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 ej.ct-
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 i t
had passed by deed of gift iron, 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 e. 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
Roupell, who at the present time is under sentence of
[tonal 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 family, and this is the important question
involved in the present proceeding.
Sergeant 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.

Sergeant Shee, 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 11 urd's farm, in the
parish of Great Worley, in Essex. The plaintiff, Richard
Roupell, claimed as the heir-at-law of Richard Palmer
Roupell, who died on the 12th of eptember, 1856, knd his
case would depend on the validity of a deed of gift, alleged
to have been made by Richard Palmer Roupell, and which
he shotrld prove by the evidence of William Roupell, in
who,,e favour the deed of gift 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
tether, Richard Palmer Roupell, was also a forgery. The
ease for the plaintiff, therefore, as heir-at-law, was simple.
He should prove that he was the only legitimate child of
the deceased Richard Palmer Roupell, and that if the deeds
to which he referred were forgeries, and he should prove
they they were so by the evidence of William Roupell himself,aw andh
would be entitled to claim this property as heir-art-
the defendants, who only derived a title under
Roupell, would be bound to give up the propettyors u
appeared
Although, however, the case for the heir-at
that he
to be a very simple one, still it would betawniiy, in order that
should give a few details relative to thetand
the nature of
the jury might be better able to understand
the of William the inquiry into which they were a
explained that in the year 1835
ttahe_
.ge
eon,
Richard Palmer
Roupell died, leaving a fortune hieort:t to enter. He then
the amount of between £300,0Y0
me eventually into the
was possessed
Roupell, of at leas, X 100,000;
whole of which ea
au at his death, in 1856, he
who was the illegitimate son,
°Pe.,;en. vi William Roup
pos..
and i 400,006, ofth
he oldsho prove to be a forgery. He
under the will whiesahy
dispetheejaatirteßnl;isCll4ahred
onlyßU U aimmaonpoefr
theeproperty to
alloy ed
and although he was rolling
the thought
most i
pt
ernhi
in wealth, down to the y
guehrsitouutposport of his establishment at Brixton, and
annum for t
only £1 a week to his son William Roup-11,
whom he had
articled loan attorney, and who, there was no doutt, was a
manef
great ability, and of most determined spirit, and a
man who possessed great Coolness, and who would carry out
any plan that he had del ermined upon without any regard to
the consequences. Notwithstanding 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. Re should
show that he owed his solicitor, Mr. Whittaker, £2,600 for
money that had been advanced to hire, and to different
banks sums exceeding £20,000 ; he was bound, under the
guarantee of Mr. Whittaker, to replace a sum of .C 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 g.eater portion of this
properly, and to raise large sums of money upon it, It will
bo 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 that 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 embarrassments.

Mr. Bovill, in the course of the speech of the learned
sergeant, objected that he had no right to give any evi-
dence having referetoce t) other 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 Sheo then proceeded with his narrative, and he
said that a most extt aordinary part i f 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 ivy-Taut
of such a deed of gift being in existence, and that if he had
hen applied to the while of the fraud that had been prac-
tised in relation to the property would hsve 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
perty 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
neard the evidence they would entertain no doubt that Wm.
Roupell was guilty of the act of forgery and fraud to which
tie had alluded, and that the heir-at-law, who had by means
of this forgery and fraud been deprived of his property,
was entitled to recover in the present action. He did not
deny that W illiam 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-
liam 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 another forgery, but the jury
would not forget that although he had undoubtedly com-
mitted a great crime he had also made a great reparation.