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

THE SUM LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 19, 1862.

I saw Richard Roupell the day he was born, and I
have known him ever since. He was born in the
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 times 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 their residence 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 wasr
Roupell,
ac-
quainted with the deceased Richard Palm
told
me mn d
wellha d
acquaintedn any
with
his transactions
handwriting.w.e th him.ile tldl
me once that he was not married, and he consulted
mTheisupwonas thsoeonpraofpterrietthy of his getting married.
death of his father. He
came to me end said that his father was a very
eccentric man, and if he had married during his
father's lifetime he would not have left him any
property. He said he had been living with a per-
son,e
and had a family by her, and his relations
advised him not to marry her, and he wanted my
advice about it, and I told him to get married to her
and to lose no time. I heard shortly afterwards
that he had followed my advice, and that he was
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 Sarab, 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 mere 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 IN as completed I ap-
plied to him during several months for the money,
and I was eventually paid on Aug. 1, 1856. 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 were given
by the deceased to his son William, to pay for the
land in question, and which were alleged 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-
tain deeds having reference to the estate that was
the subject of the present action were copied in their
?a,ce.., but he said he was unable to state whether
PO W
eliftather was.
Nthet'Zeds were brought by Mr. W. Roupell, or
The pri he gave any instructions respecting them.
Cp of
Ser t he Work was debited to Mr. Roupell.
geaut, sh
Mr. u„iii ee---Who- paid for it ?
Witness--M you You present ?
Mr. S.
nlleywbrought"
(A laugh.)
then called, and' hell: father of the last witness, was
by his son was paiatfarst...e(,),_ that the work mentioned
.4,,thutilkt he was paid per-
He could not say, ho "' u
RI lyo,uapnedii allge generally
weveY Mr.
William Roupell.
he got the money.
and took it away himself, antidi Work himself,
money from him personally in , no had ceived
rayruent. He 1
Asoinna
also

• proved that one of the entries in his books was a
cheque for copying a conveyance.
Mr. W. S. Po well was then recalled, and he
stated that he remembered that part of the work
that was done was copying a conveyance, and that
it filled 13 skins of parchment. He sail he also re-
membered that a deed of covenant was also copied,
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 court appeared to excite great sen-
sation. He said—l am the son of the late Richard
Palmer Roupell, and the brother of the plaintiff.
For some time before his death I lived at my
father's house 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 Mr. Treadwell for the purchase of a small
piece of land adjoining my father's property
at Roupell 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 I was authorised to offer £250 a-year for it
upon lease by the Unity Firi Insurance Company.
He knew I was connected with that company, and
that I 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
Roupell 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 really executed by 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,soo—that have
been produced. He gave them to me to pay for Mr,
Treadwell's land. 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 copies 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 becomicg 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 to have been called
as a witness.

Serg3ant Shee said that it appeared to him his
learned friend ought to have produced the deed.
After 801210 further technical discussion, 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.)
Ater some further legal argument, a deed was
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. ltoupell 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
mortgage deeds.
Shoe called for the production of the
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. Hunnersou, the
housekeeper, gave me the keys and I opened the
various drawers. I opened the private bureau where
I i
oft, knew his
will had been placed, and I took posses-
sionau- I secreted it. At the first opportunity
that offered I read it, and determined to du that
which before 1 had meditated—viz„ to secrete it.
The will comprised several sheets, and there was a
codicil on the back of the last sheet.
Sergeant Sbee—What did you do with that will?
Mr. 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 them. 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 inybrother Richard and another
brother. I prepared a short will, and wrote it o, n 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-

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 tips 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. S hee—Whose signature did you write last?
Mr. Roupell-1 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 you 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 or 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 t 6 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 Wm. 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 Ms 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
dayM.
r. 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 menths, 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, caled 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 he had two children, Elizabeth, aged five
years, and Clara, the deceased, aged 14 mouths.
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 I've 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
until her Majesty's pleasure should be known.

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 liope.—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 bebind. Both Ointment and Pills act by
casting out every thing morbid from both solids and fluids,
by purifying the blood, by regulating its distribution, by
reducing over nervous sensibility, and by giving tone.