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

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

At the Chelmsford assizes yesterday an action came on
before Mr. Baron Channell and a special jury, Roupell and
another v. Haws and another, to recover by writ of eject-
ment an estate at Great Worley, to which the plaintiff
claimed to be entitled as heir-at-law of the late Mr.
Roupell,

The defendants pleaded that they were legally in posses-
sion of the estate in question under a conveyance by Wm.
Roupell, the illegitimate son of the deceased, to whom it
had passed by deed of gift from his father, and the important
question involved in the cause was whether this deed of gift
was forged, or a genuine instrument ; the case on the part
of the plaintiffs being that Wm. Roupell had forged this
deed, and al-o will, by means of which he came into pos-
session of the whole of his father's property. This he has
since parted with, and the object of the present and other
actions that are pending is to recover back the estates from
the parties who had purchased them, on the ground that
Wtu. Roupell, who at the present time is under sentence of
penal servitude for 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 summer assizes
at Guildford, but upon that occasion the defendant con-
sented to compromise the matter, and agreed to pay the
plaintiff half the estimated value of the estate that
was the subject of the action. It is understood, how•
ever, that the defendants in the present action are deter-
mined not to come to any terms, but to take the opinion of
a jury whether William Roupell is truly charging himself
with forgery and fraud, or whether it is not merely a con-
trivance to regain possession of his late father's property for
the benefit of the tamily, and this is the important question
involved in the present proceeding.
Sergeant Shoe, 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.

Sergeant Slice, in commencing his opening of the case
for the plaintiffs, explained the nature of the action, and
said that it was brought to recover possession of two farms,
one called Bury farm, and the other Hard's farm, in the
parish of Great Worley, in Essex. The plaintiff, Richard
&Alpell, claimed as the heir-at-law of Richard Palmer
Roupell, who died on the 12th of eptember, 1856, and his
case would depend on the validity of a deed of gift, alleged
to have been made by Richard Palmer Roupell, and which
he should prove by the evidence of William Roupell, in
whoAr favour the deed of gilt was made, was a forgery, and
that the signatures of the attesting witnesses were also
forgeries. He should likewise prove that a will, under
which William Roupell was appointed executor, and took
possession of the whole of the property of his deceased
father, Richard Palmer Roupell, was also a forgery. The
case for the plaintiff, therefore, as heir-at-law, was simple.w.,of
He should prove that he was the only legitimate child 4
the deceased Richard Palmer Roupell, and that if
rove
to which he referred were forgeries, and he shouldhimse.,,
,_,.,
they were so by the evidence of William Reupeet.et.law:lo:ld
would be entitled to claim this property i
alsehunder William
the defendants, who only derived a tit
erty so acquired.
pdeede
Roupell, would be bound to give up tbe_Peri!at.lav, appeared
Although, however, the case for theld he rnecessary
that ho
to be a very simple one, still it woutheb
_way, in order that
should give a few details relative ton
understand
the nature of
the jury might be better able moron d
grandfather of William
explained that in the
the inquiry into which theyl,Bw3s
the
eabgrout to enter. He then
yeaorrtune to his son, Richard Palmer
Roupell died,
the amount of between £300.0 0
possessed of property to .
£100,000;
was and at his death, in 1856, he
h came eventually
whole of which
should prove to be a forgery. He
wßaosu pel 1,0 f at leavingleasr
and.t £400,006, the
Roupell, who was the illegitimate son,
under the will w
that Richard Roupell
it right to say . . was a man of
thought .
us disposition, and although he was ll'
fi TO mg
possession of Wi.hiliicaum
the most penurious
year 1854 he only
whom he had
&ion
allowed £2OO per
annum for the support of his establishment at Brixton, and
week to his son William Roup,ll,
£1 a
only in wealth, down to theho
articled to an attorney, and who, there was no doutt, was a
mi n
aa
an
wo fhgorpe
oa
st
saebs islei
dt yg,
raenadt
co
of
omi
nees:pt , daent
de rwmhi no
ewdo spirit,would carryanoduat
any plan that he had determined •apon without any regard to
The COME quences. Not wi Ihstandinz the position of William
Roupell at this period he appeared to have entered very

largely into speculation; in the beginning of the year 1856
he was in the 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, £2,500 for
money that had been advanced to him, and to different
banks sums exceeding £20,000; he was bound, under the
guarantee of Mr. Whittaker, to replace a sum of £12,000 in
May, 1856, at the London and Westminster Bank, and it
was impossible for him to do so without making away with
some of the property of his father. The learned sergeant
then proceeded to state that Richard Palmer Roupell was
possessed of a great many estates in different parts of the
country, and explained the mode in which William Roupell
had, by means of forging deeds of gift from his father, con-
trived to obtained 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 sufficient to state that the
suggestion on the part of the plaintiff was tha,-, William
Roupell had, during his father's lifetime, been carrying on
a system of fraud and forgery, which was consummated by
the forgery of his will in order to raise money to relieve
himself from his embarrazsments.

Mr Bovill, in the course of the speech of the learned
sergeant, objected that he had no right to give any evi-
dence having reference t 3 oth€r forgeries than the alleged
forged deed of gift relating to this particular property.
Baron Channell, however, said he did not think he could
exclude the evidence, but he would take a note of the objec-

tion.
Sergeant Shee then proceeded with his narrative, and he
said that a most extt aordinary part a the case was the fact
that William Roupell went boldly to his own solicitor, Mr.
Whittaker, and got him to draw up the forged deed of gift
upon which the defendants relied, and after it had been
engrossed. William Roupell returned it to Mr. Whittaker,
with the signature of his father apparently attached to it,
and he should prove that this signature, and those of the
two attesting witnesses, were forgeries. Endeavours were
made to procure the sum of £12,000, which was so press-
ingly required at this time, but a difficulty arose as to the
title, and one gentleman who had agreed to advance the
money, ultimately declined to do so unless Richard Palmer
Roupell joined in the security, and the negotiation went off
upon this ground. This was used as a strong fact in sup-
port of the suggestion that the father was utterly ign rant
of such a deed of gift being in existence, and that if he had

been applied to the while of the fraud that had been prac-
tised in relation to the property would have been discovered.
The learned sergeant then proceeded to state that down
almost to the very period of his death, the deceased had evi-
dently acted upon the supposition that the whole of his pro
party was at his disposal, and had not been in any way in-
t, rfered with, and he executed a codicil to a will only 12
days before his death to that effect. When the jury had

heard the evidence they would Entertain no doubt that Wm.
Roupell was guilty of the act of forgery and fraud to which

he bad alluded, and that the heir-at-law, who had by means

of flys forger/ and fraud been deprived of his property,
was entitled to recover in the present action. He did nol

deny that William Roupell had squandered the whole of the
property of his deceased father, and that the object of the
present action was to recover back the property of 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 a verdict in his favour. He should call Wil-

Ham Roupell as a witness. It would be useless to deny
that he came from the gaol to give his ex idence, and that
he was under sentence for another forgery, but the jury
would nut forget that although he had undoubtedly cora-

milted a great crime he had also wade a great reparation.
The evidence for the plaintiff was then proceeded with.

The first portion of the case consisted of proof that the
plaintiff was the only legitimate child of the deceased, and
that he was consequently entitled to claim in the present

action as heir-at-law. As this was, of course, merely forma

proof, it will not be necessary to give the evidence in detail.
Mr. Bovill put some questions to Mrs. Watts, the sister
of Mrs. Roupell, in reply to which she stated that through
the proceedings of her nephew, William Roupell, she had bean
reduced to poverty, and was penniless. Betore this she had
been in the had of going to Paris, amd ther places on the
Continent, but she was now unable to do so. She expected

to get something by the present proceedings.
The a itness here became very excited, and objected to

answer such questions as had been put to her.
Baron Channel] told her that she was bound to answer the

questions.
She then said that what she meant was, that Messrs,

Linklater, the solicitors for tho plaintiff, had promised to in
tercede for her. She was on very intimate terms with Mr
Roupell. She did not remember ever having said that the
property was left to Mrs. Roupell to save the 10 per cent.
legacy duty. Witness was acquainted with the eldest son,
John Roupell, and she believed that he annoyed his father
a good deal, and that he went abroad that he might reclaim
himself, and she understood that his father allowed him £2OO
a year. Wn.. Roupell's father was very fond of him, and
witness also was proud of him, notwithstanding his mistor-
tune, What she expected of Messrs. Linklater was to get
back a house that belonged to her which Wm. Roupell had
mortgaged. Ever, bony was fond of Wm. Roupell, but she
could not say that he was his father's favourite son. He
used to say that Win. Roupell would be a great man some
day. "And so he was," said the witness. She was not
aware that old Mr. Roupell was very keen after money.
She knew nothing about his habits.
Evidence was then given that the marriage of Mr. and
Mrs. houpell took place in December, 1838, and that the
plai tiff was born in July, 1840, that at this time Wm.
Roupell was six years old, and his brother John ten years
older than he was. It appeared that the reason for the delay
in the marriage taking place was, that Richard Palmer
Roupell believed that if he married, his father would not
leave him any of his property.
One of the witnesses who was cross-examined said that
old Roupell was a 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 he
melted anything else besides lead. The peculiar tone in
which the witness said this caused a good deal of merri-
ment.
Baron Channell said he did not see that they had any
right to inquire how a man made his money. Money was
made in a variety of ways. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins asked the witness whether the furnaces
were not always lighted and " ready for anything ?" (A
laugb.)
He merely smile I, and did not answer the question.
Roupell, the convict, was then examined, and
his appearance created a good deal of sensation in the court.
He was not dresses in the prison garb, but the large beard
and moustache he exhibited on the last occasion when he
was examined had be-ax removed. He gave his evidence
with the utmost coolness and self-possession. He said—l
rememb r living at Peckham with my father and mother.
They then passed as Mr. and Mrs. Carter. I think we left
Peckham to go to live at Aspen-house, Brixton, in 1839,
_ .

and tney then went by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Roupeil.
I had an older tauther, John, and two sisters younger than
myself at this time, and I remember the birth of my brother
Richard, the present pl intiff. I think he was born in 1841.
(The witness made a mistake ; the birth took place in 1840.)

My father spent the g. eater part of his time at Cross-street,
Bltckf~iars-road, and that was in fact his dwelling-house.
His plice of business was in Gravel-lane. He used only to
go to Brixton on the Sunday, and he remained all day and
returned on the Monday morning to Cross-street. He
was very caretul and inexpensive in his habits. I wss
articled in 1849 to Mr. Haslam, a solicitor, in Copthal
court, and I was afterwards assigned to Mr. Rees, who sndc-
ceeded him, My father at first allowed me one pouu a

week.
Mr. Bovill submitted that evidence of this character was
really immaterial. The question was whether a certain deed
datel the 9th of January, 1856, was a genuine

or not.
Baron Channell said it appeared to him that the evidence
was admissible ; but it was a very important ca,e, and he
should take a note of the objection. lie thought that the
treatment of the son by the father was
an admissible fact

Mad the
was then Continued, He
in the cause.
The examination of Mr
the allowance to 256, a week '
me 30s. a week. I had tit:,
said—My father
1852, and he afterwaaard,
increasisegave
ray dinner in the City, He
provide my clothes down to the period of b• death.lS At
con-
tinued this allowanceas in difficulties as to
the end of 1855. I money matters.
svemaneneed from
Those diffici.ilties ,
a solid addition to the time my father
• ted to give me my allowance, and
omit
1856, I owed my
'n .Tanuary, bankers, the London' and
in Bank a large sum of money. I kept an
account at this time with Messrs. Herries and Co.,
the Bank of England, and I think also with the Unity
Bank. I owed the London and Westminster Bank at thi
time £12,000. That sum had been borrowed in August
1856, and it was to be repaid in January' 1856. I was very'
desirous to repay this sum, but my
accounts were very low
at all my bankers, and I owed Messrs. Herries and Co.
£4,800, if not more, I also owed £4O 000 to the Guardian
Insurance Company, and a large sun; to my solicitor, Mr.
Whittaker—several thousand pounds. 1 had no means
whatever to pay these debts, and my father knew nothing
about them. The witness here proceeded to explain the
circumstances connected with the copyhold portion of
the Great Worley estate being surrendered in his name
in order that some beneficial arrangement might be made
with the steward of the manor. Mr. Roupell went on
,
to BR,.
that in consequence of this he obtained
possession of the the deeds relating to the Essex property.
His father, he said, opened the strong box at Cross-street,
and he took the whole of the deeds relating to the Great
Worley estate, and at his father's request he gave him a
receipt, but he described the property as the " Havering
property" instead of the Great Worley property. He said
that he purposely confused the two properties, but his
father discovered the error and corrected it. Mr. Roupell
then went on to say that after he obtained possession of the
deeds he made fair copies of theta, and also procured
copies of the leases to the tenants, and he took all the docu-
ments except the originals afterwards to Mr. Whittaker,
his solicitor, and he kept the original deeds in his own
possession, and locked them up in his bureau.
At this stage the cause was adjourned.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 O'CLOCK.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

PONTEFRACT RACES.—Tnis DAY.
ALEXANDRA PLATE.

Paddy O'Rourke
Cellarius
Globule
Stockman
PARKHILL STAKES.
Vanessa

Tarlatan
Legra

Six ran

HUNGERFORD RACES—THIs DAY.

STAND PLATE.

Lord of the Manor
Rest
3
Neilgherry

Fifteen ran.

STAMFORD RACES.—Tats DAY.
KELTON STAKES.
Amelia beat Muffler.
CLIFDEN CUP.

Trap
Merry Hart 1
Bohemia
3
Thirteen ran.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.
____

COURT OF DIVORCE.

SCOTT V. SCOTT.

This was a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by
Captain John Sowden Scott, late of the 31st Regiment of
Foot, praying that his wife might be compelled to return
to c,,habitation. The respondent answered that she had not
left her husband without reasonable excuse; that the peti-
tioner had been guilty of divers acts of cruelty.
The case was opened yesterday by evidence of the wife,
who stated that her husband had been guilty of threatening
to shoot her, and had left her on several occasions without
money in a strange place.
The petitioner was examined at considerable length, to
show that nothing more than the usual quarrel-, that occur
when a mother-in-law is a resident in the house ever took

place.
A number of witnesses were examined this morning to
bear out the allegations of the petitioner.
The case will not conclude before late this evening.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Common Jury.)
SINGULAR ACTION UPON A PROMISSORY NOTE.-JACOBS

V. REES.
This was an action upon a promissory note, and defend-
ant had put no less than five pleas on the record.
Mr. Thos. Angell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Charles Robertson, of Crosby hall Chambeis, for de-
fendant.
Mr. Jacobs said he lent money, and he advanced defend-
ant money on the promissory note in question. De-
fendant paid many instalments, and failing at length to
keep up the payment was sued.
Mr. Robertson here asked if there was not an agreement
in writing P
Plaintiff—Not relating to that promissory note. After
defendant was sued he called upon me and wanted to pay
tte balance without costs.

Cross-examined—The note was made by a person named
Herne. Ido not know if Herne made the paym( nt. The
book produced comes from my office. No payments have
been made that are not entered there. I cannot swear there
was not an agreement made in reference to the amount ad-
vanced on the note. £l3 6s. was advanced on the note.
The note was for £l6.

Mr. Robertson said that his client was simply in the posi-
tion of surety, and thtit he ought not to be liable for any
sum further than that advanced.

Mr. Angell urged that plaintiff was not bound tolend his
money for nothing. A person was as much entitled to
charge a profit upon his money as a person who opened a
shop had to make profits on goods exposed for sale. Plain-
tiff had only charged 12 14s. for 12 months, and surely
that was not exorbitant.

The learned Secondary briefly summed up, and the
jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount:
The learned Secondary granted a certificate.

SMALL-BEER CHRONICLES.

(From All the Year Round.)
In the second column of the Times advertisement-sheet
appeared, the other day, these mysterious words, "Audi,
vidi. tact"—coupled with the announcement that a trust-
worthy personage was just about to start for the Continent
with a view to certain " private inquiries." The advertise-
ment was inserted by one Messrs. Pollaky and Co.

Now, here is a new state of things. The organised spy
system has sprung into existence quite recently. By the
advertisements is,ued from this office of Mr. Pollaky's, and
from another similar establishment kept by retired Inspec-
tor Field, you are invited to place in the hands of these
gentlemen any affair you want cleared up, entrusting the
particulars to them, relying on their secresy, and on the
diligence they will show in serving you. But what sort of
inquiries are those in which the ex-detectives are ready to
engage? What sort of people are those who apply to
Messrs. Pollaky and Field for their secret services?
I wonder to what extent the establishments of these pun
veyot s of useful information are patronised by the public ?
Of one thing about quite sure—there are more men to be
seen standing at the corners of streets than there used
to be. Are these men—they are generally seedy in their
attire, and in the habit of sucking small pieces of straw or
chewing the stacks of leaves to while away the time—are
these men the agents of Pollaky and Co., and for what are
they on the look-out? For more things, depend
Drnthan
are dreamed of in our philosophy. When M. inkwater
Dreggs gives two dinner-parties, one following the other,
all the guests who are invited to one of those festivals are
instantly seized with a firm conviction that the dinner to
which they are not asked is the distinguished one, while the
meal at which they are invited to figure is the second-rate
affair. Now, it is not too much to suppose that these suspi-
cious personages are in the habit of putting their difficulties
be observes what proportion the cabs
in the hands of Messrs Pollaky and Co. Away goes the
trustworthy emissary to Wilton-cresent. He plants himself
.ItO)Blktirs. Dreggs'e door bear to the private
vih:lenustudies the appearance of the
rankun d
whiche. ri
in
thedethr e
social scale , or, if unable to do gthuiese,tpseraheadp'sblere
opinion as to their iwenaigirrialgasrehtre:wrado icr!odnivyiedrusaalt.,iofnorrow isthhisthoew Waiter,
learns gentlemen
no caoremeosvtoer
etxhaectly what sort of tthheeirdwooinre,loarndafrlonmtlehiamir
is being entertained within
com-
pany With the infoimation.
he has g ained, the trustworthy one returns to his employer,
and next morning the Seed •
party, and who had the3mans, who were at the first
nobodies, who, for the most pleasure of meeting a society of
is cabs and flies, learn that, on
reached their destination
festival, there was a
cab, and that a "regular swell turnout, with only one
among other Hansom ; and that the company comprised,
a distinguisheddowager-countess,
persons, a baronet and his lady,
, a genius, two members of parliament,
and consorts, and a cabinet minister." This knowledge
the Seedymans then take to their hearts, and batten thereon
hurt, but with a certain malignant pleasure,
nevertheless.