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

--••••••••
overwhelmed with grief, and she gave the keys to
Wm. Roupell, and he went and examined the strong
box and the escritoire that was in his bedroom, and
he there found the will of Oct., 1850. He stood face
to face with his dead father—his dead father's will
in his hand—and that will informed him that in a
egxraeveuethores,allmust
msetannodf fbaueseinteo
very few minutes after be was conveyed to the
father'fo r t
h es
sett: cand te irtuhs theiees
benefit of his wife and cb;liiren and that discovery and ruin were inevii- 13ie-
. This Will would have
been his ruin, dP struction to his
home, his charac-
ter, and his If
bertv, Ile was, however, a bold and
determirted man s'
, and standing face to face with his
deEid lather he his
made up mind what he would do.
would not do to destroy the will, but a new will
revoking it must be executed, and he again had re-
course to Mr. Whittaker. He had little time to do
this. He slept in the house with his dead father.
The day after the death he commenced his proceed.
ings. He went to an aged man named Muggeridge,
who had been for many years in his father's ser-
vice, and gave him £5 for mourning, and asked him
for a receipt, and he resolved to forge his signature
to the instrument he intended to produce as a
witness. It would not do to make an entirely
fresh will, but he wanted to have the entire con-
trol of his property, and he drew up a short will re-
voking the former one, and leaving the whole of the
property to his mother, he himself being appointed
trustet); and he should show clearly that this docu-
hlent was a forgery, and that the signature of Mug-
geridge and those of all the other pretended wit-
nesses were forgeries also. The learned sergeant
then proceeded to say that Mrs. Roupell lived with
the testator for a considerable time before their mar-
riage, and William Roupell was born before the
ceremony took place, and he said there was no doubt
that there did not at any time subsist that cordiality
and confidence between the testator and his wife
that ought to exist between a man and woman in that
position, and it appeared she was not aware of the
existence of the will of 1850, and she made no diffi-
culty as to the disposition of the property. The will
which he alleged to be forged was dated the 2d of
September, 1856, and only a few days before the
testator had prepared the codicil to which he had be-
fore alluded; and he would ask them whether this
was not in itself almost conclusive evidence tbf.tttne
William
will was forged, and that it was forged by
Roupell, the natural son of the testator. lie then
said that he should prove a variety of circumstances
on th showing how William Roupell was - r employed
prove almoste
2d of September, and which wouttp
dthis
attested new
conclusively that he could not have
will of his father, and that he could h
notave been
in the company of Muggeridge, the man whose
name appeared to the will as witness. This was the
general outline of the evidence upon which he should
rely to show that the deed of gift of July, 1855, and
the will of the 2d Sept., 1856, were forgeries ; but
there was a variety of other evidence all tending to
establish the same fact, and he would now proceed
to narrate other circumstances in connexion with
this extraordinary transaction. After the funeral
Mr. Roupell applied to the professional gentlemen
who had only 12 days before made the codicil, to
obtain probate. They and
were surprised, sug-
gested that the mother ought to be executrix; but
this difficulty was got over and William Roupell
came into the entire possession of the whole of
the property, and he very soon embarked
in a career of extravagance which astonished and
to some extent scandalised the public. He sold
estate after estate with his mother's consent, upon a
promise that he would settle £3,000 a year on her,
and he at length became hopelessly involved, and
no resource was left to him but to tell the truth,
and to show that he had no right to deal with the
property as he had done, and thus enable the heir-
at-law, Richard Roupell, to obtain his rights. The
learned sergeant then said it was only necessary
further to state that Wm. Roupell left England on
the 29th March, 1862, and that before he left he
destroyed a large quantity of papers; and he con-
cluded by giving an outline of the nature of the
evidence he proposed to lay before the jury as above
detailed, and he said that he should also put Wm.
Roupell into the witness-box. He was unwilling
to make any observations with regard to his con-
duct, but it was clear that he had ruined his mother
and his brothers; and if he had done this wrong,
by coming forward to make all the reparation he
could, if he was speaking the truth, it appeared to
him that he was actuated by the highest feelings
of honour and duty. No doubt the interests of the
defendant were deeply involved in the inquiry ; he
had purchased this property, believing that Wm.
Roupell could legally dispose of it, but at the same
time the interest of the real owner of the property
was quite as much worthy of consideration as that
of the defendant, and if he made out that he had
been defrauded of his property by the forgery and
fraud of his elder brother, he ought to have a ver-
dict in this action.

The following evidence was then adduced:—
Mr. J. T. West said—l am a farmer, and reside
at Norbiton. I knew the deceased for 25 years. I
managed the Norbiton estate before Mr. Richard
Palmer Roupell purchased it, and I subsequently
became his bailiff. He died in Sept., 1856, and I had
been his bailiff five or six years before, and we used
to settle our accounts every week. He came down to
the farm at the latter end of August, 1856. He was
very ill at this time, and he died a few days after.
After his death I used to account to Mr. W.Roupell,
and also to Mrs. Roupell. Richard Rotipell built some
cottages about two years before his death, and I used
to occupy one of them. I remember Mr. William
Roupell coming down to see the estate before his
father died. I think it was about two years before.
He was accompanied by two gentlemen, but I don't
know what they came for, except it was to look at
the land. After I left the estate, the defendant took
possession of it. _

Cross-examined—The property was put up for
sale by auction, and was sold to Mr. Waite for
£15,000. Some of the carts and waggons were sold
to me by valuation. There was no alteration of any
kind in the management of the term until after it
was sold. Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell occupied
the land and the house at this estate, and I was em-
ployed there seven years before he died. I have
never said that the estate belonged to William
Roupell. I swear that positively, because I knew
that it belonged to his father. I have not been to
the office of Messrs. Linklater, the solicitors to the
plaintiff, more than once, and I have not sent any
persons there to give evidence. I never told Mr.
Lamb, the poor-rate collector, that the estate at
Kingston belonged to Mr. William Roupell, and I
never askedihim to alter the name in the rate-book.
I won't say that I always paid the rates in the name
of Mr. Richard Palmer Roupell. After his death
I paid them in the name of William Roupell. The
name of William Roupell was not upon the carts
and waggons before his father died, nor upon the
sacks. I never said to Mr. Berry, a road contrac-
tor, who had threatened some legal proceedings,
that my master was Mr. William Roupell, that he
was a barrister, and ho would not get much good
out of him. (A laugh.) I never said that Mr.
Richard Roupell had given the estate to his son
William, and that he was never to turn me out of
my cottage. William Roupell never interfered with
the estate until after the death of his father.
The witness, on re-examination, identified certain
receipts for poor rates that were put in, and which
were made out in the name of the deceased Richard
Roupell. He also said that he never heard such a
thing said by any one as that his masten had given
the estate to his son William.

By Mr. Bovill—Upon one occasion he received
the sum of £3OO for the valuation of a farm from
a gentleman named Nightingale, and ho handed
over that money to William Roupell.
Mrs. Woods said—l am daughter of the last
witness, and remember his being employed upon
the Norbiton Park Farm a great many years before
Mr. Richard Roupell died. The old gentleman used
to come to the farm generally about once a month,
and I saw him there a fortnight before he died.
Mrs. Roupell was with him upon that occasion.
The witness then stated that her father could
ncoell ja_4 or write, and she identified certain
executed,ac-
year latotieat were put in, showing that down to the
)_.after the alleged deed of gift had been
petty to
.111,e testator exercised ownership and pro-
who my fotOstate in question.) I do not know
man's death
bltsettled with aft..-r the old gentle-
his accounts fo,
ile(.l still to continue to make out
book. 434, and they were all kept in a
Cross-examined—A _
when Mr. Roupell di ass about 15 years of age
eare old. Some of
counts from the time ~,411 made out the ac-
aaneystie,ilbxiecause they were
not
et
by whom they wore destroyed. I.do not know
accountsthongi t
thoa have been
o
until after the sale ct,hink they were
not destroyed
old Mr. Roupell the Property.
was last time I saw
his the
the *
was about a fortnight before death.c. farm
rally came alone except on the last
. two Zag_enne-
and then Mrs. Roupell came alone, with hrli° 89
old leaves that had 1: 1
remember finding some
1 gave them to Mr. L•
torn out of a book, and ga . ink_
ff I know mr.
later, the solicitor to the pia'
William Roupoll. I have not seen him at Guild-
ford during these assizep, and I do not think I have
seen him since the sale.
Ile-xiirriined—l have given Mr. Linklater every
papei• that I found.

- • Mrs. Eleanor Wallett an aged lady, said—l have
known Mrs. Sarah itoupeil for thirty years.
When
I first knew her she lived in Pitt
-street, Peckham,
and she went by the name of Carter. Mr. Roupell
used to come and visit her.
She had four children.
John, William, Sarah, and Emma. I remember the
son Richard being born. They were not married
when they first came to live at Peckham, and when
she left she went to live at Brixton, and she then
for the first time went by the name of Mrs. Roupell.