The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Aug. 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL.
ROUPELL AND OTHERS V. WAITE.
In consequence of the various rumours that were
in circulation in reference to this cause, and the
extraordinary circumstances connected with it, the
trial appeared to create the most intense interest,
and a number of persons were present a considerable
time before the usual hour for the commencement
eaf the proceedings.
The action was one of ejectment to recover
possession of a farm at Kingston, called " Norbiton
Farm," and the defendant pleaded that he wee
legally possessed of the estate in question under a
deed of gift executed by the late
_Richard Palmer
Roupell, the owner of the Tetoperty.
Serjeant Shee, Mr. Lust, Q.C., and Mr. J.
Browne, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., and Mr. Garth, appeared for the defendant.
Upon the applicaeicen of Mr. Bovill the whole of
the witnesses were ordered out of court, and they
were examined separately.
Serjeant Steve, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff broieght this action to recover an estate of
about 163. acres, at Norbiton, near Kingston, of
which t'ae late Richard Palmer Roupell died seised
in Seleteember, 1856. The plaintiff claimed this
estat,a as the heir-at-law of his deceased father,
awa the defendant claimed under a deed executed
b y William Roupell, the natural brother of ;le
plaintiff, and the question the jury would hove to
decide was whether the deed under which
. this
property passed was a genuine instrument ; and
on the part of the plaintiff he undertook to prove
that it was a forgery Although he should prove
this, still, unless he .should also rzstablish that a will
purported to have been eXee:ated by the deceased
was also a forgery, and the.;; it was forged by Wm.
Roupell,Al
the natural brter of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff could not reeArer, and he undertook to
prove that fact also,
He should show that the
plaintiff was the feeler.
forgedthat
will, by a will had at-law of the deceased, and
"teen executed previously to the
to the plaint;,
the property was bequeathed
session of and he would have come into pos-
Althou ;..t but for those forged instruments.
nature gfe lie had stated thus summarily the general
oil the case, it was necessary that he should
g° r° Ate into the circumstances of the case, which
e'd 'undoubtedly of the most extraordinary charac-
t'er, and which not only involved a large amount
of property, but also the honour and perhaps the
liberty of a gentleman of high position, and who
had held a prominent position before the public as
a mentber for the borough of Lambeth. The testator
for many years carried on the business of a lead-
merchant in Gravel-lane, and he had a private resi-
'aence at Brixton. He had five children, John,
William (who was a natural son), Sarah, James, and
Emma, and the plaintiff', who was born on the sth of
July 1840. The t'est!,tor amassed a vast property, his
personal estate at the time of his death was worth
£120,000, an.a he had invested £200,000 in real
estates in ?Afferent counties and in London, and
within fif`ieen years of his death he had by will
disposed of all these estates. In March,
executed one will, and three months after the birth
of tire 1839, he
plaintiff he, by will,left him the estate that was
the subject of the present inquiry, and he then re-
v oked all former wills. On Oct. 1, 1850, he exe-
creted another will, by which he disposed of all his
'property, vesting his estates in trustees for the
benefit of all his children, and he again devised the
Kingston and several other estates to his son
Richard, the plaintiff. He was satisfied with this
will until one of his trustees, Mr. Patrick Hughes,
died, and he appointed Mr. William Clarke and Mr.
James Surridge in the place of that gentleman. It
was clear at this time that he intended to confirm
the will of 1850, but he made some alteration by
which he gave legacies to his executors; and a few
days before his death, in 1856, he went to his proc-
tore, in Doctors'-commons, and took the will with
leine, and he Was informed that the attestations of
the new trustees was not sufficient, and a codicil
was drawn up, by which he confirmed the will of
1850. This Was on Saturday, the 30th of August,
1856, and there could be no doubt that
at this time he intended this will to be his last
Will and testament, and by this will the plaintiff
would, have become entitled to the estate in
queslcion and a considerable portion of his other
property. The learned sergeant read the codicil,
and said it was quite clear that the testator intended
to confirm the will of 1850, and that when they had
heard the evidence he should lay before them he be-
lieved they would entertain no doubt upon this
point. When he made this codicil it was also evi-
dent that he considered himself possessed of the
Norbiton estate. He went over it a few days before
his death with his steward, a man named West, and
he told this person that he thought he should not
live long, and that after he was gone he would have
to manage the estate for his son Richard, the plain-
tiff. He should also prove, by other circumstances,
that at this period he had not the smallest doubt
that this Kingston estate was his property. He had
laid out money upon it, and in every possible way
had indicated his belief that it was so, and that he
had, done nothing to prevent him from disposing of
it. Notwithstanding this, the Kingston estate had
been dealt with and had been alienated, through
the fraud of his natural son. He should show
them that William Roupell, the natural son,
was, in 1855, in great pecuniary difficulties. He
must have lived an extravagant life, and was much
pressed by creditors and greatly in want of money.
He seemed to have been of opinion that by possess-
ing himself of a small property that adjoined to the
testator's estate at Brixton, he should relieve him-
self to some extent, and the owner agreed to sell it
for £5,000; and about this time a fire insurance
company had the intention to expend £50,000 upon
the Roupell Park estate at Brixton, and had made
Wm. Roupell, who was then practising as an attor-
ney, their trustee for this purpose. He then, it
appeared, went to his father and told him that he
could purchase the estate for that sum, and that the
Unity Fire Company would give £250 per annum,
which would increase the value of the estate ; and
the testator agreed to purchase it, and gave William
Roupell a cheque for £5OO on the Bank of England
as a deposit, and on the 25th of the same month
another cheque for £4,500, the balance. He should
show that the £5OO cheque was paid in to the
Union Bank to the account of a gentleman named
Watts, but that in point of fact it was devoted to
the use of William Roupell, as was also the
cheque for £4,500, and that Mr. Treadwell, the
owner of the estate to which he had referred, never
received a farthing, and that his endorsement on
the cheque was a forgery. On the Ist of August
William Roupell appointed to pay Mr. Tread-
`well for the estate, and he should show them
that he received the money upon the Kingston
estate without the knowledge of his father, and
that he surreptitiously obtained possession of the
deeds that enabled him to effect this object. It
would be proved that he asked his father to let him
look at the deeds relating to the Kingston estate,
and that he represented that some of them were
missing, and that he wished to take them to Messrs.
Marson and Co., the solicitors who had acted for the
testator; and he should produce a document in the
handwriting of Mrte Roupell, showing that he had
possessioneof these taken„ deeds, and that he never
took them to
pssorw—eir3on and Co., but went to
the office of stationer in Parlia-
ment-street, andr requestedl,
to make fac-similes
should aealldd
of the whole of
this
sse deeds, him
at the same time
said he desired
quickly as
possible, anddeeds were readyol ttB
Thursday,
July 19. He was theunder an engagement
a
n before
the purchase of the estate on Aug. 1, completee
were completed,endeavoured
copies of the deeds
£7,000 upon the security f
to raise a sum of W
was valued at £15,04:. The
Kingston estate, which
Whittaker, and
moment he got possession of the deeds he took the
genuine ones to a gentleman named
told him to produce a deed of gift from his father
estate, and this
was done, and it was returned
approved,
and William William Roupell forged his
father's
stable
ture to this deed, and he caused w
witnesses to attest the signature, butto respectable
he deceived
e 'deed
them as to who the party was by whom th
was executed, and he should call them as witnesses
to prove that fact. Having thus obtained
posses-
sion of the deed of gift, it was necessary that he
should
also deceive his father, and he forged to the
counterfeit deeds the names of the whole of the con-
veying parties to the genuine deeds, and then handed
them to him. Mr. Whittaker subsequently obtained
a loan of £7,000 upon the property, and £5,000
were paid to Mr. Treadwell and £2,000 pocketed
by W. Roupell. In order to defondthis action it was
incumbent on defendant to produce the deed of gift,
and if he did so he pledged himself to prove that it was
a forgery. Although the £2,000 relieved W. Roupell
lot a time he was still in great difficulties, and
at the commencement of the following year he had
recourse to another expedient, and he determined to
ruse £12,000 upon an estate in Essex, belonging to
his father, called the Great Warley estate, and he
should show that he forged his father's signature to
the deed of gift of that estate, and he went through
t!;p same proceeding with Mr. WLittaker and he
eeentually bUrrOWeil P
z 15,000 on that property. At
his time
, Wm.
,I.°llPell was only 25 years old anti
bough Whiteaker was well aware that Mr.
his father.. resided in London, he never had
he least eetenanchaetioenoueviaith him on these impor-
tant subjects ;
(1° tt help observing that
until January, this appeared, toun,anim very
rdinary. Things
this
.1856, at which
;went on in
lime Wm. Ron yell hied
,‘ ifn`d't his last His
Roupell had
father died in Sept., 10"'
immediate notice
of the fact. Mrs. Roupell was