The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-22 00:00:00

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

This trial was resumed yesterday morning at
Chelmsford.

The case for the plaintiffs having been brought to a con-
clusion on Monday afternoon, Mr. Bovill yesterday ad•
dressed the jury on behalf of the defendants.
Serjeant Shea, before he did so, said that in conse-
quence of an observation that had fallen from his lord-
ship on the preceding day, it had been thought advisable
that Min Sarah Roupell should be in attendance, and she
was now in court, and he proposed to examine her.
Mr. Bovill said be should object to any further evidence
being adduced after the case for the plaintiff had closed.
Baron Cheapen said he considered that this lady could
give important evidence, and in the interests of justice he
should allow her to be examined.

Mies Sarah Roupell was accordingly placed in the witness-
box. In sower to question■ put to her by Mr. Serjeant
She. she said—l was living at Aspen-house when my father
died, and for some years previously. This letter (the letter
of instruction to prepare the deed of gift) was written by
me. I remember writing it. It was at the request of my
brother William. He was present, and no one else. My
brother dictated to me. I wrote it at the time it bean
date, Jan. 8, 1856. I cumin remember that I ever told
anybody I wrote it.
Cress-examined—l think I can swear I never told any
one. Ido not mean I think. I will swear I did not. I
never told my mother. I was not aware that my mother
had given any property to my brother William. I had not
seen this letter for a year until it was put into my hands
this morning. I swear that the letter was not shown to me
yesterday. I have been in Chelmsford since last Thursday,
and my mother also.
Mr. Bovill—Are not these proceedinp against the wish of
your mother and your brother Richard?

The witness heiitated, and Serjeaot Shoe objected to the
question.
The witness then said she did not think they objected to
these proceedings, but they would bays been glad if any
other course could have been adopted that would have saved
expense to the family. Mr. Lioklater told me that I should
not be called en a witness if it could be avoided, and I was
informed lest night after the court had risen that I should
have to give evidence about this letter, in consequence of
what the judge bad said, but the letter was not shown me.
Baron Channell—lt was in my box locked up. (A laugh.)
Craw-examination continued—As children, the family
were in the habit of scribbling each other's mimes, but did
not mean anything wrong. I have signed my mother's
came, not for anything wrong, but to save her trouble. I
remember perfectly well that I mete the letter in the
drawing-room, and my brother William dictated it to me.
I do not remember seeing anybody on the gams morniog,
but I suppose my father wee there.
Mr. Bovill—Then your mind is a perfect blank upon
everything else that occurred on this day except the letter?
W'itoess—l do not remember anything else.
Mr. Bovill then addressed the jury for the defendants.
The learned counsel proceeded to call the attention
of the jury to various dieerepaocies in the evidence
of William Roupell, end particularly to the fact
that although be pretended to have kept beck the genuine
Imam for the purpose of copying the signatures of the
tenants, the signatures he afterwards put to the fictitious
instruments were totally dissimilar, and there was not the
slightest resemblance to the genuine signatures. His learned
friend had, as he thought, most improperly and unnecessa-
rily introduced the question of the will, with which the
defendants had nothing whatever to do, but as he bad
done so, he should make use of it and contend,
on the part of the defendants, that unless the jury be-
lieved the ',Adams of William Roupell es to the existence
of a genuine will of 1850, and that by this will the property
was devised to Richard Roupell, he would not be estiticd
to a verdict in the present action. He then referred to the
proceedings of William Roupell in connexion with the wills,
and asked whether they co uM possibly believe that be did
not look at the genuine will for a week after it came into his
possession' or the: he retained the document for more than
six years, and did not destroy it until the 29th of March,
IriV2, the day before he left England. Again the
jury would remember that Mrs. Roupell, the mother,
was in the house in Cross-street every day for aweek after
the funeral, and she must have known everything that
took place there, and yet she was not called es a witness.
It was said that William Roupell was solely actuated by •
feeling of sincere repentance. Sincere repentance indeed !
Why le did not say a word until the mortgagees of this
property threatened to foreclose the mortgage, and he knew
that the forgery of the leases must be discovered, and then
he attempted, first, to shut the mouths of the attorneys by
slleging that the deeds relating to the other property were
also forged ; and having failed in this, be boldly resolved
to tell the extraordinary story he had done, in order to get
be lk property of the value of 200,000/. for his
The learned counsel next proceeded to argue that
the will now alleged to be forged was a very reasonable one,
and it was very likely that the old man should have left the
property nominally to his wife instead of leaving it to
William Roupell, for the jury would remember that the
property was alleged to be worth 400,000 f., and that if it
had been left tattle latter, he was illegitimate, and that the
legacy duty would have amounted to 40,0004, and this sum
MA saved to the family by the property being left to the
mother.

It being now put one o'clock the court was adjourned for
a short period, and upon the return of the jury Mr. Soria
resumed kis address to them for the defendants.

The learned counsel then commented at considerable
length upon the effect of the will, and be also remarked
upon the evidence as to the handwriting, and he said that
he should call witnesses from the Hank of England, from
which establishment they would remember not • single
witness had been called by his learned friends, although the
old m►n had kept an account there, and they would state their
opinion with regard to the signatures to the instruments that
were alleged by the plaintiff to have been forged. He then pro.
cot ded to make some humorous comments upon the slight
peculiarities by which some of the "experts" had pro-
fessed to come to a positive conclusion that the
signatures were not genuine, and be said be should produce
• number of receipt' that were undoubtedly signed by the
deceased, and they would Hod that every one of Ikon sup-
posed peculiarities was sometime' absent a•d sometimes
present, aod signed that this portion of the evidence was really
worth nothing at all. The learned counsel, in the course of
his further observations, urged that the whole case came
from • polluted source, commencing with the smelting pot
of the old man, from which he had obtained 400,0001., and
that every trick and artifice had been resorted to with • view
to mislead the jury, and to wrest a verdict from them ; and
he concluded by saying that the questions to be decided by
the jury were, first, whether the deed of gif t of January, 185 h,,
was executed by Richard Palmer Roupell in the presence of
the attesting witnesses, Truman and Dove ; secondly, who.
they the signature was genuine, although it might not have
been signed in the presence of those witnesses ; and, thirdly,
whether the will of 1830 gave this property to the plaintiff ;
and unless they were satisfied upon these points the defen-
dants were entitled to their verdict. He concluded • most
eloquent and able address by stating that if they were to
return a verdict for the plaintiff upon such facts as appeared
in the present came, it might be attended by the most dan-
gerous and frightful results.
The following witnesses were then examined for the de-
fendant.

_ .
Mr. T. West said—l was a tenant of Mr. Richard Roapell
for bye-and-twenty years, and I frequently saw him sign
receipts for rent that I paid him. The deed of gift was
then shown to the witness and he said he believed the
signature, Richard Palmer limps% wee his handwriting.
Crassexamined—My only reason for allying it is his hand-
writing* that the signature resembles those to my receipts
for rent. I perceive there are some slight differences be-
tween the two signatures, but that does not shake my
opinions 11.
In mower to a question put by the jury, the witness said
that having carefully examined the receipts and the signa-
ture to the deed of gift, he was of opinion that the signature
to the latter was genuine.
Mr. G. Lady, another tenant of old Mr. RocipeWs, gave
similar evidence. He also expreassel a positive opinion that
the signature to the deed of gift was the handwriting of the
deceased.

lo rromoraminotion be void h► Amid mach rather say
that the signature wa► . geouiso true t►.n th►t it erns on
imitotio§ of We signature by • &halal forger. He weut to

Docton'-commons, and saw the will that was alleged to go
forged, and in his opinion the signature to that will wee e
genuine signature. The letter of instruction to Mr.
Whitaker was then shown to the witness, and he said that
signature was • forgery.
Mr. Shutter. • letter sorter et the General Poet-office, sod
who was also • tenant of the deceased, produced some
receipts that had been given to him by Rich 4
Roupell, and he a:premed an opinion that the 'igniton
to the deed of gift was genuine.
Similar •I'DCO was given by other wheelers, led e
great number of receipts were put in, the object home to
show that the deceased coestantly varied his signature, and
that very few of them were ebsolutely alike. Is sae
instance it appeared that the deceased had oily put one 1 to
the name of Romig!, but Serjeant She* suggested that
this probably arose from the deceased tannin began to
sign so close to the end of the paper that there wee not
sufficient apace for the final letter.
Mr. Phipps, the secretary to the Lambeth 'Waterworks
Company, proved that the deceased wee &shareholder in that
company, and identified the signatures to two tranasn
shares that had been made by him. Be also produced
eevecal dividend warrants that had been signed by the do
ceased, and there appeared to be some observable different
between the signatures. The witness then looked at the
deed of gift, and said that the signature was a:roadies',
like that of the deceased, but that he could not say that 4
was Ms signature. It was very like it.
By the jury—Witness had never seen the deed of gift be.
fors that day.
Some further evidence of the same character was thee
given, after which the court adjourned.
It given,,
not expected that the trial will be brought to a
conclusion before Friday.