(Before Mr Baron Martin and a Special Jury.) ROUPELL AND OTHERS v. WARTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 269, 30 October 1862, Page 5

(Before Mr Baron Martin and a Special Jury.) ROUPELL AND OTHERS v. WARTE.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the eldest legitimate sju of the late Richard Palmer Itoupell, suim? as heir-at-law of liis father, to recover an estate called Norbiton Park estate, at Kingston, in this county. The defendant claimed the property under a deed of conveyance from William ltoupel!, the testator's eldest but illegitimate son, who iiad been supposed to hold under a deed of conveyance from his father, dated July, 1855. ' Mr Serjeant Shee, Mr Lush, Q.C., and Mr J. Brown were for the plaintiff the heir-at-law ; Mr Boviil, Q. 0., Mr Howkins, Q.C., and Mr Garth weie for the defendant, the purchaser under the illegitimate son, the late member, claiming under the dee iof July, 1855, alleged to have bean forged; Mr Denman, Q.C., Mr Raymond, Mr Honyman, and Mr Lefevre watched the case on the part of other persons interested in other dispositions of the property of the testator, the genuineness of which were denied. At the outset of the ease one or two preliminary struggles took place. When Mr Serjeant Shse rose to open the case, Mr Bovill claimed the right to begin, admitting the heirship of the plaintiff. Mr Baron Martin said he was well aware that ifc had been held that in a suit by a devisee against the heir, the devisee admitting the heirship, was entitled to bepn. But here the defendant claimed under a deed of conveyance, and he was not aware that it had been held that a grantee had the same right in this respect as a devisee. Mr-Bovill admitted that he was not aware that it had ever been so held, and Mr Serjeant Shee pointed out that, as the defendant would deny that the testator was seised of the estate when he died, he was not at all in the same position as a devisee. The learned Baron thereupon ruled that the counsel for the heir was entitled to begin. Mr Boviii then applied to have it ordered that the witnesses on both sides withdraw from the court, and the learned judge so ordered. The witnesses on both sides then withdrew. Mr Serjeant Shee then rose to state the case on the part of the principal plaintiff, the heir at law, and spoke as follows :—The circumstances of the case are of much n+ore than the usual interest and importance. It is a case in which not only the rights and interests :of property to a large amount, but the character and i perhaps the liberty of a gentleman vrho has lately : filled a prominent position before th^ public eye are deeply and hopelessly involved. Gentlemen, the principal plaintiff in this case, Mr Richard Roupell, claims this estate as the heir-at-law of the testator, his late father, The defendant claims to hold it under a deed of conveyance from Mr William Roupell, the natural brother oi the plaintiff, executed in.July, 1861. And the title of Mr William Roupell to convey to the defendant depends on the validity of a deed purporting to have been executed to him by his father in July, 1855, Gentlemen, the title of the defendant cannot be proved without producing that deed, and I undertake to prove that it was a forgery, and a forgery by Mr William Roupell. But again, gentlemen, the title of the plaintiff could be. defeated by a will devising the estate to other persons than himself, and after the death' of his father a will was set up by Mr "William Roupell, purporting to have been the last mil of his father, disposing of whole of the property

lo bis mother. Gentlemen, I shall prove that that will—the will of the 2ud of September, 1856—is a forgery, and a forgery by Mr William RoUpell. Gentlemen, my case on the part of the plaintiff, the neir-nt-law, is a very simple one. I shall prove jliat he is heir at-law of his deceased father, and that be oro the will 1 have mentioned there was another will in his favor; and lastly, that the will of the 2nd faepteuiber, 1856, was a forgery, and a forgery 'by \Villiamßoupeh, his natural brother. Gentlemen, the late Mr liieliard Pa'mer lloupcll, whom I will call the testator, had spent a long life in the business of a cad smelter, and had a factory in Gravel-lane, iJlackiiiars, close to Doctors-commons, and .- residence in Cross street, in the immediate neighborhood. He had also a house at Brixton; called Aspen-house, nt which his wife and family resided, and he was in the habit ot going to Aspen-honse every Saturday afternoon, and returning to Cross-street ou Monday inornnig, where he. slept on the other nights of the wee*. By the lady whom he left a widow lie had .our children—John, William, Sarah, and Emma— who were born before the 6th of December, ]838 when tie married her, and who were consequently il e<>iti mate. After lie married her ho had a fifth child, a son Richard KoupHl) the principal plai.it.iff, who was horn on the Js/th of July, 1840. Gentleinen.-^-He had amassed in the. coime of bis life a very Jarre fortune and was po.^essed of personal property to the amount °« al?foS? 00" He l)a' ] also invesfea somewhSe aoout L20,0G0 m an estate in this county (the one now iii question) and also estates in E«sex and Hampshire, and in London, Southward, and lambeth. All these estates had fnequently, during the last 16 years of his life, been the subject of disposition by wills prepared by Messrs Rings, respectable proctors, in Doctor's Commons, whose office was within five minutes' valk of his residence, aud in whom he appears to have reposed unbounded confidence. Gentlemen he executed a will prepared by them in March 1839, and a codicil to that will in December, and -uother codicil m January, 1840. He executed another will prepared by them, of the date of the 9th of October, 1640, throe months after the birth of the plaintiff' hw only legitimate child, and by that will he devised, among other estates, the one now in qu s tioii to trustees for his use. -On the 10th of October ih'oQ, he executed another wil, prepared also by Messrs Ring, and by that he disposed of all his property, devising it to trustees, some portion for one cinld, some for another—and hn devised to the plaintilr, his sou, the estate in question, along with several olhcr estates (nearly all liis property hi this county) to trustees for the use of bis s m, the present plaintiff' He appears to have been contented with that will uniil December, 1855, when one of the trustee* a Mr liugues, died, and he desired to substitute two other persons, named Clark and Surridce, as trustees in. his piacc, mul altered his will fur that purple On the 3'Jfh of August, 1858, jnst 12 days before his death, he went to the offica of the Messrs Rinii the proctors, takinsr with him a 'memorandum of liistruHion? fora codicil, inserting the names of Clark and Surndge as trustees and legatees. Accordingly ou that day, the 30th of August, a codicil was pve' pared by the proctors upon his in-tmctions. which ran thup, and which you will gee confirmed, as bis iastwiil the wiil of October. 1850 : "Codicil to the last will and testament of October, 10,1550. Whereas by tin 1 said will, I appointed my wife, Sarah Koupell/and mv son, William itoupell, mil also Patrick Hutrhes excu'prs and trustees of my said will ; and whereas the «ud Hughes has dic;l," &c,, "I do hereby appoint James burndge and William Clark to bo executors and trustees of lr.y said will and guardian of mv minor children, along with my said wife and my said sou, William Koupell," ic. And then it went on to give a f.;w small money legacies to the two new trustees and other peisons whose names were mentioned Gentlemen, it is clear that on that day, the 30fh of August, 185G, the ttstatov meant to confirm in -ill mnteiiai particulars, tha will of the 10,'h October, I6:j\), Gentlemen, by tliat will the property in question was devised to the trustees named in the will to the use of Mr Richard Ron pel I, the plaintiff in this cause. And there are several smaller circumstances m addition to those which I have stated, which show that at that date, on the 30th of August, 1856 and for some days afterwards, the testator believed that he was possessed of this estate, and meant it for his son, the plaintiff. A very few days before his death 113 X c P nt over the KinSston farm in company with his baihif, a man named West, and said he felt that his end was not far off, "and when I am gone" he added, " you will have to manage this property for my son Richard." Again, the day after he had executed the codicil, he went, as was his wont, to his house at Bmton, and next day he was visited by Mr Sumdge, who was one of the substituted trustt es • and next day, Monday, the Ist September Mr Sumdge visited him, and he toid Mr Surridce that he had appointed him one of his trustees. ft\.\v, geutlemen, I shall prove by other circumstances that he had not at that time the smallest doubt that the Kingston property was at his entire disposal. West his bailiff, managed it to the last moment of his life, and he received from him the proceeds of the property and the rente of the houses built upon it. In short iv every possible way in which he could indicate that the property was his own the testator^indicated that the Kingston estate was his, and that he had done nothing to prevent him disposing of it. But, p-entle-men, that estate had been dealt with, and persons had, as they supposed, acquired interests in it through tiie fraud of another person—his natural sou, Wm. Roupel!. Gentlemen, I shall satisfy you that, at the end of 183-t he was in great pecuniary difficulties. He had become involved in pecuniary transactions with an uncle of his, a Mr Watts, the husband of his mother's sister. He must have lived in a most extravagant way, for there is no question that in 1855 hewasmuch pressed by his creditors, and was greatly in want of money. There was a small property in the immediate neighborhood of another property of his father's, called the RoupeU-park estate. That small property belonged to a Mr Tread well, and in January, 1855*, Wrn. lloupell agreed with him to purchase it for LSOOO. Now, at that time the testator believed that the Unity Fire Insurance Company ha/1 appointed William lloupell (who had been admitted as an attorney) trustee of a building fund of the amount of L 50,000, and the testator believed that they had become lessees of the lioup-]l--park estate at a rent of L 2750 a-year, and intended to expend 150,000 upon it, and that William lloupell was acting as trustee of the lease for the company, and managed it as such. The testator believed tbat it had become lea&ed to the company from April 1851, and after that he considered that he was only lessor, and that the company were in possession of it, William Eoupell being then trustee of it. I have mentioned this to explain to you the circumstances under which a portion of the property in question was dealt with by William Roupell. He went to his father and told him that he could get this small property for L 5.000, that the Unity Company would pay L 250 a-year for it and that thus it would increase the entire rental of the Koupel!-park estate to L 3.000 a-year. The testator agreed to purchase it, and on the 16th of January, 1855, gave William Roupell a check for LSOO. drawn in favor of Tread well or bearer, and on the 25th of January gave him a check for L4,5( .)0 for the remainder of the purchase-money. Now, I shall show that the check for LSOO was paid into the Union Bank to the account of Mr Watte, with whom William Roupell had pecuniary dealings.and was applied by William Roupell to his own use, andthat the check for L 4.500 was taken by him to the Bank of England, where he had an account, and was paid in to the credit of his account. And I shall further show you that Trrsdwell never received a farthing of the money, and that his name, endorsed on the checks, was a forgery, and a forgery of William Roupell. Gentlemen, he had agreed positively to complete the purchase on. the Ist of August, 1855, and he resolved on this mode of raising the money—he resolved to raise it on the Norbiton Park Estate of his father, and he went about it thus :—He told his father that the Unity Company would not take a building lease of the property without being satisfied as to thetitle, and suggested that the title-deeds should be looked at. His father, who had unbounded confidence in Jdm, got the deeds out of his strong box, and William Roupell said they were not all there, and that some were missing : and he suggested that Marson and Dadley, the solicitors who had acted for him in the purchase, might possibly have the missing deeds, and that the best way would be to send them the deeds lie had, and let them search for the rest, and that then the deeds should ero to the attorneys of the Unity Company for examination. To this the testator assented, and there is this memorandum in his handwriting in a book kept by him—" 16th July, 1855.—William Roupell this day takes the conreyances of the Kingston estate to Marson and Dadley to inquire after the title deeds, and afterwards to see the lawyers for their opinion as to the title." Gentlemen, William Koupell took away tk) deeds under that pretence; but he never went near Marson and Dadley, and did not take the deeds to them, but to one Powell, a law stationer in Parliamentstreet, on that very day, and desired him to prepare at once, on parchment, duplicates of all the deeds to be ready on the 19th of July. In the meantime, he applied to Mr Foster, an auctioneer and valuer, to obtain a valuation, and went with him and the bailiff' West, over the Kingston estate. He managed to get I a valuation to the amount of L 15,000. The duplicate I deeds were received from the law stationers on the 19th of July, and William Eoupell took them at once to a solicitor named Whitaker (whom I hope we shall see in the witness-box T>efore this case is over) aud, : handing to him the original deeds (the counterfeit ones he wanted for his father's strong box) told Mm to prepare at once a deed of giftTrqm his fother to himself. Whitaker at once engaged to do so, and the draught was prepared and sent to, William Boupell for his approval, and was at once retnrned by him approved, with orders to engross the deed. The

deed was accordingly engrossed, and sent to William Koupe I for execution by his father. He saw Mr Wliitaker about that time, who told him that as the £?E?T f° If Wfis t0 such uses as h« "4S &~ J f f ted by two appoint, two 1 w-n le ?, Gd Of .PPP^utrr.ent and gift. Gentlemen William. Jioupell forged his father's signature to that deed. He then took the deed to A^n House, and haying sent for two respectable persons named Trueman and Dove asked them to attest his Zn sgnalure to «he deed. He P at the document before them, covering the attestation clause (or com - it m some way) so that they should not see what it was they were really attesting They wrote their names under the attestation clause, by which they purported to atte.-t the .signature not only of William Roupell but of his f ther. Gentlemen, I will call them before you, and they will swear that the sjo-, n tnres are theirs, but that they never saw the testator execute that deed. He then, to prevent any suspicion arising in the mind of his father, put the counterfeit deeds, which he had got/brt.e purpose, into Ins father s strong box, Laving forged to them the names or a! I iii« eouveym.a paitiesin the other deeds. Mr Whvak.'x tuen nppliod to a client <-i his named JDoudas, who hud money to laid, and on the 29:hof 4u»usfobtained a loan of £7,000 on tiie security of the forced » i-nf; t0 V!'i likuu Koupell; and on Uie n«t day LoOuU was paid to Tread well, and L2OOO the residue of the money, was retained by William Roupell. Gentlemen, the estate in lSo'l having been aftenvards sold to the defendant, he is in possession of that forged deed of gl ft to William Roupdl. The proof that it is a forgery will be infinitely stronaer taauthe mere opinion ofexpeitsas to the (•ewuiuene« ot handwriting To defend himself against this action, however, the defendant must produce and rely upon that deed ; and whenever it is produced I undertake to saifcty you that I, vo,,i nil doubt k is a ioigeiy. Gentlemen, William k,;u;. ; !1 by this lorn retrieved his difficulties, but he was hopelessly involved: he had chums upon Jiim which it was* impossible to meet, and in January. 18JG, it became necessary for him to resort to some other expedient. if w" vr I US ,J athei > ita(i a P»-»perty in Ess,* Ll2 000, and was determined to raise it upon that estate _ Accordingly he act the title deeds and leases trom his father, and had counterparts made o( the leases (witn this diifcrencc, that he increased the rents considerably.) li e tlu-n forced his father's si--' nature t» the dccl of r.iffc of that cslato to Inmseit. He pot Mr Whitakcr Hgain to prepaie that deed and gave him the counterfeit, counterparts • and Mr Wlii taker, with the fur^d deed of }>ift and t!ie counter-t-it leases, got a valuation of the est-it* at LlB OUO and borrowed Llo 000 upon it for William itmvpell'. £\o\v, gentlemen, I have no desire to antk-ii-ittti your judgment upon the conduct of Mr Whuuk'er hut I am oWif-vnl to tell you tluir, thontr!i at this time Uilham lloupi-H was only 25 years ofa?.\ and his fath'r was d.uily visible in his housa in. Cross-street Mr Wmtakei1 had no communication with him. 'The tiling was all done on the faith an.i ]vi lvlmmvou the hi n-:sty and integrity of William Koupell. . Mr Whit nkcr doss not seem to have had any suspicion of anything wroiitf about it. This, tJicn was the poj-iihui of VJilmm iloupcllat the beginning of the year l& r/j i\otlung occurred in tlsat year until All'-., to reli.vo bun from his increasing embarrassments. He did not seem to have had the least knowladee that his father had executed a will, or that h« was that month propound t-> execute a c did! coiiiinniug it. as I have already mentioned. <ienthjmen, on (be 12lli of September, )Boli, hh father died. Notice of t!:n death was at once sent to Aspr.n House, where \Vil!i.- m lloupeil and bis inot'ner at that time resided, and they came at once to-eiher to t!ic lunise in Ci-<.--s-s:re<ir and saw the housekeeper, whoi.ro:! need the keys of the testator. Mrs lloupoli iietKclf was overwlipiiued with l?rief, and declined to go upstairs to thy bedroom uf her deceased husband, and s-he gave the keys *o William Koupell. her son. He after a short "time went and examined the strong box, or saf-, of the testator, and afterwards went to his father's bedroom, and opened the escritoire, and there after a short s. arch he found the will of October, 1860, with the co.lieil oi the 30th ot August, JBSG, the ink upon which was then scarcely dry. Gentlemen, there he stood face to face with his dead father, his dead father's will in his hand, and that will informed him that within a very few minutes after he should hear the words Ashes to ashes, dust to dust," pronounced over his father's body, he must stand face to face with his fathers executors, the trustees of his father's property, for the benefit of his youn« brother Richard then a boy of 1G at school. Gentlemen, that will was rum and destruction to him, to his honor and his character -perhaps to his very liberty ; it would be miamy to him and to his name, if once it took effect. Gentlemen, it has been said, "Conscience doth make eowaids of us all;" hut William Kbupell was a bold an able, and determined man, possessed of qualities and abilities which, if they had been devoted to higher objects, mi^ht have obtained for him an honorable reputation, and conscience made no coward ot him ; for he made up his mind, i n the face of bis dead father, lying dead upon his bed, as to the course he should pursue. It would not do to destroy the will; for probably there would be the draught of it at the office of the proctors. It must be annulled. It must bo allowed to exist, but be destroyed in effect. A new will revokiniv it must be prepared. This time he did not avail himself of the unreflecliiiK confluence ot Mr Whittaker. He must do it all himself He had but a little time to do it in. He slept at Cross-street that night, and where his father's dead body lay, tljere before him, he carried out- his design. He knew that his father baa in his employ a man named Mujrgeridtre. Ho knew he was an aged man- about 85 years of agraua he knew that " de-'.-d man tell no'tales." He knew that Muggeridge was ;i collector of his father's moneys, and had always money of hi-; father's in his hands. He went to him the day after bis father's death, with a pretended message from his mother that he was to give Muggeridge L 5 for mourning • gave him the money, and took his receipt. He thus had a true, signature of Muggemlpfo's to imitate and copy, and he resolved that he should appear to be one of the attesting witnesses of the will he designed to forge. There was not time, indeed, to prepare a new wiil, devising the property to diilerent trustees for different children. Moreover, that would not answer his purpose. He wanted to obtain the entire control over all <.he property of his father. But he knew that there are such tuiugs as common and comprehensive forms of wills, by which a testator might give the whole of his property, real and personal, to any person whom he proposed to benefit. And he went to a Mr Cnuston, a law stationer in Gracechurch-street, and purchased one of these forms, filled it up, adapting it to the circumstances of the testator's property, and then in his own handwriting devised all his fathers property to his mother, appointing himself and his mother executor and executrix. That will gentlemen, wes at Doctors-commons, and is here today (it is the will afterwards set forth). It bus been inspected by many persons well acquainted with the character of the testator's handwriting and of William RoupeU's, and they will satisfy you that every word of that will, the whole body of the will, and the pretended signature of his father thereto, are in the handwriting ot William Roupell, and I have j;o doubt that I shall be able to satisfy you that the signature of "James Muggoridpe" is not the signature of that man. In other words, I shall prove that the will and the signatures thereto (except his own) were forged by William Roupell. Gentlemen, there is a circumstance to which I must now call jour attention. Mrs Roupell, the mother of William lioupell, and the widow of the testator, went, as I have said, to his house with William as soon as she heard of his death. She had been in constant attendance upon him, though not passing a night in tho same house with him, except from the stli September to the day of hLs death. His health had been failing, and she had been in almost constant attendance upon him during that time. : But it does not apnear that she had any knowledge of the contents of any of his wills. Gentlemen, a woman who has consorted for some years with a man under concealment never enjoys that confidence which is reposed in a wife. There as something, gentlemen, in the solemn engagement to take a woman "for better, for worse, in sickness and health, m riches and poverty, until death do them part, winch unites and identifies the-man and woman m a way which mere natural affection and Uie casual, unendeaved" joys of an'illicit connexion can never efteet. As little can the woman be the mend, in the full sense of the word, of the man who has dealt with her for years as a toy, to be broken and replaced at his caprice, as that a woman can become, as a wife is, the glory of a man so long as she continues to be his shame. Mrs Roupeil had passed a great part of her life, and all her womanhood, connected with Mr Roupell, for she had first lived with him, at the age of 17 ; in the capacity of his mistress. She bad lived with him for some time under the name of Mrs Carter, and gave birth to her eldest son, William; and after her marriage, in 1838, her son tho plaintiff was Iwrn. Even when married, there never was that constant and open cohabitation which usually subsists in the case of husband and wife. He visited her on the Saturday and returned on the Monday, and probably during the whole time of hef^ connexion with him she never spent six months in his company. Do not suppose, gentlemen, that I om inclined in any way to speak harshly of Mrs. Roupell She seems to have been a good-hearted woman; and we know perfectly well that if women are not wives it is not, generally speaking, their fault, aiid that if men. under such circumstances were as willing to become - husbands as women are to become wives, there would be far less sin and misery hi the world. However, ' Mrs Roupell did not possess the entire -and-perfects - .confidence of h?x husband, and it doett not appear that she was informed of the contents of any of the Wills The forged Will being prepared in the way I havft

l think i shall., be able to show that ifc eo'uld not hav<> Self of ? e f 3th i the U Well lw *pto»nb^ issa, were both forgeries. Wt 1 gent.emen, Mr William Rouoell, havin- suctae ioiged will to Messrs Ring, hi 3 fathers proctors SdSffpA6o6^^? time ™s the UrLVt£t£ nffen T AugU,Sfc3llast' confirming the former will S™SL leed1 eed n<?r V! II y°u that the>' were extremely surpnsed when called uuoa by him fc, obtain probate tor the will dated so soon after the 2nd of September, ihey suggested that )m mother should prove it as executrix, but, he professe 1 that it was not her wish to *f ' a^ a"enVal' lk showed them a letter from her to that effect. He alone then proved the will; and though the property under that will was his mother's, he had unbounded iniluence over her ; her establishin nt at Aspen-house was kept up as before, and she received the sums she hid usually received, but, with the exception of the smaller mattere, William lloupell managed everything. His mother does not seem ever to have been a woman of business, and as for his brother Richard, his mind at $hat time ran on other matters than business, and he relied entirely upon his elder brother. Well, gentlemen, William Roupeil embarked then m a career ot extravaganc • and ambition, such as it was which at the time astonished, ami tosoriieextefit scandalized, the metropolis. He stood for Lambeth, and seemed to act like a man resolved to get rid as fast a* possible of the burden of his enormous wealth. Ihe fac' is, he soid state after estate, getting his mother k> consent to the disposal of them he promising to settle on her L3OOO a-year. So it went on, until at la<t he became hopelessly involved. Discoveries were made as to his dealings with the various properties, so as to leave him no escape but to teil Uk> truth to tho c interested in it. UU yonn*er brother Jucljurd. the plaintiff, when he came of age, wrote him a letter.

Mr Bovill objected to this as against his clients, ■who purchased under the title of Win. Rotipell derivod under tho deed of the 23th o" July, 1855. Nothing after that date could be cvi Jence.

Tne learned Baron ruled that the letter wa* nob evidence, as the title of the defendant must dep :nd on the state of thing.? at the time of that deed, or of the Will ot 1850.

Mr Serjeant Siiee continued his statement. Gentlemen, on tho 30fc',i of March, Win. Roupeil left England, bjfc br-fore he did so hu burnt a large quantity of papers and dee-Is- Gentlemen, before I sit down, I will just, slate the nature of fhe evidence I sha'l adduce. I snail prove, in the first place, that the testator at Hie time of his death was seized of tin's property. Next I shall prove the marriage of Mr and Mrs Roupeil, and that tli-i plaintiff, itichard, is their eldest son. I shall then call Wm. Roupeil himself bjfbre you. (Ti.is announcement, realizing previous rum' r.-j, created a great sensation ) As to him, I have, refrained from any observations I could avoid. Gentlemen, . William Roupel! has ruine 1 his mother and his brother, and I can well understand that ho may be prompted, though at the risk of the most calurnilouy circumstances to himself, by the feelings of natural affection towards those he has injured; but he is entitled also to the credit of coining forward to obey the dictates of dnty and of m< ral obligation.^ If he has done thU wrong, no man who thinks seriously on the subject can doubt for a moment that it is his duty to make reparation, thou-h in making it he may seriously compromise the infcirests of thoso who have relied on his truth j'.nd honesty. Yet it is his duty to make it, and to come forward here and state the truth to you. You will judge from his statement-? whether ifc is not the truth that he forgod that deed and that will. He will be confirmed by ail the other facts in the case, and that evidence alone, I think, would suffice to satisfy you that the deed of 1855 and the will of 1856 are forgeries, and the forgery of William Roupeil. Mr Lush, Q. 6., then called West, the baliff, who had lived with the tastator 25 years, and was his bailiff at Norbi'on five or six years before his death. He received the rents and settled accounts with him as to the property every week up to the end of August l^fiO, and up to the Friday before his death. He died on Friday, the 12th of September. 1856. The witness had then continued balitf to Mr Roupell uo to last July.

Cross-examined.—He said he knew the property had been in 1861 put up to auction, and sold for Ll;>,000 to the defendant Baf. he stated that up to the time of the testator's death he (the testator) was rated for the property.

An aged woman, an old friend of Mrs Roupell's was called to prove fiat she AVas married in 1838, and that William Roupall was born before, and Richard, the plaintiff, after the marriage. Mis Watts, sister to Mrs Roupeil, was Likewise called to establish that fact.

Tne marriage certificate, dated the 6th of Decem bsr, 1838, was put in.

_ A friend of the testator proved that about that time, just after his father's death, the testator said to him thafc he had been living with a woman whom his father would not allow him to marry during his lifetime, and whom he proposed now to marry. Cross-examine.l: The wifcness said the testator wi> very much attached to William.

Mr Sharp, of the firm of Messrs Ring, the proctors, was then called to prove the making of the will and codicils in their office, but, as the senior Mr Rin" ■was dead, great difficulty arose in the technical proof of the matters, and Mr Bovill, early in the course of the evidence, intimated that, as he thought ifc a very hard thing that his client, who had bought and paid for the property, should be robbed of it, he should resist the action by even possible mode, and should take every .possible objection, and insist on the most rigid regularity in the proceedings and the proofs. Mr Serjeant Shee said thafc under the circumstances he could not complain of this. The Karned Baron obs-.-rved that hft thought the learned counsel for tho defendant would be justified in taking every objection in order to secure strict le^al proof.

Mr Bovill accordingly took so many objections, and urged them with such tenacity, that, owing to the lapse of time, the evidence, as it appro.-iche'l the important part of the case, became beset with more and more difficulty, and au hour or two were spent in tho attempt to substantiate it by other witnesses than the party mainly concerned, and it soon became evident, every step being obstinately contested, that there would be great difficulty, if not impossibility, in establishing; it without calling that person—i.e., William Itoupell himself, the chief actor in the matter. ;

Alv Treadwell was one of the witnesses called with a view to establish that part of the transaction with which he was connected. But the objections urged at every step seemed to interpose insuperable difficulty in getting it from him. Mr Powell, the law stationer, was tl.en called to prove that which was the most vital part of the ease, the copying of the real deeds by the order of William Roupell; _ but, though he proved that on the 16th of July, 1855, William Roupell came to his office (as he often did), and that conveyances were copied and engrossed, when the witness went on to state what the deeds related to :— Mr Bovill iuterposed his objections, and urged them with such force, tenacity, and skill that no way seemed to be made, and at last Mr Sergeant Shee, after two or three hours hai been passed in the obstinately, contested stmi?sle, called " William Roupell." There was here a hush of eager expectation and suspense as to whether the call would be answered, and whether a man lately in the position of a Member of Pariiament would really come forward to prove by liis oivn confession a series of forgeries, perjuries, and fraucs a'most without example. The suspense, however, was but for a few moments. As soon as he could make his way through the crowd to the wit-ness-box, a gentlemanly-looking man, who answered to the name of William Roupell, made his appearance there, and was at once sworn as a witness. Still people doubted whether he would really answer the terrible questions which would have to be put to him. and whether he would really confess the series of crime? charged against him. But he proceeded to give his evidence with the mO3t perfect coolness and self-possession, and the mo3t quiet and composed air, though in a tone serious and grave, and as though quite sensible of the effect and result of what he was saying, Every word he uttered was said with consideration, and sometimes with along pause, but at the same time with an air of the most entire truthfulness and candor. Mr Sergeant Shee examined him, and he stated that for the last five or six years of his father's life he had enjoyed his confidence to a great extent. He proposed to his father in 1855 to buy Treadwell's land, next the Itonpell-park estate, saying that he was authorised to offer L 250 a-year for it from the Unity Fire Insurance Company. He went on thus : —I had told him two years before I was connected with that company, ami that I was their trustee for the sum of L 50,000, invested as a building fund; In the interval I had paid him several thousand pounds, representing it to be rent of the Roupell-park estate, and as paid by the Unity Company. I showed him a deed which purported to be a deed of trust, and after that I received the rente. Mr Serjeant Shee : Was that deed really executed as It purported to be ? - Mr Bovill objected that it oueftt to beproduced. Mr Serjeant Sb.ee, to the witness: Wiiat became Of It? ; :, ,-. ..- ■ , '■■- :■■-•■

Witness : I burnt it about a year after my father's i ueat'i. Mr Serjeant Shee : By whom did it purport to be executed i - Witness : By the company. The. mtness wen« on to stite that the cheques for the LoOO and L 4 500 were receive I by him from his father to pay for Treadweil's land ; that he fnd converted then to his own use ; and thai he ha! forged the endorsement* of TreadweH's nams upon them. After that I" proposed to my father that the company to which he supposed he hud let the Rouprfl-parfc estate should take the Kingston estate on building lease, bufc said they would require to be satisfied as to the poodness of the title, and that the deed must be submitted to counsel. He gave me the deeds, and I gave him an acknowledgment for them in his private book. (Ihe acknowledgment written-'by the witness was here shown to him, and he identified it. Itwa^in fche terms already stated.) •, Upon giving that ack now c Sgmer.t I took away the deeds. I uewr took thorn to the lawyer , but to Mr Powell, the law stationer, on the 16th of July, 1855, and desi-ed him to i make.copies of them, which he did. I then made I them referable the original title deeds. Blanks had been left by my directions, and I added the'signatures as well as I could imitate them, and also the attestations. • MrSe-jeant Shee: What did you ultimately do with the copies) Witness: I burnt them the night before I left England. ■, . Mr Serjeant Stiee : What did you do with the real deeds—the originals? Witness: I took them to Mr Whitaker, my attorney, with instructions for him to prepare a deed of conveyance and gift to me. He sent the draft enclosed in an envelope, addressed to my father, but which I did not show to him. I returned the draft t) Mr Whitaker, and told him it was approved, and that he was t<> engross it. [ gave Mr Foster, the well-known land surveyor, instructions to value the estate, and I pot the valuation from him. I also «ot i the engro.sse 1 deed from Mr Whitiker, and havirW] got it arranged with Dove niri Truman, agents of! mine at that tira», to call upon me, when they i came, I signed tho conveyance in rhcir presence, ami asked them to attest, my signature. I ha 1 turneJ the instrument round, and placed a piece of blotting paper lightly over that portion of the attestation I which contained my father's name, leaving exposed i only that portion of it which related to my own, a;id as if to steady the deed, I retaine-1 my hand there while they attested fchafc which they thought wa< my father's signature, but which won only mine. Mr Baron Martin : Am I u> understand that they did not see your father sign it 1 Witness: Clearly so, my Lord. Mr Serjeant Shoe : Was- his name there at all * Witness: It was not at that time; it was afterwards added by me. My father knew nothiir' of it from mo. \ Mr Baron Martin: Am I to undorstan 1 that your i fathr-r never authorise I it before or afterwards '.* Witness : Clearly so, my Lord. | The witness went on to state that he had sent the deed to Mr. Whitakor's, with instructions to lais-e i money upon it, that he hal afterwards mortgaged the property, and that he had ultimately concurred in a sile by the mortgagee to the defendant. He said he had received L 7,000 upon ifc. He added I was in great pecuniary difficulty' at the time, an-l was anxious to complete several transactions I had afloat. I afterwards executed a deed, which was in the hands of Mr Whitaker, who was concerned both for the mortgagee and for me. Mr serjVant Shee here called on the counsel for tho defendant to produce the deed of the 28th July, 1855, —the forged dead of gift to the witness. , r \ OV'N declined to produce it, denying that the p'aio tiff's counsel were yet in a position io cili tor it. Mr Serjeant fchee then elicited thafc the property to which tho deed related was the Norbiton property— that held by I he defendant, and then again called for the deed. Tvlr 13ovill again declined to produce it. Mr Baron Martin intimate I that he thought the p'aintifi's counsel might be entitled to call for the deed of conveyance to the defendant. Mr Hovill after a long struggle produced it. and it was put in and read. It did not recite the forged deed at length, but rec'Je that William lloupell, the conveying paity. was saized in,fee. Mr Serjeant Shee thereupon elicited from the witness that this recital was false, and then again called for the forged deed of gift to him. Mr Bovili still declined to produce ifc, urginsr with great earnestness that the loarned counsel for the plaintiff should call Whit ker to prove it. Mr Baron Martin, however, recapitulating the effect of the evidence given, was of opinion that the counsel for the defendant were do* bound to proJuce it, or to admit secondary evidence to ifc ; thereupon Mr Bovill produced it under protest. The forged deed, dated 23th July, 1855, was then put in and read, baing first identified by the witness, who inspected it with great coo'ness, and pointed out particularly that it was sealed with a se:il of his o.vn, which his father never used at all. Mr Serjeant Shee then called for fche title deeds of the property, that is, the deeds of conveyance to the testator; but— Mr Bovill declined to produce them. Mr Serjeant Shee then continued the examination of the witness: You have heard the deeds of title recited, are they the deeds you took to Powell's? Witness: Yes. Mr Serjeant Shee again called for them. Mr Boviil again declined to produce them. Mr Serjeant Shee then went on to examine the witness as to the forgery of the will of the 2nd of September, 185 G. He stated that on, the day of the death he got the keys from his father's housakeepev, found the will of 1850 with the codicil of the 30th of August coniirmina: it, and secreted and suppressed it. He went on to say that he afterwards found it on the night before he left England. By that will the property in question, with others, was left to tmsteej for his brother Richard, the plaintiff. Having ascortaineJ. what ifc was (he said), I got a form of a will from a law stationer, altered ifc so as to adapt it, and drew out a draught will. I then went to old Muggeridge, who was very I old and infirm, and got him to feign a receipt for L5, which I afterwards burnt, and, having thus ohtained •his signature, I added it to the will, on which was written an attestation as of a will, and I then foig^l my fathr-r'.s signature ami adicd to it my own attestation. I then filled in the paper with the will wi.ich I had prepared. [The forged will, dated the 2nd of September, 1856, was here produced, put in, and ravi, as a 1 o/e set forth. It is printed already in the previous part.] Muggeridge's signature was difficult to imitate. lat last succeeded in imitating ifc. I wrote my father's signature with his own pen, a short quill pen, and also.that of Muggeridge. My own 1 wrote with my gold pen, and as lightly as f could, to make the contrast as strong as possible with the others. I did this a few days after my father's d ath. He died on the 12th of September, 1836. The witness went on to say that his mother had been at his father's daily from the sth till the 12th, when he died. Mr Serjeant Shee : Was any one aware of your making that forged will before you had done it 1 Witness : No one. Mr Serjeant Shee : Did your mother know it 1 Witness : She knew nothiujr of it. Mr Serjeant Shee : When did you tell her of ifc ? Mr Bovill objected, and Mr Sergeant Shee went on to ask to whom the witness had first mentioned it. He said, to his uncle, Mr' Wats; then to Messrs Ring, whom he desired to get it proved. He stated, in conclusion, that he had left England on the 30th of March last, and that before leaving he had burnt a great quantity of deeds and papers. Mr Bovili rose near six o'clock to cross-examine the witness. Have you not sworn that the will of the 2nd of September was your father's will 1 Witness : Yes; lam sorry to say that I have sworn it before the surrogate. Mr Bovill: You admit, then, that you have been guiity of perjury 1 Witness: Yes. - . : Mr Bavill: Wilful and deliberate perjury] Witness (with consideration) : Deliberate, no doubt. Mr Bovill: Wilfully. Witness : Wilfully, in a legal sense. Mr Bovill: In every sense ! In what sense have you not committed wilful perjury ? Witness: I have not come here to defend myself. Mr Boyill: You acknowledge that you have committed wilful perjury. . Witness: Clearly so. Mr Baron Martin here intimated that the learned counsel might, if he pleased, reserve the rest of his cross, examination till to-morrow. Mr Bovill said he should be glad to do so; but this witnes», where was he to be detained 1 Mr Baron Martin at once ordered him into cus tody. The trial was then adjourned until to-morrow (this day), and the witness William Itoupcll was taken iuto custody, and forthwith carried oil to gaol. " It is not improbable that if the trial continues it . may last two days more.-. There arc, it is said, a great number of witnesses on both side*. The court throughout was crowded. (To be concluded in our next.)

Gift op a Park at Birmingham.—Mr. Adderley has ottered to give to the pu^ic the park at Saltley, which now bears Ins name- The gift is equivalent to a donation of not less than LIB,OOO. Mr Adderley also gives the handsome museum and curator's house erected on the land.