The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-25 00:00:00

25 0 0
25 0 0

25 0 0

10 10 0
2 10 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
5 0 0
5 0 0

30 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
52 10 0
25 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
10 10 0
10 10 0

;ommittee, in submitting the subscrip-
, most earnestly appeal to the admirers
it aid and assistance. The Committee
t the ground that Stratford is not only
kspeare. but the centre of attraction to
reat Poet's works, and that it was his
red, and where he lived and died.

THE ROUPELL FORGERIES.

EIGHTH DAY.
CHELMSFORD, July 24.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
ROUPELL AND ANOTHER V. HOWS AND ANOTHER.

The trial was resumed this morning.

Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, and
the Hon. Mr. Thesiger, were for the plaintiffs. Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Garth were for
the defendants.

Wm. Roupell was again brought down in custody.
Baron Channell summed up the whole case to the jury.
After some preliminary observations, his lordship said that
the case they had now to dispose of was one almost unparal-
leled in the history of legal jurisprudence. The principal
question they would have to decide was, whether the deed
of gift about which they had heard so much was a genuine
instrument or not; but there were some very important col-
lateral matters connected with it which would require their
most serious consideration. The action was one of ejectment,
to recover possession of a portion of one farm called Bolens,
and the whole of another called Herds, and originally there
were two plaintiffs, Richard Roupell and James Surridge ;
but it was admitted that the latter had not made out any
title, and the only question therefore was as regarded the
claims of Richard Roupell. He claimed as heir at law, and
the point he had to establish to support his claim was, that
his father died possessed of the estate in question, and there-
fore the material question was, whether he did really die
seised of the property, or whether he had previously dis-
posed of it by the deed of gift, and whether the deed of gift
which was the ground of the defendants' claim was a genu-
ine instrument, or whether it was forged, under the extra-
ordinary circumstances that had been narrated in the course
of the trial. Some collateral questions would arise as to the
will, but the validity of the deed of gift was the real ques-
tion in the cause. The case for the plaintiff rested a great
deal on the evidence of Wm. Roupell, but it did not clop
entirely, for there were many important collateral circum-
stances that were relied upon to support the evidence of this
witness. No one could fail to be impressed with the earnest
eloquence of the learned sergeant, and he joined with him in
the hope that he was sincerely penitent. In a court of jus-
tice, however, they must deal sternly with the facts, and
act upon evidence alone, and their feelings ought not to be
allowed at all to influence their decision. There could be no
doubt that Wm. Roupell was a man who had been guilty
of great crimes; he had in the first place committed the
offence of the forging of the leases relating to this property,
and then, according to his own admission, he had destroyed
his father's genuine will, forged a fresh will, and in this par-
ticular case he had by means of forgery and fraud obtained
from the defendants the sum of £12,000. If he now came
forward and deliberately committed the additional crime of
wilful perjury in order to regain possession of the property,
his crime was of a still deeper dye, and this was the
question they would eventually have to decide. He had
said that William Roupell was a man who was deeply
steeped in crime, and, as the law formerly stood, he would
not have been a competent witness, but the law was now
altered, and it was left to the discretion and good sense of a
jury to decide whether a man in the position of William
Roupell, who professed to be actuated by a feeling of sincere
repentance, was speaking truth, or whether, as ho had be-
fore stated, he had added to his former groat crimes the ad-
ditional one of wilful and deliberate perjury. It appeared
to him that a great deal of the evidence that had been ad-
duced for the plaintiffs was quite immaterial, particularly

that portion of it which related to the legitimacy of the
plaintiff, and he thought that there could be no doubt that
the plaintiff Richard Roupell was the legitimate son of
the deceased Richard Palmer Roupell, and that he was
entitled to bring the present action as heir at law. As
the most important witness in the cause, he should in
the first place call their attention to the evidence of
William Roupell, making such observations as he proceeded
as he hoped would assist them in their deliberations. He
said it appeared to be quite clear that William Roupell had
great influence over his mother, and according to his own
statement his father was very careful of money, indeed
almost penurious, and that at the end of 1855 he was in
great pecuniary difficulties, and owed large sums of money
to his bankers and to the Guardian Insurance Office, and
also to his solicitor, Mr. Whitaker, to whom he was intro-
duced by Mr. Watts, the husband of the lady who had been
examined as a witness on the first day of the trial. The
learned judge then alluded to the course alleged to have
been taken by William Roupell with regard to the forgery
of the leases of this estate, and he observed that these pro-
ceedings were undoubtedly of the most artful character, and
he explained that the effect was that the property was made
to appear of much larger value than it really was, and to
enable him to obtain a loan to a greater amount than he
would otherwise have been able to obtain. With regard to
these leases, it appeared to be admitted on both sides that
thece leases were forgeries, but the contention of Mr. Bovill,
on behalf of the defendants was, that he was legally entitled
to the property under a genuine deed of gift, and that the
forgery of the leases was only committed for the purpose of
enabling Wm. Roupell to raise a larger sum of money upon
the property than he otherwise could have done, in order to
relieve himself from the pecuniary difficulties in which he
was placed. The question then was, whether the deed of
gift was genuine or not. In reference to this subject here-
minded them that a letter had been written by the sister of
Wm. Roupell to Mr. Whitaker, at the dictation of the for-
mer, and he could not help observing that in his opinion,
although this
Young woman might have acted incautiously
in writing such a letter, there was nothing in the matter
that reflected upon her; and with regard to her not having
been called earlier in the cause, he could understand that
from humane motives the counsel and the attorney.whe were
concerned in the inquiry would have avoided, if it had been
possible, calling a witness whose brother was in the painful
position of Wm Roupell. Upon this letter it appeared that
Mr. Whitaker, without any further inquiry, prepared the
deed of gift, and he could not help saying that in his opinion
this was a most imprudent proceeding. His lordship then re-
ferred to the circumstances under which the deed of gift
was represented to have been attested by the witnesses Tru-
man and Dove, and said that the evidence given by Mr. E.
Whitaker and Mr. Covinton certainly tended to throw some
doubt upon the evidence of Wm. Roupell and those two wit-
nesses in reference to this transaction, and the jury would
consider what effect this had upon the portion of the case to
which he had called their attention. The learned Judge pro-
ceeded to read the evidence given by Wm. Roupoll, and
observed that it certainly was rather an extraordinary pro-
ceeding that he should not have read the genuine will after
he had taken it out of his father's bureau until a:week after-
wards, and he explained that, in order fur the present plain-
tiff to have any title under this will independently of claim-
ing as heir at law, they must believe that Wm. Roupell had
epoken the truth when he stated that by this will the War-
ley estate was devised to his brother Richard, the present
plaintiff. His lordship next proceeded to narrate the re-
maining evidence given by Wm. Roupell, and to his admis-
i sion that he had falsely sworn that the will of Sept. 2, 1856,
was genuine, that he had practically cheated the defendants
out of £12,000, that he had robbed his mother of £lO,OOO,