THE ROUPELL FORGERY CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 270, 31 October 1862, Page 5

THE ROUPELL FORGERY CASE.

SECOND DAY.

(Continued from our lasl.) EOUPELL AND OTHERS v. WAITE. (Before Mr Baron Martin and a Special Jury.) The interest felt in this extraordinary case was, o course, preatly heightened by the examination yesterday of William llbupell, and the knowledge that he was to be cross-examined to-day, and that his mother and his brother, the plaintiff, were also to be called. Nor was this merely an interest of curiosity. On the part of the number of persons it was an interest deep, personal, and pecuniary.. The property at i?sue in this particular action is but a small part of that which is really at stake. So numerous and so | long continued have been the forgeries and frauds perpetrated, that it is not perhaps an exaggeration to 1 say that property to the amount of nearly a quarter of a million is involved, directly or indirectly, in the issue of this cause. Indeed, as will be seen, the witness Roupell stated the amount he had got rid of as (1300,000. The property directly at issue in the present action is the Kingston estate, valued at about L 16,000. The real and principal plaintiff is Mr Richard Roupell, the only legitimate son of the late Mr Richard Palmer Eoupell. The co-plaintiff, Mr Kichard Stevens (of the eminent firm of V., and Rs Stevens and Sons, law publishers), and Mr SurrMge, are trustees under a will in his iavor, revoked by the will forced by his' natural brother William. Thus the plaintiff Richard,! ! claims, it will be seen, in the double character ot heir-at-law and devisee. The defendant purchased I the estate at a public auction when it was put up for sale by the mortgagee, to whom it was mortgac'ed by I William Roupell for L 7,000, he professing to claim 1 under a forged deed of gilt to himself. The present ; defendant, the purchaser, paid the full value for it and of course resists strenuously every effort to deprive him of it; and he is fighting the baltles of alt i the other parties who have been defrauded in a similar way by forged transfers, and who were represented jby various learned counsel on this occasion. Hence the court was half fall of persons, more or less directly, or indirectly, interested in the proceedings, and among the rest of the crowded audience there were many whose presence there was not the result of mere curiosity. There were many presenfr-wbo had known the selfconvicted criminal from his boyhood, and there were among thpse on the bench some who had met him not long ago in private society, ard who now had to see him slowly but surely consigning himself to a felon s doom. The very counsel who ym» now to crossexamine him had sat with him in Parliament. There were rumours of a probable settlement; and there were, in fact, offers made yesterday oa one side ■- v- : iV. ■-... Vl:*,-..; :•.

and considered by the other. This, however was before the examination of William Roupell AftS that it was not-heard that similar offers had been renewed, at least before the Court reassembled, and ■counsel met each other this morning apparently resolved to continue the contest to the utmost. There were however, tis may b? conceived, strong reasons for a desire on both sides to settle, although true it was that the chief actor had been examined?*) that it was too late altogether to prevent disclosure; there were yet the mother and the brother to be examined and it was well known that both of them naturally shrank from examination. The brother, the plaintih, was present in court yesterday and today, and sat behind his counsel, looking at his brother with a saddened explosion of countenance, as he went through the narrative of his coiines, aml,it was easy to see that to him the whole proceeding was extremely painful. While as to the iiiotner, she was waiting outside as a witness to be examined—in a state of mind more e.isy to imagine than describe. On the other hand, the tone and manner m which the culprit had given his evidence and the terrible fate which it foreboded to him had satisfied all who had heard it of its entire truthfulness, and of the hopelessness of any endeavour to a i V own- As wiU ue seen, he went through the ordeal of a long cross r ex;invnaiion by a most experienced and skilful counsel, not only without the least weakening-, but, on the contrary, at every step confarming and strong'hening it. Under these circumstances no one was surprised when, soon after the Court re-assembled, Mr Lush. Q. C, and Mr Hawkius, C^. C, were seen to go out of court together, evidently with a view to confer upon terms of arrausemen»-., and though their long absence, which lasted during tue whole cross-examination of the witness, showed the difficulty of their task, and also showed tueir mutual desire to acromplisii it. UltimiHy it will be seen they succeeded, and the cause was set «■« But, m the meantime, the tiial was contxnued.

Mr Serjeant Shee, Mr Lush, Q.C and Mr T Brown were for the plain:HFs ;Mr Bovill, Q.C Mr d-mt^' C" and Ml' Gaith Xre!' e for the defeu' Mr Denman, Q.C, Mr Itaymon, Mr Honvn an ami MrLefovre watched tho" case on the part of* various otner parties interested in the result. rTA'- c., maiu interest iv the case was the examination of William Roupell and his mother. He was examined at great length yesterday, ani his cross-examination was just commenced when the Court adjourned arid he was ordered into custody by the learned jud.ro and removed in the charge of the sheriff and When the Court sat this monihg he was sttiLfo:anil brought up for re-oxamiriat-ioii in that custody' He seemed to have suffered severely iv mind durintne night, and to be deeply sensible of his painful position. He pausel longer bi-fore answering • au j seemed sutienng under suppressed emotion, aithou-h be labored with great success to control and conceal it. lie answered as before, distinctly aud clearly. Mr Bovill resumed his cross examination: What was the value and amount of your 'lather's property at the time of his death < Witness jafttr a pause) : If you give me a piece of paper I will try and give you an estimate. The itoupell Park estate, at the time 1 knew it ih-st iv lbi)3, was worth about L 40.00;). At the time of his death it was worth about LIoO.OOO. About. L 150,000 i- li Vr£n eeu J;ii(J oufcul wi it- His now worth about .2)0,000. it was thus increased in value by moneys I borrowed on mortgage upon it, mid by moneys I have obtained from my father in the way 1 have de scribed, i bad mortgage lit for 70,000'iu hi* Hfotim«!j and about L30.0C0 afterwards, besides L 35 000 subsequently, making altogether L130,U00. Mr JJoviil : And you say that all these transfer were forgeries ? Witness : Yes, they were. Mr Bovill: So you say,-to get that 1.200,000 fur your brother Witness : On my oath, •' No." Mr Bovill: You say they were forgeries 1 Witness: On my oath, I declare that they were forgeries, and that I was guilty of the forgeries. Mr Bovill : You are aware that if they nre forgeries, the L 200,000 would go to your brother l Witness: I conclude so. Mr Bovili: You were brought up a lawyer ? Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: And you know that if those deeds are forgeries, he would get the L-200,000 I Witness: I believe he would be entitled to recover the property. The witness went on to state the value of the various other properties of his father at the time of his death :—Roupall-street estate, Lu0,000; Kingston, L 15.00 0; WarJe^li, Essex, LIO.OUO; Tl.undersley, L 10.000; llaveViijgatteBower, L7.50U; lcadworks, L 1,503 ; premise iv Shoe-lane, L2,0')0; premises in Bear-lane. L2,G00 • premises in Laut-sircet, fc'outhwark, L 3.500: hop warehouses. Borough, L2,f)00; Wandsworth-road estates, L 8,000; South-vill, U,500; shares in various companies (L-imbeth Waterworks, Alliance Insurance, &c,), L25.0U0 ; Hampshire estate, L4.500----balance at bankers, LB.OOO. Mr Boviil: You raised on Rou pell Park estate Lloo, 000 . Witness : As near as I can recollect. Mr Bovill: How much on Roupell-street estate ? • Witness : About L 30.000. Mr Bovil!: Is that a forgery also 1 Witness: I don't understand. Air Bovill: Do you allege that the securities then were obtained by forgery ? Witness : Yes, by the forgery of the will. Mr Bovill : And if you.can establish that to he a forgery, your brother will get that L 30,000 also. Witness : I presume so. Tiie witness went on to explain that there were LIOO,OOO on Ron pell Park, and L 30,000 on Roupellstreet, and L-15,000 advanced on both, and 1.29,000 subsequently advanced as a third charge coming behiiid the L 15,000. The charges on the two estates together amounted to about LIBi.OOO. Mr Bovill: And on the Kingston estate how much 1 Witness : About 1.12,000, collateral securities being deposited, but the chief security being this estate. Mr Bovill: And that also, you allege to have been a forgery 1 Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: And Warieigh about L 4,000. Do you allege that also to have been by forgery ? Witness: The freehold portion of the property I obtained by forgery. As to the. copyhold, I believe I had legal possession, and therefore the holders will I conclude be safe. ' Mr Bovill: Safe from whom—from your brother 1 Witness : Saf« from all antagonists. Mr Bovill: Fafe {> om all antagonists 1 What is tne nature of the freehold portion ? Witness: About L 7.000, and the copyhold about L 3,000. . : Mr Bovill: Have you raised money on or sold the rest of the property ] Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: About how many deeds have you forged? Witness (reflecting): If you hand me that paper, I will tell you. The paper being handed back to him, he stated, with great distinctness, the will and deed as to the Kingston Park estate, the Itoupeli Park estate, the lead works, the freehold portion of the Warieigh estate, the premises in Bear-lane and Shoe-lane—in all about ten, I think. Mr Bovill : Only ten.l Witness: lam not at all desirous to conceal the number. lam very sorry to have committed so many crimes, "but I desire now to state the exact truth. [He went on to add some minor matters to the b'st——the Wandsworth estate, the hop warehouse, and some others |. .Mr Bovill: You allege all these to have been forgeries ? Witness - Yes. Mr Boyill: And you conclude that all these will become the property of your brother if the deeds arc established to be forgeries 1 , Witness : So I conclude. Mr-Bovill: Is your brother in court ] Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: Sitting behind the plaintifl 's counsel ? Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: Pray what is the total amount inrolved in these forgeries 1 Witness : About £350,000. Mr Bovill: How much did you raise in this way during your father's life ? ; Witness: On the Eoupell-park. estate about £70^000/ The total amount I cannot state. Mr Bovill: The Roupcll-p*>rk estate was increased in value to'the amount of £150,000 by money obtained through your forgeries ? Witness: Yes and by money obtained from my father improperly. hr Bovill: Youmeaustolen 1 Witness: Yes, stolen.. Mr Bovill: How much did you steal from him in his life! . . ' ■ Witness: About LIO,OOO. Mr Bovill: That was stolen, the rest defrauded. Witness: Yes. : Mr Bovill: How much did you lay out on the Roupell Park estate during his life ? Witness: AboutL7o,ooo. Mr Bovill: The rest since his death] Witness: Yes, in making toads, &c all in substantial improvements. ; - . Mr BoviJi: You got conveyances from your mother of all this property 1 Witness: Yes. , . . Mr Bovill: On the footing that the'will of 1856 gave it all to her. » , , . '■. Witness: Y«»s. ,1 told- her, as soon as "she was calm enough to, listen to me, that he, at my advice, had •r, . ~'■■" ■-;■ *:: ■• v '

made a will in her favour ; and that I had suggested to conceal the fiiet o' the will of 1850, liecauSt it would have announced to the public that I was illegitimate. By that will, confirmed by the codicil of August 31,1856, I was described as " my son, called William Roupell." I told her that my father had given me directions as to the disposal of the property, and that he trusted to her and to myself to carry out his wishe-i. Mr Bovill: All that was fatal Witness : Not wholly false. Mr Boviil: Was it true ! Witness : It wa« partly Irtieand narlly false. If you wish, I will describe that which was false and that which was t'-ue. It was true that my father intended to revoke :he will of .850, which he had confirmed by the codicil of Augu)>t3o, 1855; and I believed that whea he went to hia proctox^s on that day it was his intention to give directions for an entirely new will to be prepared. He failed to see his old friend, the senior partner, and so merely added a codicil to the will. A few days before my father's death, he, in my mother's presence, said : " I mu3t throw away all delicacy and do it." He then took me into his room. [Here the composure of the witness for the firdt time during his examination gave way. He seamed to be overcome by psnt-up emotion, clutched the witness-box, and leant over for some minute or two, evidently struggling to recover himself. 'With great difficulty he at last succeeded so far as to be able to proceed, but with a visible effort, and with long nnd painful pauses. He continued :] —He took me into his room upstairs, opened his bureau, aud took out his will, and opened that part where the codicil had been added, and told me to write another codicil to his dictation. I commenced writing the codicil, and he told me that as he apprehended there would be great trouble in the management, of his scattered property, he had resolved to" secure to my mother and brother and sisters a fixed allowance in lieu of the property bequeathed t-o them by his will, and that as I had proved myself in various modes a capable man of btusiuess (I give the sense of what he said as well as I can recollect), he thought it would fee better to convey the whole of the property to me. He then directed me to give by the codicil to the members of our family the rental of the Brixton estate, now called the lloupell Park estate. He believed that rental would amount to about L 3,000 a-year. He commeaced to describe how he wished this sum to be divided among the various members of his family, when I stopped him by saying that he was too weak to trouble himself about a will at that hour of the night; that I was not provided with witnesses, and that I thought it would be better not to disturb the existing will. My reason foi breaking off was that he had selected the ltoupellpark estate, of which I was wrongfully in possession, i's the security for my family, and so the codicil would lead to the disclosure of some of the frauds I had committed. i Mr JBovili : .What part of your statements to your mother was false'? Witness: It was false that it was my father's wish that the property should be bequeathed to her. Mr Bovill: Then, as I understand, you had seen the will of 1850 hefore your father's death ! Witness: Yea; I saw it, but I had not had time to read it. Mr Bovill: Why, did you not just now state that you h<?d discovered that you were described in it as "my son called William lloupell 1 " Witness : That was altar my father's death. Mr Boviil: You told me he had desired me to prepare a codicil, and that the only reason you did not do so wits his desire that the "lloupell Park estate should go to the family ? Witness: Clearly so. Mr Boviil: And you mean to swear you had not read the will '( Witness: I did not read the will. I saw some portions of it—a portion of the codicil, and the front slice* of the will, m which some alterations had been uinde. Mr Boviil: Did you not say not long ago that you had advised your futherjjto let the will remain as it was 'I Witness: Yes, Mr Bovill: And do you now mean to say you did not know what w;b in it '{ Witness: Not from having read it. I knew from conversation with Mr Rintr, the proctor, what were the main features of the will i Mr Boviil: When had you been to him about it 1 Witness: He was a near neighbor of my father, and I often saw him. Mr Eovill: Do you mean to say that he told you— one of your father's sons—the contents of your father's will ] Witness : No ; but he was a garrulous old man, and I easily gathered from his conversation some knowledge of the w'.ll. Mr Boviil: W That knowledge did you obtain 1 Witness : I cannot define it. Mr Boviil: How were you led to recommend your father to leave the will as it was ] Witness : I was in a great difficulty, and made that an excuse. Mr Boviil: Not knowing the will 1 Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: Was he in his senses at the time ? Witness : Yes. I knew the will did not give all the property to my brother .Richard. I had every confidence that it was a proper will, and my intention at the time was to destroy it so soon as 1 could get hold of it. Mr Boviil : Your intention was to destroy the will' so soon as you could get hold of it. Witness: Yes. Mr Boviil: Not knowing what was in it r{ Witness : Precisely so. Mr Bovi'l : Knowing that you were not the legiti mate son ? Witness: Yes. Mr Boviil : Now, do you really mean to swear to that ? Witness : I do, distinctly. Mr Boviil: Knowing that you could not succeed as heir-at-law ? Witness : Yes. And for this reas-n that I was wrongfully in possession of Roupell Park estate, and the Kingston estate, and the Great Warleigh estate ; and I did not suppose that the will would benefit me, and I should have been satisfied, if I could have retained possession of those estates, to have left the remainder to my brother. Mr Boviil: Were you not the favorite son of your father 1 Witness : Yes, latterly. Mr Boviil: For several years before his death ? Witness : Only after the great fraud I had committed. Mr Bovill: You were his favorite son for some years at least ] Witness : Yes. Mr Bovill: Your brother John has been sent abroad t Witness: He went abroad. I provided him with the means. Mr Bovi 1: What did he go for! Witness: He and my father had several misunderstandings. Mr Bovill: He had refused to see or provide for him ? Witness: Practically he had. Mr Bovill; What was the cause of his going abroad ? Witness: My father was an eccentric man, and though muc!i better than the average of men, he had very little judgment in the management of his chil dren. Mr Bovill: Well, in consequence of this disagreement with your elder brother, you became his favorite son ? Witness: Not in consequence of it; it was partly in consequence of my own good conduct, as it appeared to him. Mr. Bovill: As you had endeavored to make it appear to him ] Witness : Yes. Mr Bouvill: In consequence of that you had obtained his confidence! Witness: Yes. Mr Bouvill: He was proud of you 1 Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill: ' c was very much attached to you. Witness: He was not very demonstrative in his manner, but I believe he latterly became sincerely attached to me. . Mr Bovill: And thought you would become a great man ] Witness : I think he did. Mr Bovill: And said he would make you so ? Witness: No. Mr Bovill: Are you sure of that? Witness : I think I can swear he never said that. Mi* Bovill: He gave you the means of becoming a great man 1 Witness: Not whilst Mr Bovill: Why do you hesitate 1 .. • Witness: Because I wish to tell the exac#truth. Mr Bovill : He thought you would be a great man 1 Witness: I think he did. , Mr Bovill: Now, as he was so devoted to you, did you not expect that he would leave you a large for- ! tune 1 '':,-.-,,.'' Witness: I did not expect to obtain from him a larger fortune than I had already obtained by improper means. : - ' '■■'.;■ Mr Bovill: Did you not expect that an ample provision would be made by him for you ! Witness: Yes. I thought that Roupell-park would be bequeathed to me, and that was the reason , I did not hesitate to obtain possession of it by improper means. That was one of its motives. Mr Bovill: You think the means justified the end? Witness : No, Ido not. ....... . Mr Bovill: Then, did you then believe it was part of your good conduct!

Wiener ; I p.m. not the only nian of good conduct who has madu sometime? such a'mistake.' Mr Bovill : In March, 1802, you had exhausted all your resources 1 Witness : Practically ; without resorting to questionable meaii3. . Mr Bovill : What money you had not laid out on the estate you had applied to you own purposes t Witness : Or had been defrauded of it. Mr Bovill : <;h, you had been defrauded ) . vv ltncs-s : Yes. Mr Bovill: At all events, your resources were exhausted. Witness: Yes, without defrauding other persons. Mr Bovill: How came you to hesitate to do so 1 Witness : I was influenced then by the same feeling which influenced me in returning to England from a place of safety. I was at last awakened to a sense oi the enormity of my sin. ' Mr Bovill: Well, your own resources being ex- £. au nte?' were nob your fatnily also practically ruined it all of the deeds of yours were valid ? Witness : No. Mr Bovill: How much would be left to them out of the L 300,000, supposing all the deeds aud the will to have been valid and not forgeries ? Witness; There were the estates at Havering-atte-Bowerand Thundersley, which were mortgaged by my mother, at m> request, for the maintenance of my mother aud sisters and of my brother Richard. Apart from the family settlement there would be an available surplus of about L 12.000. Mr Bovill: The family settlement • how much was that ]

Witness: There was a corpus of L 50,000, or about L 2,200 a-year during my mother's life, and L 2,000 ayear at lvr death. That was for the benefit of my mother and sisters. I .am afraid, however, that its value has been seriously affected by the doubts I have justly excited as to the validity of the transactions I have carried out. I have no doubt that the nature of | all the properties will materially suffer, and as tl • settlement comes after the inortga&es on the estate, f j the property were sold I am afraid there would be | little left for my family under the settlement. Mr Bovill: When was that settlement made 1 Witness :In the autumn of 1860. Mr Bovill: What! Your mother and your brother and you were then concurring together in that settlement) Witness: No.. Not my brother nor my sisters. My mother was influenced by her solicitor, or rather mine -Mrllees-and partly by Mr Whitaker, and she executed it, against her inclination, in OctoLer, 1860. Mr Bovill: A settlement in October, 1860, of | L 50,000, for the benefit of your mother and sister and brother ?- Witness: Yes. Mr Bovill : And of yourself 1 Witness : I think not; but I forget thai. Mr Bovill: That was a matter of perfect indifference to you ? Witness : It was. I think, however, that possibly an ultimate reversion was brought back to me, after fa:l»;e of either issue or appointment. % Mr Bovill: Was that at your suggestion or your mother's! Witness: Entirely my own. . Mv Bovill: To make a provision for your family. Witness: The object was to obtain my mother's execution of a deed which should relieve the mortgagees from the danger of her raising an equity for a settlement. I was not desirous to have the settlement then executed, and I endeavored to prevent it being executed. But pressure was npplieo. to me by Mffesrs Whitaker (I do not say improperly) and Mr Rees, to induce me to obtain'from my mother the execution of the settlement; and they also attempted to obtain an execution of it by my brother; but I told them that Was quite hopeless, as I was assured that he would consult the Mrssra Linklater. Mr Bovill: Were they bis solicitors in 1860 ] Witness : I do not think they had acted for him, but 1 knew he was intimate witii them, and was sure that in any emergency he wouid consult them. Mr Bovill: The settlement appears 1o have been altogether invalid by reason of the forgery of the will'? Witness : Clearly so. Mr Bovill: So that if that forgery were established the 150,000, the corpus of the settlement, would go to your brother along with all the rest] Witness : Yes, I presume so. Mr Bovill: You were ruiued in March last ? Witness: Practically so. Mr Bovill: And, assuming that all these deeds and the will were forgeries, they would only have about L 12.000! Witness: About that sum. [Mr Lush, Q.C., and Mr Hawkins, Q.C., who had been for some time out of court conferring together as to the terms of a settlement, here returned into court, and a long conference ensued between the counsel on both sides, a paper having been drawn up, containing the proposed terms of settlement, which were being discussed. After some time, in accordance with what turned out to have been part of the arrangement, a i'ew more questions were asked of the witness on each side.] Mr Bovill rose to put some further questions. Mr Baron Martin ob er/ed that if the case were really settled, there ought to be no further evidence taken. Mr Bovill said that at present all that his Lordship knew or could be aware of was that the cause was stiM going on. Mr Sergeant Shee desired that the matter should be explained to his Lordship. Mr Bovill essayed to address his Lordship privately with that view, but The learned Baron refused in such a case to listen to any private communication. Mr Bovill then resumed his examination of the witness, who all this while had remained standing in the witness box, "the observed of all observers," evidently .with a deep feeling of his position. He was asked to state the particulars of the will of 1850, which he alleged that he had destroyed. He said :My father first appointed as trustees and executors, myself, Mr Clark, and Mr Richa-d Stevens ; then he devised to my brother all the househollfurnituie, &c, with his Shares in the Lambe'h Waterworks, and the Alliance Insurance Company, subject to an allowance of L2OO a year to ray brother John (who was then alive), for 1113 Hie. Ke also bequeathed to her all the money found in the house ,at the time of his death, and the money at his bankers'. He also devised to her his factory at Gravel-lane, together with his stock in trade, and three houses ia Cross-street, and the gi-ound-rents in Hatfield-place, and his copy-hold in Broad-wall, with his groundrents in Cornwall-road. Mr Baron Martin : How did he deal w'th the Norbiton estate 1 Witness : He devised it to my brother Richard. Mr Baron Maitiu ; In fee or for life 1 Witness :In fee. He also devised to my brother the Roupell Park Estate, except Aspen House, devised to my mother. Mr Bovill : And what to yourself 1 Witness : The Roupell-street property, described as " the Hatch estate;" and he directed that I should be engaged as the manager of the estates, and charge a commission for it. ■ Mr Bovill: How as to the WarHgh estate ? Witness : It was devised to my brother ltichard. Mr Serjeant Shee then proceeded to ask a few questions which he real from a paper, and which had evidently been agreed on between counsel.—Did your brother's present solicitors, Messrs Linklater, ever act for you 1 Witness : No, I have consulted them, but fo: n?y brother—about a fortnight bef>re I left England. Mr Serjeant Shee : Did they ever do any business for you 1 Witness: No. Mr Serjeant Shee : Did your brother, or your mother, or any of your family, know of any of the frauds committed by you before you left Eugland ] Witness: I told them on the Friday ni^ht before my departure, or Saturday morning (the"3oth of March last) that I had misrepresented the value of the WarIftigh property, and borrowed upon it more money than it was worth. Mr Serjeant Shee: At that time did they know anything of the frauds which had been committed by you? ' • : . , Witness: Nothing whatevei*. Mr Serjeant Shee then addressed the learned Judge as follows:—My Lord, these few questions having been an -wered, I have to state that we have agreed to withdraw a juror. I should state, also, that it has been arranged that the plainiift and the defendant shall divide the value of the property which has been the subject of the action, and that the p'aintiff shall confirm the title of the defendant by all proper means, so that there can be no doubt whatever m future as to the validity of his title. The learned Judge then said—The deed of July, 1855, and the will of September, 1856, must be impounded, and the witness must be taken with them at once before a justice of the peace, who will im-,j mediately lake the depositions in order to commit him at once for trial—l presume to be tried before t!-;e Central Criminal Court The witness, William Roupell, was then removed in custody, and the Court broke up. And this closed the business of the assizes, which will long be rendered memorable by one of the most remarkable cases that ever came before a court of justice. Immediately after the adjournment of the Couit, Mr Roupell was conveyed back to the County Police Station, in the custody of Mr Newland and Mr Parr two inspectors of the* Surrey constabulary, and was formally charged upon the police sheet with feloniously forging a certain deed with intent to defraud. He described himself as " William Roupell, aged 31,

Me of Aspen-house, Brixton, gentleman "'' In a [short tune the Mayor of Guildfnrd (MrW. E. Elkins) and Mr J. Weale. and Mr H. W. Adams, Wo of the borough justices, attended f or the purposs of taking fcue examination of the prisoner, who exhibited the samejjalmnw. and self-po session that had characterized him through the extraordinary irquiiy. J.he charge having been briefly stated to the Bench. v* !l I;Vt ng,u t J the ass°ciate, produced the deed of gift that had heen brought forward as evidence on the trial before Baron Martin, and which had ben mP°™ ?> fty order of tfcat -ea™^ jud°-e. Mr Bennett, a shorthand writer, was then sworn. He stated that he had taken notes of ihe examination oi toe prisoner on the previous day, and he heard him aomifc that the signature to the deed of gift, wmch purported (o be the signature of his father, was a lorgery ; that he had himself forged it to the deed ; and that he had placed it there without his father's knowledgfior sanction. He also proved that-Baron Martin asked the prison- r whether he was to understand that he admitted having forged the deed, and that he distinctly replied that he had been guilty of that offence. J The Mayor inquired of the prisoner whether he wished to put any questions 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 addressed Mr Roupell, 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 Ins trial. He replied that he should like to say n iew words and ne then made the following statement to the Bench:—"l wish simply to say that I voluntarily lett a pjp.ee where I was in perfect safety, in Spain, i'-r the piupose of returning to England to make the statement that I have done in this cause, and I returned quite openly. I v/as recognise lin Richmond Church on Sunday, the 10th inst., and again in the ot the same day on the pabiic promenade between Richmond and Kew-gardens. I don't wish to say anything more." He was then asked whether xie would sign the statement he had raa-ie after it had oeen taken down in writing, and he readily consented to do so, and signed the paper, after which he was tuny committed to take ms trial at the Central Cjxminal Couio, within which jurisdiction the ofience was committed.

Upon the prisoner's own slatement, he has rendered himself amenable to the clurgis of pe.jurv and forgery, and also of fraudulently making away with deeds that were intrusted to him for a specific purnose, but in all probability the only charge that will be p-.oceeded with will be the forgery of the deed oi gift, and if he should be convicted of that cenco he is liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for life.