The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, :WEDNESD A VE ING, AUGUST 20i 1262.

Mr. Bovill—How much money did you obtain
by fraudulent means in your father's lifetime ?
Mr. Roupell—About £70,000.
Mr. Bovill—Did your mother concur in these
proceedings ?
Mr. Roupell—Yes. I told her my father had, at
my request, made a will by which he bequeathed
her all his property. That he had previously, in
1850, made another will, in which he described me
as " my son called William Roupell," and that he
intended to revoke that will, and that my father
had given me instructions how to dispose of the pro-
perty, and that he trusted to her and myself to
carry out his wishes. This was partly true and
partly false. It was true that my father intended
to have revoked the will of 1850, and to make an
entirely new will, but he failed when he went in
August to Doctors' Commons in seeing the senior
proctor, and merely added a codicil. A few days be-
fore his death he said he must throw aside all delicacy
and " do it," and he then took me into his private
room up-stairs, opened his bureau, took oat his will,
opened that part where the codicil had been added,
and told me to write another codicil to his dicta-
tion. I commenced the reading of the codicil, and
he told me that as he apprehended there would be
great trouble in the management of his scattered
property, that he had resolved to secure to my
mother, brothers, and sisters a fixed allowance in
lieu of the property bequeathed to them by his will,
and that as I had proved myself in the conduct. of a
suit in which we had been engaged, and other
modes, that I was a capable man of business, or
something to that effect, he thought it would be
better to convey the whole of the property to me.
He then directed me to give by codicil to the mem-
bers of my family the rental of the Brixton estate
and the Roupell Park estate, which he believed to
be £3,250 per annum, but, allowing the deductions,
he thought there would. be about £3,000 a-year to
divide amongst the family. lie then commenced
describing how be wished the money to be divided
t hwaats taotoe
hwoeuarkotfot
the
troublet himselfw wa
si
ut hn
ptrhoe_
among the members, and I stopped him by saying
vtwhiidalettdalitewith witnesses, and I thought it would be
better not to disturb his existing will. My reason
for breaking off the matter was that he had selected
the Roupell Park estate, of which I was wrongfully
in.possession, as security for the family, and that
such a codicil would lead to the exposure of the
fraud I had committed.

Mr. Bovill—What part of the story you told your
mother was false P

Mr. Roupell—That part in which I represented
that my father wished her to have the whole of the
property.
Mr. Bovill—Then you did see this will of 1850
before your father's death ?
Mr. Roupell—l did, but I had no opportunity to
read it. I knew the main features of the will from
Mr. Ring, my father's proctor. He did not tell me,
the son, the contents of my father's will, but he is
an old, garrulous man, and I got the information
from him in the course of conversation. At the
time I had this conversation with my father I in-
tended to have destroyed the will the moment I
could get it into my possession.
Mr. Bovill—Without knowing its contents P
Mr. Roupell—Yes ; but I knew I was in wrong-
ful possession of several of the estates, and I was
satisfied. I was my father's favourite son for the
last three years of his life, and after I had com-
mitted these great frauds. My brother John
quarrelled with my father, and he had peremptorily
forbidden him the house. He went to the Cape of
Good Hope. I furnished him with the money to
get there. He had no visible means of subsistence
when he was in England. I never accused my
brother John of stealing £5OO and giving it to a
woman. I became my father's favourite son in
consequence of my good conduct as it appeared to
him, and as I wished to make it appear. He was
very fond of me, and said he thought I should be a
great man.
Mr. Bovill—And he would give you the means
of becoming so ?
Mr. Roupell—No. I did not expect that he
would leave me a large fortune at his death, but I
expected that he would make ample provision for
me. I thought he would leave me the Roupell
Park estate, and this induced me to some extent to
obtain possession of it by improper means.
Mr. Bovill—ln March, 1862, were not all your
available means expended ?
Mr. Roupell—Yes, unless I resorted to question-
able means to obtain money.

Mr. Bovill—Questionable ! you mean unques-
tionable.

Mr. Roupell—l had been defrauded and robbed
of my money, and in March, 1862, I could not go
on any longer.
Mr. Bovill—Without committing fresh for-
geries ?
Mr. Roupell—Yes. After I went abroad I be-
came awakened to the enormity of the sin I had
committed.

Mr. Bovill—lf all these deeds are enforced, are
not the whole of your family practically ruined ?
Mr. Roupell—There would have still been a ba-
lance of £lO,OOO or £ll,OOO, and also a settlement
upon my mother's settlement, but I am afraid the
value of the latter has been very seriously affected
by what I have done. The settlement was made by
my mother, myself, and my brother Richard in 1860.
Mr. Bovill—What, do you mean to say that the
plaintiff, and your mother, and yourself concurred
in this settlement in 1860 ?

Mr. Roupell—My mother was an unwilling party
to the proceeding.
Mr. Bovill—Then in 1860 you made this settle-
ment for the benefit of your family ?
Mr. Roupell—Yes.
Mr. Bovill—But, if I understand you aright, you
say that this settlement is involved by reason of
the forgeries that you have committed ?
Mr. Roupell—Yes.
Mr. Bovill—And if this action is successful, the
plaintiff will also get the £50,000 secured under
thi3 settlement ?

At this stage of the case a consultation took place
between the learned counsel on both sides, which
continued for a considerable time.

Baron Martin inquired whether there was any
probability of an arrangement being come to ?
Mr. Bovill said there was, but he should like to
put one or two more questions to Mr. Roupell. He
then asked him to state the particulars of the will
of 1850.

Mr. Roupell, in reply, stated that by the will of
1850, certain gentlemen were appointed as trustees
and executors, and he was to be one of them. His
father devised to his mother all the household fur-
niture, together with his shares in the Lambeth
Water Works Company, and the Alliance Marine
Company, subject to an allowance of £2OO a-year to
his brother John for his life. He also bequeathed
to her all the money in the house at the time of his
death, and the money deposited at the bankers.
He also devised to her the factory in Gravel-lane
and the stock in trade, also his houses in Cross-
street, and his ground rents in Hatfield-place, and
his copyhold property in Broadwall. He also de-
vised some leaseholds and his ground-rents in the
Cornwall-road. The Kingston estate was devised
to his brother Richard, the plaintiff, in fee, and in
the event of his not devising the property by will or
deed, it was to be divided at his death among the
surviving children. He also devised the Roupell
Park estate, with the exception of Aspen House, to
the plaintiff. Tne Roupell-street estate was devised
to witness, and he also directed by the will that he
should manage the estates and charge commission
for his services. The Warley estate was likewise
devised to his brother Richard.

Re-examined--The present solicitors for my
brother, Messrs. Linklater, never acted for me or
ever did any business for me.
Sergeant Shee—Did your mother or brother
know of the frauds you had committed ?
Mr. Roupell—They knew nothing of anything
being wrong until the night before I left England,
and I then told my mother and my brother that 1
had made some misrepresentation with regard to
the Warley property.
Sergeant Shee—Down to that period did either
your mother, or your brother, know of the frauds
you had committed ?
Mr. Roupell—They did not.
Sergeant Shee then addressed his lordship and
said, that these questions having been answered, he
had to inform him that he was in a position to
agree to a juror being withdrawn. He at the same
time said that the plaintiff and the defendant should
divide the price of the estate, and that the plain-
tiff would assist by all the means in his power to
give the defendant a proper title.
Mr. Bovill said, on the part of the defendant, he
had to consent to the terms stated by his learned
friend.

A juror was then withdrawn.
Baron Martin directed that Mr. Roupell should
be at once taken before a magistrate, and that the
Tlegeg deed of gift should be impounded, and pro-
uned in evidence against him.
This concluded the business of the assizes.

Mr. RoUVIZIY after th7aFournment of the court,
Irent,,,, •
33,Teefbiae to the county police
Mr. Newland and Mr.
station, in the conveyed
Parr, two inspecctustod
of the Surrey
feloniously forginarged um constabulary, and
WO formally et;aors
de the police-sheet with
de-
fraud. He describeftdeZtain
tied 31, late of Aspen Souse,
e with intent to
as .. • •
aged illiam Roupell,
In a short time the maouse, Brixton,
Elkins, and Mr. J. Wearr of chi. gentleman."
. e,
and
~,, lidtord Mr. E.
two of the borough justices, attendedivi% It NV. Adams,
of taking the examination of the prisoner,
for the me
bited the same calmness and self-
Ppriost'nerojouerp
characterised him all through the extraordinary
in-
quiry. The charge having been briefiraordinartynad
y Stated to 01

bench, Mr. Tongue, the associate, produced the deed
of gift that had been brought forward as evidence on
the trial before Baron Martin, and which had been
impounded by order of that learned judge. Mr. Ben-
ns
stated
hsahtohr short-hand
taken
writer,a
Was then sworn, and he
nnotes of the examination of
the prisoner on the previous day, and he said that he
heard him admit that the signature to this deed,
which purported to be the signature of his father,
was a forgery, and that he had himself forged it to
the deed, and that he had placed it there without
his father's knowledge or sanction. He also proved
that Baron Martin asked the prisoner whether he
was to understand that he admitted having forged
the deed, and he distinctly replied that he
had been guilty of that offence. The mayor inquired
of the prisoner whether he wished to put any ques-
tions to the witnesses who had been examined, and
he replied that he had nothing to ask them. When
the case had been completed, the chairman ad-
dressed Mr. Roupeli, and after giving him the usual
statutory caution, told him he was at liberty to say
anything he pleased in answer to the charge, but
that what he did say would be taken down in
writing, and might be used against him at his trial.
He replied that he should like to say a few words,
and he then made the following statement to the
bench :—" I wish simply to say that I voluntarily
left a place where I was in perfect safety in Spain,
for the purpose of returning to England to make
the statement that I have done in this cause, and I
returned quite openly. I was recognised in Rich-
mond church on Sunday, the 10th inst., and again
in the afternoon of the same day on the public pro-
menade, between Richmond and Kew Gardens. I
don't wish to say anything more." He was then
asked whether he would sign the statement he had
made, after it had been taken down in writing, and
he readily consented to do so, and signed the paper,
after which he was fully committed to take his trial
at the Central Criminal Court, within which juris-
diction the offence was committed. Upon the pri-
soner's own statement, he has rendered himself
amenable to the charges of perjury and forgery, and
also of fraudulently making away with deeds that
were entrusted to him for a specific purpose ; but in
all probability the only charge that will be pro-
ceeded with will be the forgery of the deed of gift,
and if he should be convicted of that offence he is
liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for life.

THE EXTRAORDINA.RY BREACH OF
PROMISE CASE.

THOMAS V. SHIRLEY.

It will be in the recollection of the public that
an action for breach of promise, brought by a young
lady named Annie Thomas against Gen. Shirley,
was tried at the Lewes Assizes on the Ist of August
last, when a verdict for the defendant was returned,
and that there was another action brought by
the same plaintiff against the defendant, to re-
cover upon a contract he was alleged to have
entered into, and which was contained in the fol-
lowing letter, dated the 27th of May, 1862;—
"Tuesday Evening.
" My Dear Annie,—Recollect, if you please, that
my promises to you of twelve months since have
all been cut short and annihilated by your own
conduct—conduct which, I must again remind you,
was dishonourable—unworthy of you in every way,
and which completely and for ever destroyed all
confidence and the feelings which I had previously
entertained for you. But for this, you might, and
would still, have been the inmate of my house and
the idol of my heart. If the wide world stares you
in the face, ask yourself whose fault is it ? Do not
for one moment suppose that I shall make any set-
tlement; this you may be sure I never will. I will
allow 10s. a week for your child ; but more than
this I will not promise. I will come and see you on
Thursday, but I must see your book, and how you
have expended the money I gave you, before I send
you any more. Why did you not send me your
book, as I requested, with your expenditure on one
side and your receipts from me on the other ? This
would have been satisfactory and straightforward;
but you have not been so to me lately. Recollect
your own conduct in the past, and do not blame
me. Recollect also your sly and cunning conduct
in getting one of your lawyer friends to write to
me an annoying and offensive letter. I will, how-
ever, do all that is kind to you, and more than you
deserve, as in reality you have long since forfeited
every claim on my protection, and a person who
opens letters and reads them—and you did—with-
out my knowledge and consent, commits a crime
against all social and moral laws, even if it be not,
as I think it is, a felony. I will say no more on
the hateful subject. lam ill, and much dispirited,
and the more I think of your dishonesty the more
sick at heart it makes me.—Adieu.—Your still
sincere and kind friend, " ARTHUR."
After the verdict in the first case it was suggested
by the learned judge who tried the case that the
action for necessaries should be referred, and the
present proceedings resulted.
The meeting of yesterday was held at the Law
Institution, under the order of reference made by
Mr. Baron Bramwell. Miss Thomas was repre-
sented by Mr. Lewis, jun. (Lewis and Lewis, Hat-
ton-garden); Gen. Shirley appearing by Mr. Pawle,
of New-inn; Mr. Wm. Patchet was the sergeant
appointed as arbitrator.
Mr. Lewis, in opening the case, said it was an
action brought by the defendant for necessaries sup-
plied to the illegitimate child of the defendant, and
also upon several contracts, verbal and otherwise.
It would be affectation to suppose the arbitrator had
not heard of the facts of the case, which the learned
gentleman recapitulated. Referring to some obser-
vations that had been made elsewhere, he stated
that the 2d June, when they visited Scotland toge-
ther, was three weeks after the first acquaintance,
and a fortnight after the promise of marriage. The
first item was fbr goods purchased at Waterloo
House, amounting to £l6, and she then wanted to
buy her wedding dress there, to which the General
made some objection. They went to Ireland, where
he had promised to marry her, and returned thence
to Brookside Lodge. In Jan., 1862, she being in the
family way, Gen. Shirley was found in Miss West's
bedroom, and sending that young lady away, she
had such a conversation with the General as led her
to think he did not mean to marry her. She came to
town and took lodgings by defendant's directions at
36,Albany-street,Regent's-park, on the 15th March,
1862, and she was confined on the 28th March,
1862. The total amount sought to be recovered was
£169 175,, less £3O paid on account, and the first
item in the account was £3 a week for herself, and.
30s. a week for the nurse and child. Mr. Lewis pre-
ceeded to challenge Gen. Shirley to come into the
box, when he would get from that gallant officer
such particulars as would prove no enviable faci s.
Mr. Pawle, on behalf of Gen. Shirley, objected to
such statements, and the arbitrator ruled that Mr.
Lewis might ask questions of witnesses, but that it
would not be desirable to make statements, unless
they could be substantiated.
Mr. Lewis said he should content himself by
daring General Shirley to get into the witness-
box, and content himself on the part of the plaintiff
by proving the facts sufficient to prove the case.
He should, however, put in several letters written
by the General, and call for Miss Thomas's replies,
which would put beyond doubt the intentions of
the defendant, as stated by him, but which his after
conduct had terribly belied.
Mr. 1 ewis then called Miss Thomas—l am the
plaintiff in this action. I have been governess for
some years. I have been governess in Mr. Charles
Few's family. I then inherited £3OO. I afterwards
went to Paris, and from thence to the family of Mr.
Pinnock, in St. John's-wood. I afterwards (the 21st
of May, 1861), put an advertisement in the paper,
and received an answer by letter on the following
day from the defendant, and on the 23d he came
himself and said he was a colonel in the army, was
a widower and of some position in society. He said
he resided at Rugby. He pressed me to make up
my mind and at once accept terms. He called the
next day and said he was frequently visited by his
sister Lady Heather. I refused, because I did not
wish to go into the country. The next day, after
his pressing me and paying me some attention, I
went with him to Mr. Kirkman's, in Oxford-street,
to purchase a pianoforte. He proposed marriage to
me, and asked me to dine with him that afternoon.
He wished that proposal to be kept quiet from his
friends for some time. At that time I was quite
alone. I had no relatives to consult or advise. I
was to write and let him know whether I accepted
the proposal. I accepted it at once. I afterwards
dined with him at Greenwich, as we were_ engaged
to be married.

Mr. Lewis here called for defendant's letter of the
2d of June to plaintiff, the production of which was
refused.

Mr. Lewis then read one of the General's letters,
with regard to which the following questions were
asked :

Mr. Lewis—With reference to his proposal to a
trip to the sea-side, what reply did you make ?
Plaintiff—l said I would not go unless as his
wife.

Mr. Lewis—Was there not in this letter some
affection P

Plaintiff—There was some affection in it.
Mr. Lewis—Did you answer all his letters ?
Plaintiff—l did.
Mr. Lewis—When did he promise or propose to
be married ?

Plaintiff—On the 15th of June.
Mr. Lewis—Was not the 10th of June the day
he invited you to Blackwall, and took you there ?
Plaintiff—Yes; and I wanted to leave for home,
when he told me there was no train. _

Mr. Lewis—And thi-niiht he effected your
ruin ?

PlAintiff—Yes.

Mr. Lewis—You then, I believe, came up to the
Norfolk Hotel ?

Plaintiff—I did, and I was told by the defend-
ant to take the name of Shirley until my marriage,
which was to take place on the 15th June.
Mr. Lewis—You were then asked to go to Rugby,
where you were to change your name ?
Plaintiff—Yes ; I was asked to go to Brookside,
Rugby, where he informed me that 1 was to use my
own name (Miss Thomas) until our marriage, and
we were then to go to Ireland. Ho gave me autho-
rity to go to Waterloo Hoase and buy clothes. I
bought them, to the amount of £l6, before I went
to Rugby. He did not fulfil his promise to marry
me. I pressed him to do so, but he made constant
excuses. Soon after I got to Rugby I had to come
to town to purchase some things, and I after wards
received the following letter from him :
" 22d May, 3 o'clock.
"My Dear Annie—Troubles and worrits of one
sort and another have prevented my calling on you
to-day, as I had wished to do ; I will not, however,
leave you without funds, and I herewith enclose
you two £5 notes, which I hope you will receive in
safety. Pray write to me and direct your
letter here, and it will be forwarded to
me. I leave town in half an hour, and shall be
away for two or three weeks, or perhaps
more. lam nearly driven mad by it all. I will
write to you through my club porter, or some other
friend, but my whereabouts must not be at present
known. Kiss the baby for me, do the best you can
for yourself, and believe me ever,
Yourz truly attached,
" ARTHUR."

While we were at Rugby Miss West came to stay
with me. I sent her from the house a day or two
after she arrived, as I found General Shirley in her
bedroom. I had a violent quarrel with him, and
never after was on good terms with him. I after-
wards found out he was a married man living
saparate from his wife, and got only coarse and
vulgar language in reply, which was nothing un-
usual. I was then in the family way. On the
15th of March I came up to London in consequence
of a letter I opened that was directed to him in
another name from a lady, to whom I wrote and
told her his right name. He said I should leave
his house ; and I did so. About the Ist of March
he gave me £2O to buy baby linen and also house
things. I bought baby linen to the amount of £9,
and other things that cost £6, and he took back
from me £5, From the moment I went down to
Rugby, in June, 1861, until I came up to London,
about the 15th of March, 1862, he never gave me a
single shilling of other money. He never supplied
me with any clothing except some that I purchased
at a shop at Rugby. He authorised me to get
things at a shop in Rugby, and he would pay me
for them, and I got goods to the amount of £ll, of
which I paid nearly £8 out of my own pocket. The
other £3 has not been paid, and I am, I suppose,
liable. He authorised me to buy a riding habit,
of Underwood, of Vertastreet, and said he would
pay for it. He has never done so. It cost £ll.
When I came to town, on the 16th of March, he
authorised me to take lodgings, and I told him the
price was £1 ss. a week. I continued to live there
up to the action being brought, the 30th of June.
I also paid for firing 2s. 6d. per week. After I
came to London he gave me authority to buy about
£lO worth more baby linen, as the £9 worth was
not sufficient. I bought a chair for 65., for which I
paid, and also a hood and cloak for £4 10s. He told
me to purchase all those. I engaged a monthly
nurse, and he said I was to pay her, and he would
pay me again. I paid her £8 1 ls., that was £5 ss.
accouchement fee and £3 6s. for other attendance. I
put down the cost of the child's food, &c., at ss. a
week. The child was born on. the 28th March.
That makes £3 15s. The lodgings would be
£2O 12s. 6d. for 15 weeks. He said he would allow
me £3 a week for the support of myself and nurse,
That for 15 weeks is £45. All the money I had
was expended during my confinement, and he only
gave me £3O, of which one £5 note referred to in a
letter was for the nurse, and another for the doctor.
The doctor's bill was £11155., of whichl paid £5 ss.
Mr. Lewis (to the arbitrator)—The balance he
was paid four days before we went down to Lewes.
Witness's examination continued I bought
clothing after I came to London to the amount of
£l6 10s. I have kept myself, my child, and nurse
ever since that time, and have never had a single
shilling from defendant. In confirmation of the
statement that I wanted clothing, I wrote him the
following letter :
" Dear Arthur,—l should have spoken to you
this evening, but as you so readily accused me of
being in a bad temper, I will not trouble you by
mentioning that which Ishould have done, Isimply
ask you to give me money, or allow me to buy some
warm clothing. I am—which you know—wearing
at the present time a summer bonnet and cloak ;
setting aside my having no clothes to wear in the
house. Would you like one of your sisters to have
been deceived, and treated as I have been the last
few months? When you are enjoying yourself on
Christmas Day, think what happiness you have de-
prived me of. There are two questions which I must
beg of you to answer before leaving to-morrow. Ist.
Do you intend to carry out your promise in marry-
ing me ? 2d. Is it your intention to send me from
here for my accouchement ? If you do not, I shall
at once place the whole affair in the hands of my
solicitor, for I can no longer go on in this uncertain
way. I shall be sorry to injure you by an exposure,
but I must do so, and disclose all, unless there is a
change very soon. I do hope, whatever may happen
that you will remember your child, and never de-
ceive any other virtuous girl as you have me.. lam
sorry all my efforts are in vain to please you. Good
night. May God forgive you as willingly as I
would, if bonourable.—Yours sincerely,
" ANNIE."
He had the letter in his hand that evening, and
came and swore at me, and said he would give me
50 £5 notes if I would only keep quiet.
By Mr. Pawle—£3o is all the money I ever re-
ceived from General Shirley.
Examination continued—The laundress's bill was
£5 55,, which I have paid. There is £2 14s. to a
dressmaker, which is not paid, and there is £1 10s.
which I paid to a cook for a month's wages. After
my confinement he asked me to return to Rugby,
and take my child, and there I should have to live
with him as his mistress, and 1 declined to do so. I
begged him to put me in a position to get my own
living, and he said he was not rich then, and was
going abroad to recruit his finances. I received
from him a letter, dated 15th May. 'The letter
was as follows :

" Thursday, 5 o'clock, May 15, 1862.
"My Dearest Annie,—l had hoped to have been
with you this afternoon, but in consequence of a
telegraphic message which I have just received, I
am compelled to be off immediately to the country.
Write me a line to the United Service Club, and my
letters will be forwarded to me, and let me know
what we have decided on doing. I shall not be in
town again till after the sale of my horses, on Thurs-
day next, at Birmingham, as I am advised to keep
out of the way for a few days, and am therefore not
going to Rugby. I have advertised it for sale, or to
let, as I told you yesterday, and I hope to have it
soon off my hands. Take your child and your nurse
and go to Brighton, or anywhere else a short stay
from town to the seaside, and let me know whether
I can write to you.—Adieu, and ever believe me,
yours, "A. S."

After that letter he withheld his address from me,
and told me to write to him through the porter at
the club. He shortly after told me to do the best
I could for myself. He wrote to me as follows on
the 16th of May :
" Friday, May 16.

" My dear Annie,--Yours of Tuesday his been
forwarded to me. You must make the best arrange-
ment in your power with the old nurse as to taking
Miss Tomlin and keeping her, and then, you most
endeavour to do something for yourself. It must
be clear to you that in the present state of my
finances I cannot go on supplying you with money
at this rate. You have now had more money
than I can afford; and this has only been done by
pinching myself very closely, and you must leave
your present lodgings and get into cheaper ones,
which I wished you to do long ago. 255. a week is
very high for you to pay, and was only charged for
recompensing the people of the house for the extra
trouble of your confinement, &c., and there are many
nice and more comfortable apartments to be had for
much less money, and in more healthy and more
quiet parts in the suburbs of London. For the fu-
ture you must limit your expenses and those of your
child to £2 per week, which I will endeavour to
send you regularly. But even this is more than I
can afford, and I shall have to screw hard to send
it to you. Let old nurse take the child as soon as
you can wean her ; and then pray look out for some
employment for yourself till my affairs are more
settled, and I may be in a position to do more for
you, if I am compelled to go abroad, for my income
is now very very much reduced,
and the very
utmost I can allow you, for self and child, will be
£lOO a year, to commence from this time. Adieu.
I hope some better times may come. Consult with
Mrs. Morgan as regards her taking Rosaline, and,
in the meantime, believe me, yours affectionately,
"ARTHUR."
Notwithstanding that letter, I never had the £2 41
week referred to, and I have since supported myself
and the child. I have never had a shilling from him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pawle—l lived with Mr.
Atkinson about five years ago. I received my £3OO
in 1859. After leaving Mrs. Pugh I went to Paris,
and returned to England in March, 1861. and then
went to Mrs. Pinnock's. When I first met General
Shirley he told me who he was. When he asked
me to go with him to Rugby as his housekeeper I
objected, and he then told me he had several female
relatives who Tisited, him, IJ mos hire the second"