The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-19 00:00:00

i saw Richard Roupoll the day he was born, and I
have known him ever since. lie was born in the

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Aug. 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)

EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL
ROUPELL AND OTHERS V. WAITE.
In consequence of the various rumours that were
in circulation in reference to this cause, and the
extraordinary circumstances connected with it, the
trial appeared to create the most intense interest,
and a number of persons were present a considerable
time before the usual hour for the commencement
of the proceedings.
The action was one of ejectment to recover
possession of a farm at Kingston, called "Norbiton
Farm," and the defendant pleaded that he was
legally possessed of the estate in question under a
deed of gift executed by the late Richard Palmer
Roupell, the owner of the property.
Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. J.
Browne, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., and Mr. Garth, appeared for the defendant.
Upon the application of Mr. Bovill the whole of
the witnesses were ordered out of court, and they
were examined separately.
Serjeant Shee, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff brought this action to recover an estate of
about 163 acres, at Norbiton, near Kingston, of
which the late Richard Palmer Roupell died seised
in September, 1856, The plaintiff claimed this
estate as the heir-at-law of his deceased father,
and the defendant claimed under a deed executed
by William Roupell, the natural brother of the
plaintiff, and the question the jury would have to
decide was whether the deed under which this
Property passed was a genuine instrument ; and
on the part of the plaintiff he undertook to prove
that it was a forgery. Although he should prove
this, still, unless he should also establish that a will
Purported to have been executed by the deceased
was also a forgery, and that it was forged by Wm.
Roupell, the natural brother of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff could not recover, and he undertook to
prove that fact also. He should show that the
plaintiff was the heir-at-law of the deceased, and
that a will had been executed previously to the
forged will, by which the property was bequeathed
to the plaintiff, and he would have come into pos-
session of it but for those forged instruments.
Although he had stated thus summarily the general
nature of the case, it was necessary that he should
go more into the circumstances of the case, which
was undoubtedly of the most extraordinary charac-
ter, and which not only involved a large amount
of property, but also the honour and perhaps the
liberty of a gentleman of high position, and who
had held a prominent position before the public as
a member for the borough of Lambeth. The testator
for many years carried on the business of a lead-
merchant in Gravel-lane, and he had a private resi-
dence at Brixton. He had five children, John,
William (who was a natural son), Sarah, James, and
Emma, and the plaintiff, who was born on the sth of
July 1840. The testator amassed a vast property, his
personal estate at the time of his death was worth
£120,000, and he had invested £200,000 in real
estates in different counties and in London, and
within fifteen years of his death he had by wile
l
disposed of all these estates. In March, 1839, h
executed one will, and three months after the birth
of the plain tiff he, by will, left him the estate that was
the subject of the present inquiry, and he then re-
voked all former wills. On Oct. 1, 1850, he exe-
cuted another will, by which he disposed of all his
property, vesting his estates in trustees for the
benefit of all his children, and he again devised the
Kingston and several other estates to his son
Richard, the plaintiff. He was satisfied with this
will until one of his trustees, Mr. Patrick Hughes,
died, and he appointed Mr. William Clarke and Mr.
James Surridge in the place of that gentleman. It
was clear at this time that he intended to confirm
the will of 1850, but he made some alteration by
which he gave legacies to his executors; and a few
days before his death, in 1856, he went to his proc-
tors, in Doctors'-commons, and took the will with
him, and he was informed that the attestations of
the new trustees was not sufficient, and a codicil
was drawn up, by which he confirmed the will of
1850. This was on Saturday, the 30th of August,
1856, and there could be no doubt that
at this time he intended this will to be his last
will and testament, and by this will the plaintiff
would have become entitled to the estate in
question and a considerable portion of his other
property. The learned sergeant read the codicil,
and said it was quite clear that the testator intended
to confirm the will of 1850, and that when they had
heard the evidence he should lay before them he be-
lieved they would entertain no doubt upon this
point. When he made this codicil it was also evi-
dent that he considered himself possessed of the
Norbit on estate. He went over it a few days before
his death with his steward, a man named West, and
he told this person that he thought he should not
live long, and that after he was gone he would have
to manage the estate for his son Richard, the plain-
tiff. He should also prove, by other circumstances,
that at this period he had not the smallest doubt
that this Kingston estate was his property. He had
laid out money upon it, and in every possible way
had indicated his belief that it was so, and that he
had done nothing to prevent him from disposing of
it. Notwithstanding this, the Kingston estate had
been dealt with and had been alienated, through
the fraud of his natural son. He should show
them that William Roupell, the natural son,
was, in 1855, in great pecuniary difficulties. He
must have lived an extravagant life, and was much
pressed by creditors and greatly in want of money.
He seemed to have been of opinion that by possess-
ing himself of a small property that adjoined to the
testator's estate at Brixton, he should relieve him-
self to some extent, and the owner agreed to sell it
for £5,000; and about this time a fire insurance
company had the intention to expend £50,000 upon
the Roupell Park estate at Brixton, and had made
Wm. Roupell, who was then practising as an attor-
ney, their trustee for this purpose. He then, it
appeared, went to his father and told him that he
could purchase the estate for that sum, and that the
Unity Fire Company would give £250 per annum,
which would increase the value of the estate •, and
the testator agreed to purchase it, and gave William
Roupell a cheque for £5OO on the Bank of England
as a deposit, and on the 25th of the same month
another cheque for £4,500, the balance. He should
show that the £5OO cheque was paid in to the
Union Bank to the account of a gentleman named
Watts, but that in point of fact it was devoted to
the use of William Roupell, as was also the
cheque for £4,500, and that Mr. Treadwell, the
owner of the estate to which he had referred, never
received a farthing, and that his endorsement on
the cheque was a forgery. On the Ist of August
William Roupell appointed to pay Mr. Tread-
-well for the estate, and he should show them
that he received the money upon the Kingston
estate without the knowledge of his father, and
that he surreptitiously obtained possession of the
deeds that enabled him to effect this object. It
would be proved that he asked his father to let him
look at the deeds relating to the Kingston estate,
and that he represented that some of them were
missing, and
t
Marson and Co.,jhhe wished to take them to Messrs.
testator; an i;e the solicitors who had acted for the
ehruou_ld produce a document in the
handwriting a wo:pell, showing that he had
taken possession these
deeds, and that he never
took them to Messrs. Marson and Co., but went to
the office of Mr._ Powell, a law stationer in Parlia-
ment-street, and requested binto make fac-similes
of the whole of those
atdeeds,and_e a
the same time
ons Thursday,
said he desired this should be dun
quickly as
possible, and the deeds were ready
July 19. He was under an engagement to complete
the purchase of the estate Aug,on I, and
before
IL
copies of the deeds were completed, , endeavoured
to raise a sum of £7,000 upon the security
of the
deeds he
Kingston estate, which was valued at £l5 :an
The
moment he got possession of the
genuine ones to a gentleman named. \\Thitt. the
told him to produce a deed of gift from hi
and her_at
to himself of this Kingston estate, is
was done, and it was returned approved,
and William Roupell forged his fathers signa-
ture to this deed, and he caused two respectable
witnesses to attest the signature, but he (1
e °deed
them as to who the party was by whom the
s
ceived
was executed, and he should call them as witnesses
to prove that fact. Having thus obtained posses-
sion of the deed of gift, it was necessary that he
should also deceive his father, and he forged to the
counterfeit deeds the names of the whole of the con-
veying parties ta the genuine deeds, and then handed
them to him. Mr. Whittaker subsequently obtained
a loan of £7,000 upon the property, and £5,000
were paid to Mr. Treadwell and £2,000 pocketed
by W. Roupell. In order to defendthis action it was
incumbent on defendant to produce the deed of gift,
and if he did sohe pledged himself to prove that it was
a forgery. Although the £2,000 relieved W. Roupell
for a time he was still in great difficulties, and
at the commencement of the following year he had
recourse to another expedient, and he determined to
raise £12,000 up on an estate in Essex, belonging to
his father, called the Great Warley estate, and he
shouid she,
the der that he forged his father's signature to
ed a
the same proceeding
of that estate, and he went through
teeeding with Mr. Whittaker, and he
eventuallyborrowed £15,000 on that property. At
this time Wm. Roupell was only
25years old • and
- although Mr. Whittaker was
well aware that' Mr.
Roupell, his father, resided in London, ho never had
the least communication with him on these impor-
tant subjects; and he could not help observing that
this appeared to him very extraordinary. Things
went on in this Way until 3-annul.,
1856, at which
last card. His
time Wm. Roupell had played his
1856, and Wm.
father died in Sept., Roupell had
immediate notice of the fact. Mrs. Roupell was

•

overwhelmed with grief, and she gave the keys to
Roupell, and he went and examined the strong
Wm.box and the escritoire that was in his bedroom, and
he there found the will of Oct., 1850. He stood face
to face with his dead father—his dead father's will
in his hand—and that will informed him that in a
L very few minutes after he was ccnveyed to the
grave he must stand face to face with his father's
executors, all men of business, and trustees for the
benefit of his wife and children, and that discovery
and ruin were inevitabie. This will would have
been his ruin, destruction to his home, his charac-
Iter, and his liberty. He was, however, a bold and
determined man, and standing face to face with his
dead father he made up his mind what he would do.
It would not do to destroy the will, but a new will
revoking it must be executed, and he again had re-
course to Mr. Whittaker. He had little time to do
this. He slept in the house with his dead father.
The day after the death he commenced his proceed-
ings. He went to an aged man named Muggeridge,
who had been for many years in his father's ser-
vice, and gave him for mourning, and asked him
for a receipt, and he resolved to forge his signature
to the instrument he intended to produce as a
witness. It would not do to make an entirely
fresh will, but he wanted to have the entire con-
trol of his property, and he drew up a short will re-
voking the former one, and leaving the whole of the
property to his mother, he himself being appointed
trustee ; and he should show clearly that this docu-
ment was a forgery, and that the signature of Mug-
geridge and those of all the other pretended wit-
nesses were forgeries also. The learned sergeant
then proceeded to say that Mrs. Roupell lived with
the testator for a considerable time before their mar-
riage, and William Roupell was born before the
ceremony took place, and he said there was no doubt
that there did not at any time subsist that cordiality
and confidence between the testator and his wife
that ought to exist between a man and woman in that
position, and it appeared she was not aware of the
existence of the will of 1850, and she made no diffi-
culty as to the disposition of the property. Thewill
which he alleged to be forged was dated the 2d
hot
September, 1856, and only a few days before_ t
ee.
testator had prepared the codicil to which he had D
fore alluded ;and and he would ask them whether this
u m.ti tnhc n
ees
was not in itself almost conclusive evidereltvbialtlitahme
will was forged, and that it was forgedr _
Roupell, the natural son of the testositcoir
_set a
..
said that he should prove a variety'
oed on the
showing how William Roupell wasl 1
2d of September, and which -won amp provye almost
heuld not have been
co
conclusively that he could not have attested this new
will of his father, and that
in the company of Muggeridge, the man whose
name appeared to the will as witness. This was the
general outline of the evidence upon which he should
rely to show that the deedof gift of July, 1855, and
the will of the 2d Sept., 1856, were forgeries ; but
there was a variety of other evidence all tending to
establish the same fact, and he would now proceed
to narrate other circumstances in connexion with
this extraordinary transaction. After the funeral
Mr. Roupell applied to the professional gentlemen
who had only 12 days before made the codicil, to
obtain probate. They were surprised, and sug-
gested that the mother ought to be executrix; but
this difficulty was got over and William Roupell
came into the entire possession of the whole of
the property, . and he very soon embarked
in a career of extravagance which astonished and
to some extent scandalised the public. He sold
estate after estate with his mother's consent, upon a
promise that he would settle £3,000 a year on her,
and he at length became hopelessly involved, and
no resource was left to him but to tell the truth,
and to show that he had no right to deal with the
property as he had done, and thus enable the heir-
at-law, Richard Roupell, to obtain his rights. The
learned sergeant then said it was only necessary
further to state that Wm. Roupell left England on
the 29th March, 1862, and that before he left he
destroyed a large quantity of papers; and he con-
cluded by giving an outline of the nature of the
evidence he proposed to lay before the jury as above
detailed, and he said that he should also put Wm.
Roupell into the witness-box. He was unwilling
to make any observations with regard to his con-
duct, but it was clear that he had ruined his mother
and his brothers; and if he had done this wrong,
by coming forward to make all the reparation he
could, if he was speaking the truth, it appeared to
him that he was actuated by the highest feelings
of honour and duty. No doubt the interests of the
defendant were deeply involved in the inquiry ; he
had purchased this property, believing that Wm.
Roupell could legally dispose of it, but at the same
time the interest of the real owner of the property
was quite as much worthy of consideration as that
of the defendant, and if he made out that he had
been defrauded of his property by the forgery and
fraud of his elder brother, he ought to have a ver-
dict in this action.
The following evidence was then adduced :
Mr. J. T. "West said—l am a farmer, and reside
at Norbiton. I knew the deceased for 25 years. I
managed the Norbiton estate before Mr. Richard
Palmer Roupell purchased it, and I subsequently
became his bailiff. He died in 5ept.,1856, and I had
been his bailiff five or six years before, and we used
to settle our accounts every week. He came down to
the farm at the latter end of August, 1856. He was
very ill at this time, and he died a few days after.
After his death I used to account to Mr. W. Roupell,
and also to Mrs.Roupell. Richard Roupell built some
cottages about two years before his death, and I used
to occupy one of them. I remember Mr. 'William
Roupell coming down to see the estate before his
father died. I think it was about two years before.
He was accompanied by two gentlemen, but I don't
know what they came for, except it was to look at
the land. After I left the estate, the defendant took
possession of it.
Cross-examined—The property was put up for
sale by auction, and was sold to Mr. Waite for
£15,000. Some of the carts and waggons were sold
to me by valuation. There was no alteration of any
kind in the management of the farm until after it
was sold. Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell occupied
the land and the house at this estate, and I was em-
ployed there seven years before he died. I have
never said that the estate belonged to William
Roupell. I swear that positively, because I knew
that it belonged to his father. I have not been to
the office of Messrs. Linklater, the solicitors to the
plaintiff, more than once, and I have not sent any
persons there to give evidence. I never told Mr.
Lamb, the poor-rate collector, that the estate at
Kingston belonged to Mr. William Roupell, and I
never asked him to alter the name in the rate-book.
I won't say that I always paid the rates in the name
of Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell. After his death
I paid them in the name of William Roupell. The
name of William Roupell was not upon the carts
and waggons before his father died, nor upon the
sacks. I never said to Mr. Berry, a road contrac-
tor, who had threatened some legal proceedings,
that my master was Mr. William Roupell, that he
was a barrister, and he would not get much good
out of him. (A laugh.) I never said that Mr.
Richard Roupell had given the estate to his son
William, and that he was never to turn me out of
my cottage. William Roupell never interfered with
the estate until after the death of his father.
The witness, on re-examination, identified certain
receipts for poor rates that were put in, and which
were made out in the name of the deceased Richard
Roupell. He also said that he never heard such a
thing said by any one as that his masten had given
the estate to his son William.
By Mr. Bovill—Upon one occasion he received
the sum of £3OO for the valuation of a farm from
a gentleman named Nightingale, and he handed
over that money to William Roupell.
Mrs. Woods said—l am daughter of the last
witness, and remember his being employed upon
the Norbiton Park Farm a great many years before
Mr. Richard Roupell died. The old gentleman used
to come to the farm generally about once a month,
and I saw him there a fortnight before he died.
Mrs. Roupell was with him upon that occasion.
(The witness then stated that her father could
not read or write, and she identified certain ac-
counts_ that were put in, showing that down to the
JezrealteBs46, after the alleged deed of gift had been
the testator exercised ownership and pro-
pety to'
estate in question.) I do not know
who my 1:7
settled with after the old gentle-
any 117
;mile
of
think the were
man's death, but
nut used still to continue to make out
his accounts
or him, and they were all kept in a
book.
Cross-examinea,
- s
and about
madels yearsout
the of age
ae
when Mr. Roupell
destroyed. the
nateseofurounits thhaevteimbeeen
gust
11 years old. Some of
ed because they were
$ but I do not know
bnyotvtihhooumghtht
etyo
wbeer.e.of
not destroyed until after the
occasions
property. Roupell te
The last time I saw old Mr.
upon
was about a fortnight before his dent
rally h farm
t on the last teo) Re gene-
rally came alone excep
and then Mrs. Roupell came along with him.
remember finding some old leaves that
had been
torn out of a book, and I gave them t. 9 Mr. Link_
later, the solicitor to the plaintiff.
.1 know ;qr.
seen him at n
—uild.
William Roupell. I have not
ford during these assizes, and I do not think I have
seen him since the sale.
'
Re-examined—l have given Mr. Linklater every
paper that I found. .d...... 1 have
Mrs. Eleanor Wallett, an aged lady, sai
known Mrs. Sarah Roupell for thirty years. When
I first knew her she lived in Pitt -street, Pockham,
and she went by the name of Carter. Mr. Roupell
used to come and visit her. She had four children.
John,_ William, Sarah, and Emma. I remember the
son Richard being born. They were not married
when they first came to live at Peckham, and when
she left she went to live at Brixton, and be then
for the first time went by the name of 'Mrs. Roupell.

year 1839, twenty-three years ago.
Mrs. Maria Watts said—l am the sister of Mrs.
Roupell, and remember when she lived at Peckham.
I do not recollect how many children she had at
this time. I know her son Richard Roupell, the
plaintiff in the present action. She had no other
children in the present action. She had no other
children after him, and at the time he was born she

went by the name of Roupell.
Cross-examined--When I first knew Mr. Roupell
he had a son named John, and a daughter named
Sarah, but I did not know much of his family af-
fairs, because I was a good deal on the Continent.
I have not seen my sister for tour years. I did not
stay with them when I was in England. (The
witness then proceeded to say that she could not tell
why she had been brought down as a witness.) I
have seen Mrs. Roupell since I have been at Guild-
ford, and Mr. Wm. Roupell. I have visited my
sister and her husband at theirresidence at Brixton.
The marriage register containing an entry of the
marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Roupell was then put in.
It appeared to have taken place at the parish church
of St. Giles, Camberwell, on the 6th of December,
1838. William Roupell, it will be remembered,
was at this time a year old.
Mr. R. W. Tarte said—l am a lead merchant, in
Tothill-street, Westminster, and I was well ac-
quainted with the deceasedßichard Palmer Roupell,
hr
sn sha
ac
nt ti
wn sr
twi
ni
gt h. hHi me
t.
andam wellha
an:
ciannayi
acquainted
s i nwe
isigh t oldl
me once that he was7.not married, and he consulted
me upon the propriety of his getting married.
and if he had married during his
This was soon after the death of his father. He
he would not have left him any
came to me and said that his father was a very
ye hbayd
hbeeer,n
alinvdinghiwsitrhelaatpieenr;
fsaotnhp, e eccentricaeristdy lifetimebm a adHn a s
fa
ai
md
ihl
o himu t noti
it, and
to marry
taorlrdyhhiemr,taondhme
married
dtetdo
hermy
aaathddnavvdtii he had followed my advice, seteeodablose no time. I heard get
dviees,haonrtdlythaafttehrewawradss
married.

Jane Woodley said—l was in the service of Mrs.
Roupell, and I remember her son Richard being
born on the 27th of July, 1840. I knew William
Roupell at that time, but I cannot say how old he
was; but I should think he was about five or six.
John was the oldest child, then Sarah, then Wil-
liam, then Emma, and then Mr. Richard.
Cross-examined—John was ten years older than
William. He was sent abroad because he was
rather wild. Old Mr. Roupell was very fond of
William, but I cannot say he was more fond of him
than he was of the other children. I have no
memorandum of the day on which Richard Roupell
was born, but my husband's birthday is the 26th
of July, and that makes me remember it. I re-
member perfectly well that it was in the year 1840.
Mr. Huntley said—l am a surgeon at Brixton,
and I have known the Roupell family for many,
years. I attended Mrs. Roupell during her con-
finement with her son Richard. He was born on
the 27th July, 1840.
Cross-examined I frequently went to Mr.
Roupell's house, and was acquainted with his
family. John was a harum scarum fellow, and they
were obliged to send him abroad. William was
given to learning, and his father appeared to be
particularly attached to him, and he was constantly
with him while the buildings were going on upon
Roupell Park. I should think that more than
£lOO,OOO was laid out upon Roupell Park, and
William Roupell was constantly employed in su-
perintending the buildings that were going on. The
old man was a very good man of business, and he
knew perfectly well that a large sum of money was
being expended upon Roupell Park.
The register of the birth of Richard Roupell was
then put in. The date of the birth was stated to
be the 27th July, 1840. The certificate of the death
of the testator on the 12th Sept., 1856, was also put
in. It appeared that he was 74 years of age at the
time of his death.
Mr. Joseph Sharp said—l am clerk to Mr. Ring,
proctor, of Doctor's-commons, and was also clerk to
his father before his death. Our firm acted for a
great many years professionally for the late Mr.
Roupell, and he frequently came to our office upon
the subject of his will. I remember a will being
prepared in 1850 ; but I cannot say whether I had
any communication with the testator respecting it.
I recollect Mr. Roupell coming to the office in
August, 1856, and bringing his will with him, and
also a memorandum.
Mr. Bovill objected to the contents of this me-
morandum being put in evidence.
Baron Martin said he thought it would be quite
sufficient to prove the will.
Examination continued—Mr. Roupell on this oc-
casion produced his previous will, and I looked at
it, and saw that the body of it was all in my hand-
writing. I also saw the signature. The deceased
called my attention to an alteration that had been
made in the will, and that he showed it to me, and
I told him the alteration had not been :properly
executed, as it was attested by one witness only.
He then asked me to make a codicil, and I did so,
and it was engrossed while he was in the office, and
he executed it, and took the will and the codicil
away with him.
Mr. Bovill—l object to this document being
called a will, (A laugh.)
Sergeant Shee—Well, then, the paper.
Examination continued—l read over the codicil
to the testator before it was engrossed. This
occurred on August 30, 1856. (The deceased died
on September 12 following.) At this time the de-
ceased appeared to be in a pretty good state of
health. (The witness then produced a draft of the
will he referred to, and it was suggested that if it
had been carried out the plaintiff would have come
into possession of the greater portion of the testa-
tor's property.)
In answer to further questions,
The witness said that he prepared several: other
wills for the deceased prior to the one in question,
and that one of these was made on March 6, 1839,
and a codicil, it appeared, was added to it on No-
vember 5, 1839. No drafts or traces of any of these
wills at present remained in the office.
Sergeant Shee said that, on the part of the plain-
tiff, the suggestion was that this will of 1850 was
placed in the escritoire of the deceased, and had
never been seen since, and he proposed to give
secondary evidence of its contents.
Baron Martin said it appeared to him that until
it was proved that the will was either lost or de-
stroyed, or was in the possession of the other side,
secondary evidence of its contents could not be given.
Mr. John Treadwell said—l reside at Streatham,
and I remember having a negotiation with Mr.
William Roupell for the sale of a piece of land at
Brixton.
Mr. Bovill objected that the sale of this piece of
land had nothing to do with the question before the
court.
Baron Martin thought that, upon the opening of
Sergeant Shee, such evidence was relevant. The
learned counsel was quite right, in such a case, in
taking the objection, but he felt bound to admit
the evidence.
Mr. Treadwell then said—The negotiation took
place in 1854. Mr. William Roupell was to give
me £5,000 for a piece of land adjoining Roupell
Park, and after the transaction was completed I ap-
plied to him during several months for the money,
and I was eventually paid on Aug. 1, 1855. I re-
ceived the money from Mr. Whittaker. The name,
" J. Treadwell," on these two cheques now pro-
duced, one for £5OO and the other for £4,500, is not
my handwriting, and I never saw those cheques
before. (Those were the cheques that vere given
by the deceased to his son William, to paay for the
land in question, and which were allegel to have
been appropriated to his own use.) Mr. Whittaker
was the solicitor of Mr. Roupell, and he paid me
the money on his behalf.
Cross-examined—l was paid the £5,000 in five
£l,OOO Bank of England notes, The signature on
the cheques is not at all like my signature.
Re-examined—One of them I should call a bad
imitation of my signature. The other is not at all
like it.
Mr. Balfour, a clerk in the Bank of England,
proved that the cheques above referred to were paid
in through the Union Bank of London, at which
bank W. Roupell kept an account, and where they
appeared to have been paid in to his credit.
Mr. W. S. Powell said,—l am managing clerk to
my father, who carries on the business of a law-
stationer in Parliament-street. I know Mr. William
Roupell, and he used frequently to come to our office
on business.
Sergeant Shee here called for the production of
the title-deeds relating to the Kingston property.
Mr. Bovill said they did not produce them.
Sergeant Shee said that a notice to produce these
deeds had been served on the defendant, and he
should therefore be entitled to give secondary evi-
dence of their contents.
Mr. Powell then proved that in July, 1855, cer-
t,lxlse
tain deeds having reference to the estate that was
the subject of the present action were cotied in their
office, but he said he was unable to state whether
deeds were brought by Mr. W. Roupell, or
writniseavaLll7...Were
ethey he gave any instructions respecting them.
Thesep_rice of the work was debited to M. Roupell.
mfg!ant. Shee—Who paid for it ?
you present ?
then l
Mr. S. Aly father was, (A laugh)
zneall,hthe father of the last fitness, was
by his ca
lled,s stated that the wort mentioned
sonally, and all he knew
He could net 84,1f"by Mr. Willian Roupell.
however, that he wa paid per-
gr. Roupell generally bra that he pith, money.
himself,
the with himself,
and took it away
, and he had received
money from him personally in PaYment. Ho also