland had
managed to keep him down on the floor of the car-
riage, by kneeling on him for an hour and a quarter
after the ferocious attack had been made.