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

302 1032

..''
i A41"47, ' 7317 P- 4'l,r \
r if.gtil—,,,,,vt-t.ry,
..,..,...., . •,,,,,,„‘, ~
• to, as the receiver of his rents. a* 4 eeel 4.;?! ee :4,1
• 4*,.. 7 :;-: ~.'
e ~ .:
'1)
~' .
~1 .. • Mr. Roupell was then cross-examinAe,..ritak„.z
geridge, the son of the person he had befor9dr esa..
j•kt10...0,--e: ,:41%.:,L,
takenßovill,Gboudt
tvoe iw• y i brieftne ss .
S
ee ~:
iii-No .
~,,,.
,that fact before
forged was genuine. He swore to .
.4
His object now was to do justice. He wished the
jurythe
o surrogate. thatlitleieswaiiallbliee nhoenciv saaidLre4drser.
e6rj,:virilael.;
that he burned it ; that he forged a fresh
one ; that he forged a deed of gift ; that
believeßythsaot dhoei 13
gstholeee°hialism iftattchaerP'
he also forged leases—forged the names of the
tenants—and that, " practically," he cheated the
defendants of £12,000. He would also admit that
he had " robbed" his father of /10,000 in cash, end
that he had cheated his family, and now wished to
get the property back. Ile had net exactly
" cheated' his mother of some M Irine Assurence
;:hares, but he fraudulently disposed of them and
kept the money. (A laugh.)
Bed on Cnennell—What is the difference between
that and cheering her out of them ? (A laugh.)
I aAmir.ußndo
Witness—l aumit there is only a difference in
\voids. I came here from Pentonville Prison, where
under sentence of penal servitude for life,
.1.01.
forAglerr.Y.B.oVill—ls that the orison dress you have on ?
meanseheated your family;
Ir Roupell
—oclt
ecilsin7rgi
have obtained more the/col:1-1y.
Witness—l admit and is it not a filet that by
of my conduct, but I dtild'atnot2otah(u)din t lbeto an mentionedetdpno youa thes
effete 1
Ih aveteci
done
,A Tr o. Ind goiuepael :111
Mr. Bovill—Why
very great
itWhydiddid
difficulty.
confinedb
Mr. Bovill—And you committed
pose, with the same object ? perjury, I sup-
Mr. Roupell (coolly)—Yes.
In answer to further questions
in Pentonville Prison he had occasioneaelnl
Mr. Roupell said that since he had b
communication with Messrs. Linklater, tyhe seoelni-iin
tors to the plaintiff, and he had also seen the latter
occasionally.
Mr. Bovill then eddreesed Mr. Roupell, and, •
'in nn
indignant tone, said, "You may go back to the plied
you came from—l have nothing more to say to you."
Mr. Roupell then left the court hastily, accom-
panied by the warders of the gaol.
Mr. John W. Truman deposed that he was for-
merly in the service of Mr. W. Roupell as superin-
tendent of the brickfield and roads upon the Rou-
pell-park estate. He was acquainted with the late
Mr. Richard Roupell, but did not know his signa-
ture. The name of John William Truman es attest-
ing witness to the deed of gift was in his hand-
writing, but Mr. Richard Roupell was not present,
and the signature Richard Palmer Roupell was not
his handwriting. William Roupell was present,
and he believed he was attesting his signature, or he
should not have signed his own name to the deed.
He believed that the deed was also signed by Mr.
Dove as attesting witness. The witness then went
on to say that he afterwards attested one of the
fraudulent leases relating to the Essex property,
and he said that in this case he believed at the time
that he was merely attesting the signature of Mr.
W. Roupell. The witness was then shown the
forged will, and he expressed an opinion that the
body of it was written by William Roupell, but he
said he was unable to give any opinion as to the
signature Richard Palmer Roupell. He said he was
aware William Roupell always carried a gold pen
about with him, and he had seen him sign his name
with this pen, and the signature " William Roupell"
that appeared upon the forged will was, in his opi-
nion, written with that pen. He said he was aware
that Mr. Roupell frequently carried a writing desk
about with him, and witness had occasionally carried
it to him in his carriage. Witness had been an
officer. in the same regiment of volunteers of which
William Roupell was the . major, and he frequently
saw him sign his name, and he was well acquainted
with his signature. He remembered the time when
Mr. Roupell left England. He went to see him at
Aspin-house the day before he left, and upon going
to the room where he was he appeared angry at
being disturbed, and showed temper, and witness
observed a smell as of burning paper, and he after-
wards saw a quantity of paper ashes in the fire-
grate.
Cross-examined—He was acquainted with Mr.
Roupell from the year 1852. The brickworks were
carried on in witness's name, and he was sorry to
say he permitted Mr. Roupell to use his name. The
business was Mr. Roupell's, but it was carried on
in witness's name.
By the Court—Mr. Roupell was in Parliament
at this time.
Cross-examination continued—Witness was to be
paid £3OO a-year, and he was to receive commission
besides. Witness was a shoemaker before he went
into the service of Mr. Roupell. The name of
Truman and Co. was still up at the works at Brix-
ton. He could not recollect whether the name of
Truman and Co. was up at the brickworks before
you
t o do
e:hstohciaottna:ldte ?eht
Mr. Ronpell went into Parliament. Witness was
held up to the public as the owner of the bride-
works down to the period when Mr. Roupell
abscondcd.—Tee witness was cross-examined at
!considerable length in reference to the circum-
stances under which he attested the different deeds,
and he said that he remembered seeing Mr. W.
Roupell sign the instruments, and he was certain
of the fact from seeing his own name as the at-
testing witness. He thought that he was attesting
the signature of Mr. Roupell to leases of houses,
and he signed the deeds at once without making
any inquiry. He had, of course, great confidence
in Mr. Roupell, who was at that time considered a
man of high position and importance. When ho
signed his name to the deeds he observed that
there was something written over the place where
he signed his name, but he could not say what it
was. Mr. Roupell turned over the deeds very
quickly, and appeared to be anxious to obtain his
signature as speedily as he could. He could not
say whose handwriting was
over the place where
be signed his name, or whether it was that of Mr.
n"
W. Roupell or " any other ma . ( A laugh.)
Baron Channell—What does the witness say about
any other man ? (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—Oh, my lord, you have not been
where he has. (Laughter.)
Witness to Mr. Hawkins—I have seen you there
though. (Roars of laughter.)
The witness, in further cross-examination, said he
did not remember seeing the signature of the old
man, Richard Palmer Roupell, upon the deed when
he signed it, and lie was inclined to think that it
was not, but he believed that signature to be in the
handwritingof William Roupell. Witness had never
stated that the signature to this deed was not his
handwriting, but he remembered Mr. Covinton, the
solicitor, calling upon him in April, 1862, and show-
ing him a deed and asking about thesignature,
but
be was very much Confused at Itime,
t le in conse-
quence of his having just heard that AI
r. Roupell had
absconded, and he told him he could not give him an
answer at that time, but h
look at the deed, and say whether it was his signa-
ture or not. He eight
have told Mr. Covinton
that he believed the
signature was his, but he de-
clined at that time to say positively whether it was
or not. He
was quite certain that he never saw old
execute a deed of any description, and
that he never
Joseph attested any deed for him.
deed o' t.
gift, was then examined, and he swore posi-
tively e
La he neverattested deed for the old
Mr.Roupell,
.any .
and he said that when he put his sig-
nature to the deed in question, he did so at the re-
quest of William Roupell, and he said that the wit-
ness Truman signed it at the same time.
ir i s witness was also cross examined at conside-
rable length. He said he had known old Roupell
since the year ISSO. He managed a farm for him,
and he used to sign his name in witness's book, but
he never saw him sign a receipt. He generally
used to sign his initials in the book, " R. P. Be"
After some further evidence the trial was again
adjourned,

P1L1CE....., _..4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

The proceedings in
tthis case were resumed at the
yesterday.
After
London,ll een examined
day he was taken back to
of the warders of Pentonvill prison. in charge of two
Hoen
didT h unot
-
was placed, nbgutat the painful po_
exhibit any appearance of feeling
to him with
ihacenfvi
greatester d ece
pus.ry
ait iot
questionin wo.lhaitc
was
ahse
put
sible coolues3 and deliberation.
was brought
down to Chelmsford again this morning, .
further examination was proceeded with.
when
his
Mr. Roupell said, in answer to questions put by
Nit.. Lush—l cannot tell what become of the ori
nal drafts of the leases of this property after I
copied them and made the alterations in them, but
believe that I destroyed them. When fair copied
had been made of the leases I took them to Mr.
Whitaker to be engrossed, and authorised him to
raise as much money as he could upon the property,
and I understood that he applied to several gentle-
men with that object, and among them to a Mr.
Longman, and I think the sum of £6,000 was spe-
cially mentioned to be obtained from him.
Baron Channel' interposed, and expressed his
opinion that it was quite unnecessary to go into
those details. The fraud and forgery had been posi-
tively spoken to, and it really appeared to him
unnecessary to examine the witness as to the
particulars.
Mr. Ronpell then proceeded to state that he sub-
sequently executed a lease to the present defendants
of the Essex property that was now in dispute, and
that the transaction took place on the 26th of
January, 1856, and he said he afterwards forged
fictitious leases as from one of the defendants, and
ne induced John Truman to attest the signature of
that gentleman, by telling him that he wished him
to attest his own signature. The witness then ex-
plained the proceeding he resorted to in order to
deceive the witness Truman, and he said that he
mixed several aocuments together and wrote his
name to one of the false documents.
Baron Channel! wished to know how the witness
induced Truman to sign four documents when he
must have known that he was only required to sign
two leases.

Mr. Roupell said that Truman placed great con,
fidence in him, and he was no lawyer, and might
not have known that he was signing more instru-
ments than were necessary. This was all the ex-
planation he could give. He deceived him bv mix-
ing the documents altogether, and placing a piece
of blotting paper over the names of the persons who
purported to be the real parties to the deeds.
Baron Channell—This is your explanation ?
Mr. Roupell—lt is.
He was then further questioned at very great
length with regard to the transactions that took place
between himself and Mr. Whitaker relative to the
raising of money upon the forged deeds, but it will
not be necessary to go into the details, which were
very complicated, and appeared to have little or
nothing to do with the real question at issue.
Mr. Roupell then stated that before Mr. Longman
would advance any money he insisted upon having
a valuation of the estate, and he employed Mr.
Foster, of Pall-mall, to go over the property for that
purpose, and he accompanied him, and informed
him of the particulars, in accordance with the false
statement as to the rent and the term of the lease,
and upon this false statement he made a valuation,
and Mr. Longman advanced £6,000. He subse-
quently, however, called in the money, and was paid
off; and down to the time when his father died, on
the 12th of September, 1856, he had not been able
to raise sufficient money upon the estate to pay off
the amounts he required to relieve himself of his
embarrassments. His father was ailing for about a
fortnight before he died, but he went to his busi-
ness in Cross-street as usual, and at the time of his
death witness was negotiating with Mr. Whitaker
for a lease, hut the arrangement came to nothing,
and the present defendants ultimately advanced him
£12,000 upon mortgage of the property in question.
After some further evidence Mr. Roupell said that
he had burned a great many documents connected
with these transactions on the night before he left
England, and he also stated tnat Mr. Truman, whose
name appeared as the attesting witness to some of
the documents, was the superintendent of the
brickfield upon the Roupell-park estate.
Mr. Bovill having again objected to tae reception
of some of the evidence,
Baron Channell said he thought the evidence was
admissible upon the sground that the witness had
admitted himself to have committed a very wicked
crime, and if he was to be believed, the counsel for
the plaintiff was justified in proving everything he
could to show that he was speaking the truth.
Mr. Roupell then said that when he found him-
, self hopelessly involved at the commencement of the
' year 1862, he considered what was best to be done,
and resolved upon makinu a communication to Mr.
Whitaker, and he did so a few days before he left
England, in March, 1862. His father died in Cross-
street, and at the time he died witness was not
aware that he had made a codicil to his will a few
days before.
Mr. Bovill objected to any evidence being given
in relation to the will. The plaintiff did not claim
under any will, but under a deed of gift, and they
had nothing to do with the will, or whether it was
genuine or not.
Sergeant Shee submitted that it was necessary to
show how it happened that the witness obtained
the entire control over his father's property after his
death.
The court, after some technical discussion, decided
that the evidence as to the will was admissible.
Mr. Roupell was accordingly examined with re-
ference to the forged will, and he repeated the evi-
dence he gave on the former trial. He said that he
knew nothing about the codicil until a few days
before his father's death, when he wished him to
draw up another codicil. His father said that as
the property at Roupell- park was liable to litigation
and required a great deal of improvement, it would
be better to leave the property to witness subject to
annuities to his mother and other members of the
family. At this time he saw the will of 1850, and
the codicil that was made on the 10th of August,
but he did not read it. He said he advised
his father not to make any alteration in the
will, and nothing was done. At this time
he expected his father would die, but did not
expect his death would occur so soon. He was in-
formed of his father's death at Brixton on the
morning of the 12th Sept., 1856, and he and his
mother went to Cross-street immediately, and wit-
ness went into his father's bedroom alone. Hies
mother was in the room below. He examinetclutohs
escritoire and took out the genuine will andtto t
-desk
it into his pocket. The codicil was annexed
...I,tka..t
this time. He afterwards prepared a fresh wl___ll,l.ticuhe
about
one that has been so often alluded to aenddwb W"
ays ted
the whole of the property of the deceasas
_ essesmarchn,
eaBe6x2plain
appointed
-
wineeka
in Mrs. Roupell, and the wit
joint executor with her).
until efinwset iii.tihlt the until
night
vwerriat il nyge-
years. He
andHe
did carriedn et itre 1 isaaiidbonenotteu-
left to his
ill some
with him. It contained besides t
h.
afterwa s a i t
smalleam came
one,into
ohisd h e
constantly possession. Phntee sii Theecarried
i wtlilinitalgl
e genuine
cor-
respondence of
will remained in his p
fore he left England in _ , When he
her of other papers.
burned it with a numb
estate was By the
d t heal
genuine will t
the present plaintiff, and this
brother Richard, . ls con-
he resolution he had
firmed him in t prey' l
ious y
formed to forge
sign
aazure of John 111
the way theuggeridge, one of
to the forged
the fresh will.
aupposed witnessesh
ent was t us,--Me
the docurn ggeridge was an 'old
man who was in the habit of collecting rent for
heinilmVaedrlieayte
father, and he went to him, and gave him his
£5 to buy
mourning with, and he signed a receipt,
that he then forged
his signature. Muggeridge was
and he said
84; and he thought he was not likely to
live long, and in ;
poalt of f
The witness act he died shortly after-
wards.gave
these details with the
most perfect sang-froid,
and did not seem to. feel
the slightest shame or regret at having committed
such flagrant acts
will with a ., He Wrote a portion of the forged
with a
pm goldhicpacit.), andi his father's name he wrote
attended the funeral of oacdtmsend father,e d
tinhimself.d Al
the forged
will Was read afterward' s 'fait Aspic-house. He sub-
t•it eiaently took the will to his father's proctors,
Meaers.uggested that
Ring and Co.Co and they
his mother should also prove under the will,
but at his request she) wrote a letter to Messrs
Rlng, in which she expressed her unwillingness
to do so, His mother knew vory little of his
father's affairs. Witness made a rough dratt of a
letter to Messrs. Ling, and his sister Sarah drew
it 11P- It was to the • ffcct that his mother felt her-
self incompetent to take any Part in business trans-
actions, and wished everything to be left to her son
William, in whom she placed the utmost reliance.
By the genuine will the property of his father was
devised pretty equally between the different mem-
bers of the family, and witness was described as
" My son, called William Roupell," The same de-
scription was given of all the other children except
Richard. After his father's death witness, in the
charaeur of executer, assumed the entire control
over the property, and he appointed young Mug-

Ladyhl 3er o ip
earliestt on , Falmouth,seyeestthe e
supportersdpaa of the institution,
. .
accompanied Cancer
hospital, by
ihnidcheedshhietvsyeo
THE CANCER HOSPITAL. —1 1 ii: s
yesterday.
d efficient}uarldvie sitosstfi
visit to
toucouht
dtat terhsit
ett,
and this benevolent lady, who takes such a deep interest in
Coutts was one of t
the charity, went over the wards very carefully, and was
pleased to express her entire approbation of all the arrange.
amtetnhtes
fcoouniundeac
ttieodnwithwhich
hhospital, and
presided, it
amauds must
been most gratifying to her to
materially helped to rear, The founder and
gentlemen of the committee of management attended the
ladies in their inspection.
_ _

[tAe oc.ch'nronnTiresn:ormENpTla.]i—n
tAs,vobiudtmpeduicillnaersry;
,tshDeye,
health
Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, which saves fifty times
its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, restor.ng
perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs healthy liver,
pure blood, refreshing sleep, functional regularity, and enemy
to. the most disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out"
of 60,000 Cures :—Cure No. 58,216 of the Marchioness de
Brehan, Paris, of a liver complaint, wasting away for seven
years,. debility, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad
digestion, constant sleeplessness, the most intolerable nervous
agitation, and dreadfully low spirited.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord
Stuart de Decies, Lord L:cut. of Waterford, of many years'
dyspepsia.—No. 49,832. "Fifty years' indescribable tr.:ony
from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation,
flatulency, spasms, sickness, end vomiting.—Maria Jolly."
—Cute No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of
of blood, liver derange-
ment,thirty years' diseased lungs,
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low
No
to .1.
indigestion
t iTo
nh eal:dev.J torpi-
ditya s
and partial dealness.2CPuitrteinNgo. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth
In tins, 1 lb., Is. 9d. ; 21b., 45. 6d ; 51b., lls. ; 121 b., 225. ; e:'411).
40s —Barry Du Barry and Co., N 0.77, Regent-street, London ;
spirits,T. ao nt
ptahbneedll il7vele'rrav,k°cwu:hhiafcahl nn
fancies.—Cure
resiste :1 all medical treatment."
also Fortnum and Mason ; and all Grocers and Chemists in
every town of the United Kingdom.