THE GREAT ROUPELL FORGERIES.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVIII, Issue 1962, 26 September 1863, Page 3

THE GREAT ROUPELL FORGERIES.

After a trial of unexampled length, extending i to nine dajs, and ftu expense wbich must be ' reckoned by thousands, the action brought by Richard Roupell for the recovery of a portion of his father's property has been brought to a conclusion by the discharge »f the jury. The public will remember the startling disclosures that were made a year ago when William Roupell, who had a few mouths before been the popular member for a metropolitan borough stepped into a witness box to accuse himself of a series of crimes which are without a parallel in this generation. They remember how he defeated the «iugular cross-examination wbich was to prove his iuuoceuce, and how he established the blackness of bis character by bis courageous and straightforward eloquence. His subsequent conviction on his owu confession, and his somewhat theatrical address to the judge, tended to make him a still more remarkable performer on the criminal stage. Last week he again appeared to repeat ths story of his evil doings, and to make what he called reparation to his family at the cost of innocent strangers — the victims »f his owu schemes. But in the meantime the purchasers and mortgagees of his father's estates had sifted the matter moie thoroughly, and had come to the conclusion that their titles to the property could be defended with many chances of success. The suspicion had deepened that William Roupell, though without doubt a defrauder and a forger^ had not forged the documents which gare him a right to deal with his father's property, j He might hare forged leases and raised money j dishonestly, but the deed of gift of the VVarley estate uud the will of September 6, 1856, had, in the opinion of the defendants in the present action, such appearauces of validity that it was determined to contest the claim of Richard Roupell to the last. Hence the prolonged trial at Chelmsford — * trial which has exhibited the skill, zeal, and pertinacity of the bar, and the patience of judge and jury, in a remarkable manner. That the result is indecisive as regards the particular estate is to be regretted, but the finding of the jury that the second will is a forgery is calculated to have au important effect on the other cases which romaiu to be tried, and on the ultimate destination of the old man's property. In the cause just ended Richard Roupell the legitimate son and heir-at-law of Richard Palmer Roupell, sought to recover two farms in Essex, the real defendants being the mortgagees, who claim under a deed of gift by the old man to William Roupell, dated January 8, 1856. William Roupell mortgaged the property some time after his father's death ; but, of course, if the deed be genuine, Roupell the father, did not die seised o{ the estate, and Richard Roupell could not take it either as heir-at-law or under the alleged will of 1850. I Ou the other hand, the plaintiff, who must re* cover on his own right, was bound to prove both that the deed of gift and the will of September, 1856, were forgeries, for if the former were genuine the mortgages had a title, and if the latter were genuine the estate was left to his mother, and he, the plaintiff, had no claim at all. These points rested, as before, almost entirely on the evidence of William Roupell. The convict once more calmly came forward to unfold the history of his crimes, and in the same positive manner as at the last trial declared how, when and where, he had forged both the essen tial documents. It is enough to say that William Roupell explained in the most minute manner how he had forged his father's name, and obtained the signatures of two attesting witnesses, who were not absolutely necessary, by representing to them that they were attesting a lease signed by himself. His evidence was confirmed by these two persons, Truman and Dove. They deuied that they ever saw Roupell, the father, sign any deed; but they declared that their own signatures were genuine, and that the only person present when they signed was William Roupell. So far the convict's evidence was strongly corroborated. The case as to the will of 1856 also rested almost entirelyon theevidenceof William Roupel), who not only swore that he forged the document in question, but also gave evidence as to the contents of the will of 1850, declaring that under it the Warley .estate was given to Richard. Thi* will, he says, he destroyed after keeping it for years, and the lo«s was irremediable, since the draught has been also destroyed by the proctor. On all these matters there arose a serie3 of the most obstinate forensic battles that ever were witnessed in a court of justice. The counsel for the defendants, representing as they did the- cause of persons who would suffer a bitter wroug by the success of their opponent, took every possible objection, combated every piece of doubtful evidence, and made it clear that the victims of W. Roupell would not part with the property for which they had fairly paid as long a? any technicality would allow them to hold it. But besides their struggle against the plaintiff's case they had their own, and sought to prove, principally by a comparison of handwriting, that the signature to the deed of gift was in reality that of R. Palmer Roupell. The evidence of experts and acquaintances was given on both sides with wearisome slowness and provoking contradiction, and the cause dragged its ilow length along until July 24, when the judge summed up. The jury, after the positive evidence of Truman and Dove, could hardly find that the deed of gift was signed by old Roupell in their presence ; but, as it would be valid without this attestation, the second question was whether it was ever signed by him at all. On this point the jury disagreed, and, after several hours of imprisonment, had to be discharged. On the question of the wills they agreed in believing William Roupell, that the second will, giving ,the propetty .to bis mother, was his forgery » but they

! thought his testimony insufficient as to the destination of the Warley estate under the will of 1850 — for, of course, it may have been that under this will the estate was devised to some one else than the plaintiff, in which case he could not recover. The judge put the question subsequently in another form, but neither on this point nor on that of the execution of the deed of gift could the jury come to an agreement. Certainly the theory of the defendants is one of the strangest ever developed in a court of law. If it be ever established, then William Eoupell, sacrificing liberty and reputation to make his brother rich, will stand among the most inexplicable personages in criminal annals.