The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-17 00:00:00

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

At the Chelmsford ionizes yesterday an action
came on before Mr. Baron Channell and a special jury,
Emmett and another v. Haws and another, to recover by
writ of ejectment an estate at Great Worley, to which the
plaintiff claimed to be entitled as heir-at-law of the late Mr.
BoupelL
The defendants pleaded that they were legally in posses-
sion of the estate in question under a conveyance by
William Roupell, the illegitimate son of the deceased, to
whom it had passed by deed of gift from his father, and the
important queation involved in the muse wee whether this
deed of gilt was forged, or • genuine instrument ; the
cam on the part of the plaintiffs being that William Roupell
had forged this deed, and also • will, by means of which he
came into possession of the whole of his father's property.
This he has site. parted with, and the object- of the
present and other actions that are pending is to recover
Leek the estates from the podia; who had purchased them,
en the ground that William Roupell, who at the pre-
seat time is under sentence of penal servitude
fee life, became possessed of the property by forgery
and fraud, and, consequently, had no legal title to
convey it away. An action of a similar kind, it
will be recollected, was disposed of at the last sum-
mer assizes at Guildford, but upon that =mien the
defendant consented to compromise the matter, and agreed
to pay the plaintiff half the estimated value of the estate I
that was the subject of the action. It is undeestood, how-
ever, that the defendants in the present action are oda-
wised not to oome to any terms, but to take the opinion of
eFtary whether William Boupell is truly charging himself
with forgery and fraud, or whether it is not merely • con-
trivance to regain poese.on of his late father's property for
the benefit of the family, and this is the important question
involved in the present proceeding.
Serpent Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. J. Browne, and the
Hon. Mr. Thesiger, appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., Mr. Hawkins. Q.C., and Mr. Garth, were counsel
for the defendants.
Serjeaet Shim, in commencing his opening of the me for
the plaintiffs, explaieed the nature of the action, and said
that it was brought to recover possession of two farms, one
called Bury Farm, and the other Heed's Penn, in the pariah
of Great Worley, in Essex. The plaintiff, Richard
Roupell, claimed as the heir-at-law of Richard Palmer
Roswell, who died on the 12th of September, 1886, and
his can would depend on the validity of • deed of
gift, alleged to have been made by Richard Palmer Roswell,
and which he should prove by the evidence of William
Roupell, in whose favour the deed of gift was made, was •
forgery, and that the signatures of the attesting witnesses
were also forgeries. He should likewise prove that a will,
under which William Roupell wee appointed executor, and
took possession of the whole of the property of his deceased
father, Richard Palmer Roupell, was also • forgery. The
owe for the plaintiff, therefore, as heirat-law, was simple,
He should prove that be wee the only legitimate child of
the deceased Richard Palmer Reopen, and that if the deeds
to which be referred were forgone., and be should prove
they were so by the evidence of William Roupell himself, be
would be entitled to claim this property as heir-at-law, and
the defendants, who only derived • title under William
Boupell, would be bound to give up the property so acquired.
Although, however, the came for the heir-at-law ap-
peared to be • very simple one, still it would be
necessary that he should give a few details relative to
the family, in order that the jury might be better
able to understand the nature of the inquiry into
which they were about to enter. He then explained
that in the year 1835 the grandfather of William Reopen
died, leaving • fortune to his son, Richard Palmer Roupell,
of at least 100,0001. ; and at his death, in 1856, he was
possessed of property to the amount of between 300,0001.
and 400,0001., the whole of which came eventually into
the possession of William Roupell, who was his illegitimate
son, under the will which be should prove to be a forgery.
He thought it right to say that Richard Reopen was • man
of the most penurious disposition, and although he was
rolling in wealth, down to the year 1854 he only allowed
2001. per annum for the support of his establishment at
Brixton, and only U. • week to his son William Roupell,
whom he had articled to an attorney, and who, there was
no doubt, was • man of great ability, and of most deter-
mined spirit, and a man who powered great coolness,
and one who would carry out any plan that he bad deter.
mined upon without any regard to the consequences.
Notwithstanding the position of William Roepell at
this period he appeared to have entered very
l
into speculation ; in the beginning of the yearigl2
he was in great pecuniary difficulty, and this drove him
to commit the forgery under which the defendants claimed
to be entitled to the property now in dispute. He should
show that he owed his solicitor, Mr. Whittaker, 2,5001, far
money that had been advanced to him, and to different
banks sums exceeding 20,0001. ; he was bound,
under the guarantee of Mr. Whittaker, to replace • sum of
12,0001. in May, 1866, at the London and Westminster
Reek, and it was impoieibie for him to do so without
making away with some of the property of his father.
The learned serjeant then proceeded to state that Richard
Palmer Roupell was possessed of • great many estates in
different parts of the country, and explained the mode
by which William Roupell had, by means of forging deeds
of gift from his father, contrived to obtain possession of the
greater portion of this property and to raise large sums
of money upon it. It will be unnecessary to go into
the details of the proceedings that were resorted
to in this respect, as they have frequently been
made public, and it will be sufficieut to state
that the suggestion on the part of the plaintiff was
that William Roupell had, during his father's life time,
been carrying on • system of hand and forgery, which was
consummated by the forgery of his will, n order to raise
money to relieve himself from his embarrassments.
Mr. Bovill, in the coarse of the speech of the learned
serjeant„ objected that be bad no right to give any evi-
deuce having reference to other forgeries than the alleged
forged deed of gift relating to this particular property.
Baron Channel], however, said he did not think he could
exclude the evidence, but he would take a note of the
objection.
Serjeant Shee then proceeded with him narrative, and he
said that • most extraordinary part of the case wee the
fact that William Hooped' went boldly to his own soli-
citor, Mr. Whittaker, and got him to draw up the
forged deed of gift upon which the defendants relied,
and after it had been sorrowed, William Roupell returned
it to Mr. Whittaker, with the signature of his father mi.
parently attached to it. and he should prove that this
signature and those of the two attesting witnesseswere
forgeries. • Endeavour were made to procure the sum of
12,0004 which was so pressingly required at this time, bat
• difficulty arose es to the title, and one gentleman who
bad agreed to advance the Ropey, ultimately declined to
do so unless Richard Palmer Roupell joined in the security,
and the negotiation went off upon this ground. This was
urged as • strong fact in support of the suggestion that the
father was utterly ignorant of such • deed of gift being in
existence, and that if he had been applied to the whole of
the fraud that had been practised in relation to the pro-
perty would have been discovered. The learned aerjeant
then proceeded to state that down almost to the very
period of his death, the deceased had evidently acted upon
the supposition that the whole of his property was at his
(Here .I, and had not been in any way interfered with, and
he executed • codicil to a will only twelve days before his
death to that effect. When the jury had beard the evidence
they would entertain no doubt that William Roupell was
really guilty of the acts of forgery and fraud to which
he lad alluded, and that the heir-at-law, who bad by means
of thisforgery and fraud been deprived of his property,
was entitled te reoover in the present action. He did not
deny that William Roupell had squandered the whole of the
property of his deceased father, and that the object of the
present action waa to recover beck the protect), for his
family. The heir-at-law, however, had nothing whatever
to do with the proceedings of William Roupell, and if he
should make out the facts to be as he had stated them, the
jury were bound to give • verdict in hie favour. He should
call William Roupell as a witness. It would be useless to
deny that he came from the gaol to give his evidence, and
that he was under sentence for mother forgery, but the jury
would not forget that although he had undoubtedly com-
mitted a great crime be had also made a great reparatioe.
The evideace fur the plaintiff was then proceeded with.
One of the witnesses who wu cross-examined said that
old Roupell was • very energetic man in business, and his
furnaces were constantly going. He carried on the business
of a lead smelter, but he was unable to say whether be
melted anything else besides lead. The' peculiar tone in
which the witness said this,- caused • good deal of man.
EMIL