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

TEES hitiNi Losnom TUBSDAY EV NI NO, AUGUST 19, 16111#

proved that one of the entries in his books was a
cheque for copying a conveyance.
Mr. W. S. Powell was then recalled, and he
stated that he remembered that part of the work
itthafituwedasl3dosnkeiowsa of p a conveyance, and that
ychment. He said he also re-
membered that a deed of covenant was also copied,
sc copying
as well as a plan of the property that was to be
conveyed by the deed, The whole number of deeds
that were so copied was five.
Mr. William Roupell was then called. His ap-

pearance in the conk appeared to excite great sen-
sation. Ile said—l am the son of the late Richard
Palmer Roupell, and the brother of the plaintiff.
For soma time before his death I lived at my
father's louse at Brixton, and I had chambers in
st. James's-square. I had been admitted as an
attorney in the year 1854. I had an elder brother
named John, who, on account of some misunder-
standing with his father, went abroad. I enjoyed
my father's confidence very much during the latter
part of his life. He used to sleep at his house in
Cross-street, Blackfriars-road, during the week, and
go to Brixton on the Saturday and remain till the
Monday. I knew he had property at Streatham
and at Kingston. I remember the negotiation
with Hr. Treadwell for the purchase of a small
piece of land adjoining my father's property
at Iteupell Park. Pending the negotiation
I spoke to my father about it, and proposed that he
should purchase it, and told him the price was £5,000,
and J was authorised to offer £250 a-year for it
upon lease by the Unity Fire Insurance Company.
He knew I was connected with that company, and
that ',was their trustee for a sum of money to be
invested in building. The sum was £50,000 that 1
had to invest. I had paid my father several thousand

pounds which I represented to be the rent of the
Roup3ll Park estate, and that it was paid by the
Unity Company. I also showed him a deed to ex-
plain how I had become trustee to this company. I
have not got that deed now. I burnt it about a year
and a-half after my father's death. The parties to
the deed purported to be the Unity Company, but it
was many executedby myself. Mr. Treadwell's piece
of land was contiguous to the Roupell Park estate,
and I recommended my father to purchase it, as
being an eligible increase to the Roupell Park pro-
perty. He ultimately gave me these two cheques—
one for £5OO and the other for £4,500—that have
been produced. He gave them to me to pay for Mr,
Treadwell'sland. The signature, " John Treadwell,"
on those cheques is not John Treadwell's.
Sergeant Shee—Whose is it ?
Mr. Roupell—Mine. (Sensation.)
Sergeant Shee—What did you do with the money ?
Mr. Roupell—l appropriated it to my own pur-
poses.
Examination continued—The terms for the pur-
chase of Mr. Treadwell's land were finally agreed to
soon after I received the money. After this tran-
saction I made a proposal to my father relating to
the Kingston estate. I think it was in June, 1855,
that this occurred.
Sergeant Shee—What was the proposal ?
Mr. Roupell—l proposed that he should let it to
the company to which he believed he had let the
Roupell Park estate, and I said they were partly
disposed to take the estate on a building lease, and
he replied that they might have it for five hun-
dred years. I said that they would require to
be satisfied as to the title being good, and that it
would be necessary to submit the title deeds of the
Kingston estate to counsel. I was aware that the
deeds were at my father's house, in Cross-street,
and he took them from the strong box and gave
them to me, and I signed an acknowledgment for
them. I told my father, at the same time, that I
thought all the deeds were not there, and it would
be as well to inquire of Messrs. Marson and Co.,
my father's solicitors, whether they had any deeds
relating to the Kingston property. I obtained pos-
session of the deeds, but I never took them to
Messrs. Marson and Co.
Sergeant Shee then proposed to read the acknow-
ledgment given by the witness to his father.
Mr. Bovill, however, before this was done put
some questions to Mr. Roupell, in answer to which
he said that when the deeds were placed on the
table before him, he at the same time signed the
paper that had been produced.
Examination continued—Messrs. Marson did
afterwards send some abstracts of title.
Sergeant Shee then again proposed to read the
receipt, but
Baron Martin said he thought the document was
not evidence, and he should therefore reject it.
The evidence was pressed, and Baron Martin ad-
mitted it, and the document was read. It was to
this effect :
"William Roupell this day takes the deeds re-
lating to the Kingston estate for Mr. Marson to in-
quire into the title."
Examination continued—The moment I obtained
possession of the deeds I took them to Mr. Powell,
law stationer in Parliament-street, to copy, and I
received them back afterwards, the conies and the
originals. I made the copies resemble the original
title deeds, and gave them to my father, and I after-
wards burned those deeds on the night before I left
England. I folded up the signatures, copied the
seals, and also the attestations. I took the real deeds
to my solicitors, Messrs. Whittaker's, in Lincoln's-
inn-fields. I had previously told them that my
father intended to convey the property to me, and
immediately I took them the deeds they commenced
preparing a deed of gift as from my father to me of
the Kingston estate. They gave me a letter to my
father and a draft of the deed, but I did not deliver
either of them to my father. I took the draft back
to Mr. William Whittaker and said that my father
approved of it, and told him to engross it. I then
caused a valuation of the estate to be made, and
after the deed had been engrossed I induced Mr.
Truman and another gentleman to attest my sig-
nature, but I put a piece of blotting-paper so as to
conceal the place where the name was, and I after-
wards added my father's name to the deed. My
father knew nothing whatever of this.
Baron Martin—Am I to understand that he
never, either before or after, authorised your plac-
ing his signature to the deed?
Mr. Roupell—Certainly.
Examination continued—The estate was after-
wards sold by the mortgagee, and I concurred in
the sale. After .the execution of the deed I in-
structed Mr. Whittaker to raise money upon it, and
he procured me a loan of £7,000. Part of this
money was expended for the purchase of Mr.
Treadwell's land, as he was becoming impatient for
his money. I was under great pecuniary pressure
at this time. I had mortgaged the Kingston estate,
and it was sold by the mortgagee to the defendant.
Mr. Bovill objected to this fact being taken as
proved.
Baron Martin said he thought there was evidence
that the Norbiton Farm estate was purchased by
the defendant. Mr. Whittaker was an important
witness, and the evidence went to show that he had
negotiated the sale, and he ought tohave been called
as a witness.
Sergeant Shee said that it appeared to him his
learned friend ought to have produced the deed.
After some further technical discusiion, Mr.
Bovill still declined to produce the deed, unless his
lordship decided, as a question of law, that he was
bound to do so.
Baron Martin said he should not do this.
Mr. Bovill then consented to produce the deed,
and he put in the supposed deed of gift of the de-
ceased to his son.
Baron Martin said he understood that the discus-
sion had reference to the deed to Waite. (A laugh.)
After some further legal argument, a deed was
I put in showing the conveyance of the estate to the
defendant.
Sergeant Shee then called for the production of
the deed of gift, and it was shown to the witness.
Mr. Roupell said—That is the deed 1 affixed my
father's signature to without his consent.
Sergeant Shee—Are the deeds that are referred
to in this instrument the same deeds that you took
from your father ?
Mr. Roupell—They are.
Sergeant Shee—Where did you last see these
deeds ?
Mr. Roupell—ln the Possession of Mr. Whittaker,
who was the solicitor for the mortgagee.
Sergeant Shee—When did you last see them?
Mr. Roupell—At the private residence of Mr.
Whittaker.
Sergeant Shee called for the production of the
mortgage deeds.
Mr. Bovill said he should not produce them.
They were proved to have been last in the posses-
sion of Mr. Whittaker.
Mr. Roupell was then further examined. He
said—l went to my father's house in Cross-street on
the morning of his death. Mrs. Hunnerson, the
housekeeper, gave me the keys and I opened the
various drawers. I opened the private bureau when
I knew his will had been placed, and I took posses-
sion of it, and I secreted it. At the first opportunity
that offered I read it, and determined to do that
which before I had meditated—viz„ to secrete it.
The will comprised several sheets, and there was a
codicil on the back of the last sheet.
Sergeant Shee—What did you do with that will?
Mr. Roupell—l burnt it at my father's house at
Brixton the night before I left England. Every
sheet of the will was signed by my father in the
way he signed all important documents, and it pur-
ported to assign certain gentlemen as trustees. I
was one of theni. Mr. Clark, Mr. Surridge, and Mr.
Richard Stevens were to be the other trustees. The
will was dated October, 1850, and the last codicil
was dated Aug. 31, 1856. The Kingston property
was divided between mybrother Richard and another
brother. I prepared a short will, and wrote it on a
blank form I had obtained with several others from
a law stationer in Gracechurch-street. I slightly
altered it to suit my purpose, and went to Mr. Mug..

b
geridge, a very old man, who was my father's rent
collector, and gave him £5 as for mourning, and ob-
tained his signature to a receipt. I copied this signa-
ture to a sheet of paper purporting to be an attesta-
tion to a will, and then forged my father's signature
to the will, and added my own attestation.
Sergt. Shee—Whose signature did you write last?
Mr. Roupell—l think it was Muggeridge's.
A document was here handed to the witness, and
he corrected himself and said he put his father's
signature last. He said that Muggeridge's signature
was very difficult to imitate.

Sergeant Shee—What pens did ycu use
Mr. Roupell—l wrote my father's signature with
his own quill pen and ink, Muggeridge's also with
a quill pen, and my own with a gold pen very
lightly, so as to offer as strong a contrast as pos-
sible to the other signatures.
Sergt. Shee—When did you write out this will ?
Mr. Roupell—Two er three days after the inquest
upon my father's body.
Examination continued—l believe I first showed
the will to Mr. Watts, the husband of my mother's
sister, on the day of the funeral, and on the same
day I showed it to Mr. Orme, the surveyor, and my
brother Richard. I then communicated with Mr.
Ring, my father's proctor, and left the will in his
possession. At first he appeared to think it was in-
formal, but he afterwards found it was quite correct.
The forged will was put in and read. It will be
sufficient to say that it conveyed the whole of the
testator's property to his wife, and made her and
the witness Win. Roupell executors and trustees to
carry the will into execution, and it revoked all for-
mer wills.
Mr. Roupell was then further examined. He said
—The will was not drawn up by me on the day it
bears date, Sept. 2. My father was very ill on Sept.
sth, and he continued to get worse until his death.
My mother was with him from this time until his
death at the house in Cross-street. No one was
aware of my intention to make this forged will.
Sergeant Shee—Did your mother know anything
of it ?

Mr Roupell—She did not
He then went on to state how his time was occu-
pied during the whole day on Sept. 2d, to show that
he had no opportunity of attesting the will on that
day.

Mr. Roupell, on being further examined, said
that he left England on the 30th of March, and
went to Spain, and the night before he left he
burned a great quantity of papers, at Aspen House,
the residence of his late father at Brixton, and
where he had himself resided since his death.

When Serjeant Shee sat down, Mr. Baron Martin
addressed Mr. Bovill, and said that if he pleased he
might postpone his cross-examination until the
morning.

Mr. Bovill said he should like to ask Mr. Roupell
one or two questions. He then asked him whether
he did not swear before the surrogate that the will
in question was a genuine one, and that the signa-
ture to it was his father's signature ?
Mr. Roupell—l am sorry to say I did.
Mr. Bovill—And did you then deliberately com-
mit wilful perjury ?
Mr. Roupell—ln a certain sense I did.
Mr. Bovill—Have you not wilfully and delibe-
rately perjured yourself, either to-day or upon that
occasion ?

Mr. Roupell made no answer.
Mr. Bovill then said he should postpone his
further cross-examination.
Mr. Baron Martin—The sheriff must take this
man into custody.
This was done, and the court then adjourned.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Aug. 18.
MURDER AT CHELTENHAM.
Elizabeth Hale, a domestic servant, aged 26, was
charged with the wilful murder of her child, aged
3 months, on the 21st of Jan. last.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Puller conducted the prose-
cution, and Mr. James defended the prisoner.
Mr. Cooke, having opened the case in a very
temperate address, called a number of witnesses,
who deposed to facts, of which the following is a
summary :
The prisoner had been in the service of Mrs.
Smith, of Brunswick House, Cheltenham, where
she had formed an improper connexion with some
person, and at the end of November, being in the
family way, she went to the house of a woman
named Est, where she was confined, on the 22d of
November, of a female child. She remained at Mrs.
Est's about a month after this, when she left (just
before Christmas-day) to go to her service again,
leaving the child in the care of Mrs. Est, and agree-
ing to pay her ss. a week for its maintenance. The
child remained with Mrs. Est until the 21st of
January, when the prisoner came to her, and, tell-
ing her she wanted to remove it to a nurse nearer
to her, took the child away. Mrs. Est dressed the
child in the usual way that children were attired,
and the prisoner asked to have some more of her
clothes sent to her next day. Accordingly more
clothes were sent, and three weeks later, when a
messenger was sent by Mrs. Est to the prisoner for
some money for the maintenance of the child while
under her care, she was asked how the child was.
She answered it was going on nicely. Nothing was
seen of the child after it was taken from Mrs. Est's,
and the prisoner remained in her situation up to the
sth of April, when the dead body of the child was
found in the scullery, shrivelled up, and with a
pocket handkerchief tightly tied across its mouth.
Suspicion then fell upon the prisoner, who being
challenged with it (having previously said that the
child was out at nurse with her mother), admitted
that the body was the body of her child. The
clothes sent by the nurse after the child was re;
moved by the prisoner were found in the prisoner's
box, and the child when discovered was proved to
be dressed precisely as it had been attired by Mrs,
Est when it was taken away.
A statement of the prisoner made before the
coroner was read. She said she had taken the child
from Mrs. Est's to place it with Mrs. Torkin, who
had told her she lived near the burying-ground,that
she could not find her,and that afterwards she found
the child was dead in her arms ; that she then tied
up its jaw with a handkerchief and put it in the
scullery at Mrs. Smith, where she thought no one
would be likely to find it, intending,when she went
away in the summer, to bury it.
Mr. James addressed the jury in a powerful
speech for the prisoner, contending that the evi-
dence was not sufficiently conclusive to convict the
prisoner of a charge which would lead to the for-
feiture of her life if substantiated.
His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to the
jury that there could be no question of concealment
of birth in this case. Either the prisoner was
guilty of murder or not guilty. He then minutely
examined the evidence that had been produced on
the trial.
The jury found a verdict of not guilty.
MURDER BY A FATHER.
James Roberts was arraigned for the murder of
his child Clara Roberts, aged 14 months, at Bristol,
on the Bth of May last.
Mr. Cooke conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Motteram defended the prisoner.
This was a melancholy case. The prisoner was
only 25 years of age, and was one of the heroes of
the Redan. He entered the army at 18 and went
to the Crimea, where, in the taking of the Redan,
he lost one foot, and returned home with a pension.
He then married, and at the time of the alleged
murder be had two children, Elizabeth, aged five
years, and Clara, the deceased, aged 14 months.
On the evening of May 8 last the prisoner was at
the house of his sister in Great George-street, Bris-
tol, with his wife. They left there in good spirits.
Ten minutes after the wife came back to the house
with the deceased child in her arms and leading the
other by the arm. Both were bleeding, and the
youngest appeared to be dying; she died next day.
It seemed that the prisoner, on arriving at home,
had gone upstairs, and with a poker had beaten the
children on the head as they lay in bed. The poker,
covered with blood, was found on the children's
pillow, on which blood was also visible. When ap-
prehended he said it was all owing to the drink and
his own bad temper, adding "I'd rather be dead
than lead the life rye been living." He had latterly
taken to drinking, and had sold some of his furni-
ture in order to pander to this indulgence.
The facts were undisputed. Mr. Motteram, for
the prisoner, resting his defence on the allegation
that the prisoner at the time when he struck his
children with the poker was not in a state in which
he could be considered responsible for his acts. It
was proved by the prisoner's father and mother that
he had been guilty of silly acts in his youth, and that
his grandfather and greatuncle had been insane.
Verdict—Not guilty, on the ground of insanity.
The prisoner was ordered to be kept in custody
1 until her Majesty's pleasure should be known.
13

TAKE OF HERRINGS--On two nights last week
there were such-immense shoals of herrings of the north-
east coast that the number brought into Whitby harbour
on the two following mornings amounted at a low compu-
tation to nearly 3,000,000 realising above £3,000.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.—
The Invalid's Hope.—ln wet and changeable weather
numerous diseases of the skin, complicated sometimes with
deeper and more serious maladies, appear in every district,
and if neglected or improperly treated produce the most
hideous disfigurements. Holloway's medicaments, ex-
tracted with the greatest care from the purest balsams,
may be used with the certainty of repelling or expelling the
long catalogue of skin affections which mar the happiness
of thousands. Pimples, flushes, erysiplas, boils, and car-
buncles readily yield to these remedies without leaving any
scar or blemish behind. Both Ointment and Pills act by
casting out everything morbid from both solids and fluids,
by purifying the blood, by regulating its distribution, by
reducing ever nervous ssizslbilith awl 1)y giving toot