who had purchased it in 1861, upon the ground that the deed dated in 1855, under which William Roupell assumed a title to convey, was a forgery, and consequently null. Should this action succeed, others of a like nature, which had been instituted upon similar grounds in reference to other of the Roupell estates, would succeed too, and the unfortunate purchasers would be compelled to restore those properties to the rightful heir, with a total loss of the money they had paid in the purchase of them. No wonder, then, that there should be a feeling of deep anxiety in the court-house at Guildford on this memorable 18th of August. But how immeasurably was that feeling of anxiety heightened into one of astonished excitement, when the rumour spread that the proofs of the forgeries which were to mulet so many persons of the estates they had honourably and fairly purchased, and to take those estates back again to the possession of the Roupell family, were to be sworn to by no other person than William Roupell, the forger, himself! Wonderful and incredible as it appeared to be, it nevertheless turned out to be the fact. William Roupell did voluntarily come forward to support his brother's action, and did unhesitatingly swear to the forgeries he had committed. Never, surely, was a case presented to the adjudication of a court of law, under so strange an aspect as this case of " Roupell and Others v. Waite; " never, surely, was there a case in which the several parts and interests of the parties concerned were so oddly inverted. Here was Here was a wronged man pursuing, by the aid of the man who had wronged him, a third man who had never done him any wrong at all. Here was a plaintiff, whose interest it was to show that his own principal witness was a real genuine forger and perjurer. Here was a defendant whose interest it equally was to prove that the man who had unscrupulously defrauded and robbed both him and the plaintiff was not by any means the scoundrel he described himself to be. And, finally, here was a witness who, of his own free will, quitted a place of security, and came unshrinkingly forward to make statements upon oath with the full knowledge that the effect of those statements must inevitably be to consign him to a felon's doom. Mr. Serjeant Shee, in stating the case for the plaintiff, said: "It is a case in which not only the rights and interests of property to a large amount, but the character and perhaps the liberty of a gentleman who has lately filled a prominent position before the public eye, are deeply and hopelessly involved. The principal plaintiff, Mr. Richard Roupell, claims this estate as the heir-atlaw of the testator, his late father. The defendant claims to hold it under a deed of conveyance from Mr. William Roupell, the natural brother of the plaintiff, executed in July 1861. And the title of Mr. William Roupell to convey to the defendant depends on the validity of a deed purporting to have been executed to him by his father in July, 1855. The title of the defendant cannot be proved without producing that deed, and I undertake to prove that it was a forgery, and a forgery by Mr. William Roupell. But, again, the title of the plaintiff could be defeated by a will devising the estate to other persons than himself, and after the death of his father a will was set up by Mr. William Roupell, purporting to have been the last will of his father, disposing of the whole of the property to his mother. I shall prove that that will-the will of the 2nd of September, 1856-is a forgery, and a forgery by Mr. William Roupell." Into the complexities involved in the proofs of this remarkable case, it will be unnecessary here to enter. The main facts in relation to the forgery of the deed of 1855, and of the will of September, 1856, were calmly and distinctly detailed by the forger himself. There was, of course, a natural reluctance on the part of the plaintiff to place his brother in the peculiar position of proclaiming his own crime; and every endeavour was, in consequence, made to substantiate the forgeries by such collateral evidence as should render it unnecessary to place William Roupell in the witness-box. Mr. Bovill, who conducted the case for the defendant, gave an early intimation that, as he thought it a very hard thing that his client, who had fairly bought and paid for the property, should now be robbed of it, he should resist the action by every possible mode, should take every possible objection, and should insist on the most rigid regularity in the proceedings and the proofs. He accordingly raised so many objections to all the secondary proofs tendered by the plaintiff, and urged them with such force, tenacity, and skill, that Mr. Serjeant Shee, after an obstinately contested struggle of several hours, was at last obliged to call William Roupell. VOL. CIV. "Upon this," says the reporter of the trial, "there was a hush of eager expectation and suspense, as to whether the call would be auswered, and whether a man lately in the position of Member of Parliament would really come forward to prove by his own confession a series of forgeries, perjuries, and frauds almost without example. The suspense, however, was but for a few moments. As soon as he could make his way through the crowd to the witness-box, a gentlemanly looking man, who answered to the name of William Roupell, made his appearance, and was at once sworn as a witness. Still, people doubted whether he would really answer the terrible questions which would have to be put to him, and whether he would really confess the series of crimes charged against him. But he proceeded to give his evidence with the most perfect coolness and self-possession, and the most quiet and composed air, though in a tone serious and grave, and as though quite sensible of the effect and result of what he was saying. Every word he uttered was said with consideration, and sometimes with a long pause, but at the same time with an air of the most entire truthfulness and candour." In reply to questions from Mr. Serjeant Shee, William Roupell said,-"I am the son of the late Richard Palmer Roupell, and brother of the plaintiff. During the latter part of my father's life I enjoyed much of my father's confidence. I remember the negotiation with Mr. Treadwell for the purchase of a small piece of land adjoining my father's property at Roupell Park. Pending the negotiation, I spoke to my father about it, and proposed that he H H should purchase it, telling him that the price was 5000l., and that I was authorized to offer him 250l. a-year for it on lease by the Unity Fire Insurance Company. He them to a law stationer to copy, and I afterwards received them back, copies and originals. I made the copies resemble the original title-deeds, and gave them to my knew that I was connected with father. I afterwards burned them that Company, and that I was then on the night before I left England. trustee for a sum of 50,000l. I filled up the signatures, copied which the Company proposed to the seals, and also the attestations. invest as a building fund. I had I took the real deeds to my solicipaid my father several thousand tors, Messrs. Whittaker's, in Linpounds, which I represented to be coln's-inn-fields. I had previously the rent of the Roupell Park told them that my father intended estate, and that it was paid by to convey the Kingston property the Unity Company, to whom I to me; and when I now took them had previously led him to believe the deeds I informed them that the estate had been leased. I also they were immediately to prepare a showed him a deed to explain how deed of gift, as from my father to I had become trustee to that Com- me, of the Kingston estate. They pany. I have not got that deed gave me a letter to my father and now. I burut it about a year and a draft of the deed, but I did not a half after my father's death. The deliver either of them to my father. parties to this deed purported to I be the Unity Company; but it was really executed by myself. Mr. Treadwell's piece of land was contiguous to the Roupell Park Estate, and I recommended my father to purchase it as an eligible increase to the Roupell Park property. He agreed, and ultimately gave me two cheques-one for 500l., and the other for 4500l., to pay Mr. Treadwell for the land. The signatures 'John Treadwell,' now on those cheques, are not the signatures of John Treadwell; they are mine. I appropriated the money to my own purposes. After this I proposed to my father, in June, 1855, to let the Kingston estate to the Company to which he believed he had let the Roupell Park estate, and that the Company would require to be satisfied as to the title being good. My father gave me the title deeds, and I signed an acknowledgment for them. The moment I obtained possession of the deeds, I took took the draft back to Mr. Whittaker, said that my father approved of it, and told him to engross it. I then caused a valuation of the estate to be made; and after the deed had been engrossed I asked two agents of mine to attest my signature. When they came to me for that purpose, I signed the conveyance in their presence, and then asked them to attest my signature. I had turned the instrument round, and placed a piece of blotting paper lightly over that portion of the attestation which bore my father's name, leaving exposed only that portion of it which related to my own; and, as if to study the deed, I retained my hand upon it whilst the witnesses signed. I afterwards added my father's name to the deed. My father knew nothing whatever of this. This estate was afterwards sold by the mortgagee, and I concurred in the sale. After the execution of the deed, I instructed Mr. Whittaker to raise money upon it, and he procured me a loan of 7000l. I was under great pecuniary pressure at this time. I had mortgaged the Kingston estate, and it was sold by the mortgagee to the defendant in this action." Such was the testimony of William Roupell in reference to the deed of gift of 1855. As relates to the will of September, 1856, he said, "On the morning of my father's death, I went to his house in Cross-street, where he died. The housekeeper gave me the keys, and I opened the various drawers. I opened my father's private bureau, where I knew his will had been placed. I read the will, took possession of it, and secreted it. At the first opportunity that offered I read it, and at once determined to do what I had previously meditated-namely, to suppress it. Every sheet of the will was signed by my father in the way he signed all important documents; and it purported to appoint certain gentlemen as trustees; I was one of them. The will was dated October, 1850, and the last codicil was dated 31st of August, 1856. The Kingston property was divided between my brother Richard and another brother. Suppressing this will (which I subsequently burned), I prepared another short will, which I wrote upon a blank form that I had obtained from a law stationer in Gracechurch-street. I slightly altered the form to suit my purpose, and then went to Mr. Muggeridge, a very old man, who was my father's rent collector, gave him 51. as for mourning, and in acknowledgment obtained from him a receipt, which placed me in possession of his signature. copied this signature on a sheet I of paper purporting to be an attestation to a will; and I then forged my father's signature to a will, and added my own attestation. I also added Muggeridge's. Muggeridge's signature was very difficult to imitate. I wrote my father's signature with his own quill pen and ink; Muggeridge's also with a quill pen; and my own with a gold pen, very lightly, so as to offer as strong a contrast as possible to the other signatures. I did not draw the will on the day that it bears date (the 2nd of September), but some days after my father's death, which took place on the 12th of September. Neither my mother nor anyone else knew that I forged this will. I left England on the 30th of March, 1862, and went to Spain." Under the process of crossexamination, the testimony of this man was even more surprising than that of his evidence in chief, as the following passages will show: Mr. Bovill. Have you not sworn that the will of the 2nd of September was your father's will? Witness.-Yes. I am sorry to say that I have sworn it before the Surrogate. Mr. Bovill.-You admit, then that you have been guilty of perjury? Witness.-Yes. Mr. Bovill.-Wilful and deliberate perjury? Witness (with consideration).Deliberate, no doubt. Mr. Bovill.-Wilfully? Witness.-Wilfully in a legal sense. Mr. Bovill.-In every sense! In what sense have you not committed wilful perjury? Witness. I have not come here to defend myself. Mr. Bovill. You acknowledge that you have committed wilful perjury? Witness. Clearly so. At this point, as the hour was late, the Court adjourned for the night; but before doing so the Judge (Mr. Baron Martin) delivered the witness, William Roupell, into the custody of the sheriff. On the morrow his cross-examination was continued. Mr. Bovill. What was the value and amount of your father's property at the time of his death? Witness (after a pause).-If you give me a piece of paper I will try and give you an estimate. The Roupell Park estate, at the time I knew it first, in 1853, was worth about 40,000l. At the time of his death it was worth about 150,000l. It is now worth about 200,0007. It was thus increased in value by moneys I borrowed on mortgage upon it, and by moneys I have obtained from my father in the way I have described. I had mortgaged it for 70,000l. in his lifetime, and about 30,000l. afterwards, besides 35,000l. subsequently, thus making altogether 135,000l. Mr. Bovill. And you say that all these transfers were forgeries? Witness.-Yes, they were. Mr. Bovill. So you say; to get that 200,000l. for your brother? Witness.-On my oath, no. Mr. Bovill. You say they were forgeries? Witness. On my oath, I declare that they were forgeries, and that I was guilty of the forgeries. Mr. Bovill. You are aware that if they are forgeries, the 200,0002. would go to your brother? Witness. I conclude so. Witness (reflecting).- If you hand me that paper, I will tell you. The paper being handed back to him, he stated, with great distinctness: The will and deed as to the Kingston Park estate, the Roupell Park estate, the leadworks, the freehold portion of the Warleigh estate, the premises in Bear-lane and Shoe-lane-in all about ten, I think. Mr. Bovill.-Only ten. Witness. I am not at all desirous to conceal the number. I am very sorry to have committed so many crimes, but I desire now to state the exact truth. [He went on to add some minor matters to the list-the Wandsworth estate, the hop warehouse, and some others.] Mr. Bovill.-You allege all these to have been forgeries? Witness. Yes. Mr. Bovill. And you conclude that all these will become the property of your brother if the deeds are established to be forged. Witness. So I conclude. Mr. Bovill.-Pray what is the total amount involved in these forgeries? Witness. About 350,000l. Mr. Bovill. The Roupell Park estate was increased in value to the amount of 150,000l. by money obtained through your forgeries. Witness.-Yes, and by money obtained from my father improperly. Mr. Bovill.-You mean stolen? Witness.-Yes, stolen. Mr. Bovill.—How much did you steal from him in his life? Witness. About 10,000l. Mr. Bovill. That was stolen the rest defrauded? Witness.-Yes. Whilst this extraordinary cross |
