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

PETTY OFFENCES BILL

The order for the second reading of this bill was discharged,
RAILWAY BILLS (No. 2) BILL.

This bill was withdrawn.

The Indemnity, Colonial Letters Patent, Jurisdiction of
Justices, and Pauper Lunatic Asylums Bills were severally
read a third time and pacsed.

The Clergymen (Colonies), Alteration in Judges' Circuits,
and Superannuation (Union Officers) Bill, were read a second
time. . _

The Lords' Amendments to the Oaths Relief in Criminal
Proceedings (Scotland) Bill were considered and agreed to.
The house adjourned at a quarter to 1 o'clock.

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

FIFTH DAY.

(Before Mr. Baron Channel! and a Special Jury.)
This trial was resumed at Chelmsford yesterday
morning.
The case for the plaintiff having been brought
to a conclusion on Monday afternoon, Mr. Bovill

yesterday addressed the jury on behalf of the de•
fendants.

Sergeant Shee, before he did so, said that in con-
sequence of an observation that had fallen from his
lordship on the preceding day, it had been thought
advisable that Miss Sarah Ronpell should be in at-
tendance, and she was now in court, and he proposed
to examine her.

Mr. Bovill said he should object to any further
evidence being adduced after the case for the plain-
tiff had closed.
Baron Channell said he considered that the lady
could give important evidence, and in the interests
of justice he should allow her to be examined.
Miss Sarah Roupell was accordingly placed in the
witness-box.

In answer to questions put to her by Sergeant
Shee, she said was living at Aspen House when
my father died, and for some y ears 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 dic-
tated to me. I wrote it at the time it bears date,
Jan. 8, 1856. I cannot remember that I ever told
anybody I wrote it.
Cross-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. lam not aware
that my mother had given 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 proceedings against the
wish of your mother and your brother Richard ?
The witness hesitated, and Sergeant Shee ob-
jected to the question.
The witness then said she did not think they ob-
jected to these proceedings, but they would have
been glad if any other course could have been
adopted that would have saved exposure to the
family. Mr. Liuklater told me that I should not be
called as a witness if it could be avoided; and I was
informed last night after the court had risen that I
should have to give evidence about this letter in
consequence of what the judge had said; but the
letter twas not shown me..

Baron Channell—lt was in my box locked up.
(A laugh.)
Cross-examination continued—As children the
family were in the habit of scribbling each other's
names, but did not mean anything wrong. I have
signed my mother's name, not for anything wrong,
but to save her trouble. I remember perfectly well
that I wrote the letter in the drawing-room, and
that my brother William dictated it to me. Ido
not remember seeing anybody on the same morning,
but I suppose my father was there.
Mr. Bovill—Then your mind is a perfect blank
upon everything else that occurred on that day,
except the letter P

Witness—l do not remember anythitg else.

Mr. Bovill then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant; and he commenced by observing that no-
thing was in his opinion more dangerous than to
call a witness the last moment to prop up a particu-
lar case. If this letter was a genuine one, the wit-
Sarah Rougell ought to have been called to prove

it, but she had been purposely kept away. Why
did they not call Mr. Whittaker, a respectable so-
licitor, who could have told them whether the trans-
action was a genuine one or not? Again, why was
not Mrs. Roupell, the mother, brought forward,
who collie' not only have proved that the plaintiff
was the heir-at-law, born after wedlock, 'out also
whether her husband had given away this pro-

perty or not ? These witnesses had been kept

back, and the jury would judge with what object ;
but the witness Sarah Roupell, who had been as it
were dragged forward at the last moment, had con-

tradicted William Ronpell in a most material
point, for he swore that he wrote a draft of the
letter and that his sister copied it, while she swore
that he dictated it to her. The fact was that the
whole story was a lie. William Roupell, the son of
the old smelter, and brought up in the school of the

old smelter, who had amassed £400,000, had de-
ceived them, or tried to do so, and if he succeeded
he would go back and laugh in his sleeve at their
credulity. What was the real state of the case ?

His clients had advanced 112,000 upon the faith of
the signature to the deed of gift being genuine, and
the object of the present action was to rob them

of this large sum of money, which had been ad-
vanced upon the faith of a solemn deed. The plain-
tiffs were playing for a game of £200,000, and they
cared little what became of the unhappy ladies and

their families who were the real detendants in this
action, and who had advanced their money upon
the faith of this deed of gift being genuine, or whe-
ther they were compelled to go to the workhouse or
not. The plaintiffs did not dare to attack the great
mortgagees who had advanced large sums of money
upon what was called the Roupell Park estate, but
they thought probably that these four ladies would
not have found the means to contest such a ques-
tion, and that they would quietly give up posses-
sion of the property. They were mistaken, how-
ever ; and if the jury had not already grave doubts
whether the claim of the plaintiff was not founded
solely upon the fraud and perjury of William
Roupell, he felt a strong impression that the evi-

dente he should lay before them on the part of the
defendants would completely satisfy them upon this
point, and the plaintiff ought not to succeed in this
action. The learned counsel then proceeded to call
the attentio❑ of the jury to the proceedings that had
taken place with reference to this particular pro-
perty, and said that if the actions that had been al-

laded to hadbeen tried as against the tenants, a grea
portion of evidence would have been excluded, and
the real question in dispute would not have been
brought before the jury' and he urged that every
trick and contrivance had been resorted to. It was
represented by Messrs. Linklater that they were
defending for the tenants, which was not true ; and
the defendants ultimately recovered their rent, their
claim being founded upon this verydeed of gift,
anu the tenants, or rather Mr. Richard
Roupell,
present plaintiff, who now set up the
that the deed was
forged, had to pay the costs. After this Messrs.
Linklater pretended that theyh weremand nott
Pthe repre-
sentatives of Messrs. S rinHaws, the
tenants, but that they were reallyga acting for Mr.
Richard Roupell, and that it was onl y upon some
technical grounds that the former action had not
been defended. It was idle to say that they were
not acting for Mr. Richard Roupell, for the
perfectly well that their case rested entireT knew
y upon
the question whether this deed of gift
hewas h
adgenuine
or not. The result of the proceedings
re-
ferred was to leave the defendants in possession of
the property ; and if the present claim of the plain-
tiff were to be allowed to succeed he would ask
them who would be safe. He believed, however,
that he was safe in the hands of the jury, and
although they might say there was doubt and there
was suspicion, still there was moral evidence upon
which they could rely, and they would not disturb
the parties who were legally and honestly in pos-
session of the property. With regard to the evi-
dence of Mr. W. Roupell as to the will, it had no-
thing to do with the question. He was playing the
deep game of confessing himself a perjurer and a
forger in order to obtain £200,000 for his family,
and he came into the witness-box with a lie in his
mouth; for he swore he had not been in communi-
cation with Messrs. Linklater, when it was clear
that he had given them all the information they
possessed, and that he had been in constant
communication with those gentlemen, not only
before but since he had been in prison. His es-
teemed friend Sergeant Shee was to tell the tale to
the jury, and William Roupell was to prove it, and
he, by his own account, had been a liar and a forger
all through the proceedings. The jury would re-
collect that he had represented that shortly before
these forgeries were represented to have been com-
mitted he was only in the position of a lawyer's
clerk, when it appeared that at this very time he
had four bankers ; that thousands of pounds were
ear ; and that he
passing through his hands every y
had borrowed £40,000 from the Guardian Insurance
Company and £12,000 from the London and West-
minster Bank; and that he had control over a most
extensive property, of which the witness Truman,
to whom he paid £3OO a-year salary, was the ma-
nager. He thought the jury would agree with him
that William Roupell had deceived them at every
stage of the inquiry, and that it was only now and
teen, and quite by chance, that the truth was eli-
cited from him. The learned counsel then proceeded
to call the attention of the jury to the circumstances
connected with the making of the deed of gift, and
he said he should prove that it was in the possession
of Mr. Edwin Whitaker long before the time when
William Roupell and the witnesses Dove and Tru-
man represented that it was executed; and he should
prove also that many of the witnesses, and particu-
larly William Roupell, had contradicted themselves
in a great many essential particulars ; and that it
was impossible that a great many of the statements
they made could be true. He then remarked upon
the evidence that had been given by Truman and
Dove, and said that it was no doubt intended to in-
duce the jury to believe that their signatures
found
to the
deed of gift were forgeries, but when it was
that they could not deny that they had signed the
deed as attesting witnesses, then W. Roupell turned
round and said that they were genuine signatures,
but that he had deceived them as to the nature of
the instruments that they were about to sign. He
contended that the story told by William Roupell
of his having concealed a portion of the deed wit
a piece of blotting paper was absurd and could not
be relied upon, and that this was merely pat of the
fraud that had been concocted by William Roupell,
and by which he intended to impose upon the
jury. He then proceeded to comment upon
the statement proved to have been made by
Dove, one of the attesting witnesses to the
deed of gift, to Mr. Coventon, which was to
the effect that it was his genuine signature, and that
he should not have signed it as the attesting witness
if he had not seen the deceased execute it. His
learned friend had pledged himself to prove that
the signatures of the attesting witnesses were for-
geries, but he submitted that he had failed entirely
to do so ; and, under these circumstances, he asked
the jury what evidence there was that this deed of
gift was a forgery, and whether they would he justi-
fied upon that supposition in depriving the present
defendants of their property ? He did not mean to
say that there might not be some suspicion in refer-
ence to the transactions of this family, and that the
truth had not yet been arrived at, and probably
never would be ; but the question they would have
to decide was, whether it was clearly established by
evidence upon which they could rely that the deed
in question was a forgery ? They had no doubt the
statement of Mr. William Ronpell, but they would
not forget that he had £200,000 worth of property,
and probably a ticket-of-leave, in view, and that it
was quite clear that he was ready to swear to any-
thing that was likely to effect the objects he had in
view. He then reminded the jury that it had been
proved that the old man stated to both the tenants
of this property that he had given the Warley estate
to his son William, and that they would in future
have a lawyer for a landlord ; and he said he should
produce a mass of evidence to show that the signa-
ture of the deceased to the deed of gift was a genuine
signature, and he should also lay before the jury the
evidence of a number of gentlemen who were known
as experts in handwriting, who would contradict the
evidence of this class that had been given on behalf
of the plaintiff, and who would tell the
jury that in
was
their opinion the signature genuine signature`

The learned counsel then reminded the jury that Wm.

Roupell contradicted his sister as to the letter, and
he said that nothing was more improbable than that
he should have got his sister to write a letter which
must have led to his immediate detection. He asked

he jury whether, if the old man had given authority
or such a letter to be written, it would not have

been talked about in the family ? If William Itou-

pell were to succeed in this action, and to get the
property for his brother Richard, what security had
they that he would not come forward next year and
declare that all he had stated before was false, and

produce another will by which all the property was
left to himself ? He would not deny that William

Roupell had been guilty of forgery with reference
to the leases, and this he said he believed was the
foundation of the whole of the story ; for, knowing
that he had been guilty of one forgery, he thought

he might just as well say that the deed of gift was
also forged, and thus get rid of the whole affair.
The learned counsel then proceeded to call the at-
tention of the jury to various discrepancies in the
evidence of William Roupeil, and particularly to the
fact, that although he pretended to have kept back
the genuine leases for the purpose of copying the
signatures of the tenants, the signatures he after-
wards put to the fictitious instruments were totally

dissimilar, and there was not the slightest resem-

blanc© to the genuine signatures. His learned friend
had, as he thought, most improperly and unneees-

sarily introduced the question of the will, with
which the defendants had nothing whatever to do;

but as he had done so, he should make use of it, and
contend, on the part of the defendants, that unless
the jury believed the evidence of William Roupell

as to the existence of a genuine will of 1850, and
that by this will the property was devised to Richard
Roupell, he would net be entitled to a verdict in the
present action. He then referred to the proceed-
ings of William Roupell in connection with the
wills, and asked whether they could possibly be-
lieve that he did not look at the genuine will for a
week after it came into his possession, or that he
retained the document for more than six years, and
did not destroy it until the 29th of March, 1862, 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 a week 'tiler
the funeral, and she must have known everything
that took place there, and yet she was not called as
a witness. It WAS said that William Roupell was
solely actuated by a feeling of sincere repentance,
Sincere repentance, indeed ! Why, he did not say a
word till the mortgagees of this property threatened
to foreclose the mortgage, and he knew the forgery
of the leases must be discovered, and then he
attempted, first to shut the mouths of the attorneys
by alleging that the deeds relating to the other pro-
perty were also forged, and having failed in this, he
boldly resolved to tell the extraordinary story he
had done, in order to get hack property of the value
of 1200,000 for his family. The learned counsel
then 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 AV illiam Roupell ; for the jury would remember
that the property was alleged to be worth £400,000,
and that if it had been left to the latter, he was
illegitimate, and that the legacy duty would have
amounted to £40,000, and this sum was saved to
the family by the property being left to the mother.
It being now past one o'clock, the Court was ad-
journed for a short period, and, upon the return of
the jury, Mr. Bovill resumed his address to them for
the defendants.
The learned counsel then commented at consider-
able length upon the effect of the will, and he also
remarked upon the evidence as to the handwriting,
and said he should call witnesses from the Bank of
England, from which establishment, they would
remember, not a single witness had been called by
his learned friend, although the old man 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 proceeded to make some humorous
comments upon the slight peculiarities by which
some of the " experts" had professed to come to a
positive conclusion that the signatures were not
genuine, and he said he should produce a number
of receipts which were undoubtedly signed by the
deceased, and they would find that every one of
those supposed peculiarities were sometimes absent
and sometimes present, and argued 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 a polluted source, commencing with
the smelting-pot of the old man, from which he had
obtained £400,000, and that trick and artifice had
been resorted to with a 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 gift of January,
1856, was executed by Richard Palmer Roupell, in
the presence of the attesting witnesses, Truman and
Dove ; secondly, whether the signature was genuine,
although it might not have been signed in the pre-
sence of those witnesses ; and, thirdly, whether the
will of 1850 gave the property to the plaintiff; and
unless they were satisfied upon these points, the
defendants were entitled to their verdict. He con-
cluded a most eloquent and able address by stating
that if they returned a vet diet for the plaintiff upon
such facts as appeared in the present case, it might
be attended by the most dangerous and frightful
results,
The following witnesses were then examined for
the defendants.
Mr. I'. West said—l was a tenant of Mr. Richard
Roupell for 25 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 Pal-
mer Roupell," was his handwriting.
Cross-examined—My only reason for saying it is
his handwriting is, that the signature resembles
those to my receipts for rent. I perceive there are
some slight differences between the two signatures,
but that does not shake my evidence at all.
In answer to questions put by the jury, the wit-
ness said that having carefully examined the re-
ceipts and the signature to the deed of gift, he was
of opinion that the signature to the latter was

genuine.
Mr G. Lasty, another tenant of old Mr. Roupell's,
gave similar evidence. He also expressed a posi-
tive opinion that the signature to the deed of gift
was the handwriting of the deceased.
In eross•examination, he said he should much
rather say that the signature was a genuine one
than that it was an imitation of his signature by a
skilful forger. He went to Doctors'-commons, and
saw the will that was alleged to be forged, and in
his opinion the signature to that will was a genuine
signature.
The letter of instruction to Mr. Witaker was then
shown to the witness, and he said that the signa-
ture was a forgery.
Mr. Shuter, a letter sorter at the General Post-
Office, and who way also a tenant of the deceased,
produced some receipts that had been given to him
by Mr. Richard Roupell, and be expressed an
opinion that the signature to the deed of gift was
genuine.

Similar evidence was given by other witnesses;
a great number of receipts were put in, the object
being to show that the deceased constantly varied
his signature, and that very few of them were abso
lutely alike. In one instance it appeared that the
deceased had only put one "1" to the name of Rou-
pell ; but sergeant Shee suggested that this pro-
bably arose from the deceased having begun to sign
so close to the end of the paper that there was not
sufficient space for the final letter.
Mr. Phipps, the secretary to the Lambeth Water-
works Company, proved that the deceased was a
shareholder in that company, and he identified two
signatures to two transfers of shares that had been
made by him, He also produced several dividend
warrants which had been signed by the deceased,
and there appeared to be some observable differ-
ence between the signature. The witness then
looked at the deed of gift, and he said the signature
was exceedingly like that of the deceased, but he
could not say,that it was his signature ; it Was very
like it.

Some further evidence of the same character was
then given, after which the Court adjourned.