The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-23 00:00:00

7HE ROUPELL CASE.

The following additional particulars in reference
to this most extraordinary trial will, doubtless, be
interesting to the public. It was stated that after
. Mr. Roupell had been examined before the magis-
trates at Guildford he was fully committed to take
his trial at the Central Criminal Court ; and. as the
August session of that court had only just commenced,
and the grand jury were still eitting, it was thought
that he would have been at once conveyed to New-
gate, and that the case might possibly come on at
the present session. It appears, however, that the
committal was for the September session, and the
prisoner was consequently, in the ordinary course,
taken to Horsemonger-lane Prison, the county gaol
for Surrey, within which district the offence was
alleged te, have been committed ; and he will be re-
moved to Newgate with the other Surrey prisoners
shortly before the September session, which will
commence on the 22d of that month.

It appears to be not at all improbable that some
more proceedings of an extraordinary nature are
likely to arise in reference to this peculiar case.
'The public is aware that Mr. Roupell was given
into custody by Mr. Baron Martin, the presiding
judge, and taken before a magistrate upon the charge
of forging the deed of gift. The only evidence that
was then gone into in support of the charge, was
proof that he had admitted, while under examination,
that he had forged the deed in question; and upon
this evidence atone he stands committed. It ap-
pears, however, that such evidence is considered
totally insufficient to support such a charge, and
that if he should be tried upon this evidence alone,
the result would be that he would be acquitted. It
appears to be also very doubtful whether such evi-
dence would be admissible, particularly as it was
given without a caution from the judge that Mr.
Roupell was not bound to answer any questions
that might tend to criminate himself, and under the
compulsion of an oath. This case would appear to
show the necessity for a public prosecutor, or some
official whose duty it would be to see that justice
was not defeated. Mr. Tongue, the gentleman
who was bound over to prosecute, is merely the
associate who sits on the civil side during the as-
sizes ; and he is not all connected with criminal
matters. If he were to incur the expense of put-
ting the case into the hands of some experienced
attorney, with instructions to proceed with the pro-
secution and procure the necessary evidence to sup-
port the charge, it would appear that there is no
source from whence the money so expended could
be refunded ; so that it is not very likely that he
will incur so serious a responsibility, and there is
no one else to do so.

From the abrupt termination of the case at the
Guildford assizes, the evidence that was to have
been adduced on behalf of the defendant was not
alluded to ; if this had been gone into, it would
have tended to make the inquiry of a still more
extraordinary character. The defendant, Mr.
Waite, is a tradesman in London, and possessed
of considerable property; and the Norbiton Farm
Estate was purchased by him, at the auction mart,
for £15,000; and he has since laid out £5,000 upon
the property ; so that he had a very large sum at
stake, and when he was called upon. to give up the
property on the ground that the deeds that were
executed were not valid, upon the supposition that
a forgery had been committed, he spared no ex-
pense in procuring evidence, and the case that
would have been set up on his behalf was that
both the deed of gift and the will of the 2d of
September, 1856, under which Mr. Roupell came into
possession of the propertywere genuine instruments,
and very strong evidence would have been brought
forward to establish these facts. It would of course
have also been suggested that Wm. Roupell's con-
fession of forgery was merely an afterthought for
the purpose of getting the property back to the use
of his family; and there were a great many strong
facts that would have materially favoured such a
suggestion. It appears there were nearly 50 wit-
nesses at Guildford on behalf of the defendant, a
great many of whom had had intimate and exten-
sive business transactions with Richard Palmer
Roupell, the father of Mr. Wm. Roupell, and were
perfectly well acquainted with his handwriting,and
the greater part of these witnesses would have ex-
pressed their positive belief that the signature to
the will and the deed of gift were the genuine sig-
nature of the old man, and they would have spoken
to this important fact without the slightest doubt or
hesitation; and it at the same time appears to be
perfectly clear that, but for what has since taken
place, the genuineness of these signatures would
never for a moment have been disputed. Besides
the evidence of these witnesses as to the handwrit-
ing, there were a great many who would have
proved positively that the deceased had upon seve-
ral occasions stated that he had given the Kingston
estate to his son William, and that he had nothing
more to do with it, and this would have been very
material evidence in support of the supposition that
the deed of gift was a genuine instrument ; and if
the case had gone to the jury upon these facts,
it is very doubtful whether the defendant would
not have obtained a verdict.
It has been already stated that the amount of
property squandered away by William Roupell was
between £200,000 and £300,000; but there are
grounds for believing that in addition to this enor-
mous sum, he is cossideeably in debt, and otherwise
involved, Before he left Guildford he was served
with a writ for £5OO by one of the officers of the
Sheriff of Surrey.

A correspondent of the Times writes as follows
"In the course of the examination of Mr. Roupeli
it will have been observed that he more than once
stated that he had been robbed and defrauded by
others'; yet, strange to say, this avowal was not
followed in either instance by what would appear
to have been the natural rejoinder, By whom ?'
Had this, 29 it appears to me, pertinent question
been asked, I believe startling revelations would
have been the result. It may be true, and doubt-
less is, that neither his mother nor brother knew of
these forgeries and frauds until the evening prior to
his leaving this country, but it is generally believed
in this borough that another relative who has had
from Mr. Roupell the great bulk of the money he
has raised, not only knew of the forgeries prior to
his leaving this country, but was cognisant of them
soon after they were perpetrated, and has from time
to time made this knowledge the means of enforcing
his demands, The insertion of this letter may,
perhaps, tend to a little enlightenment on these
points at the coming trial."