Roupell (Richard) v. Hays
In 1863, Richard again attempted to regain property in Great Warley, Essex by proving that mortgages on the property were invalid, having been obtained through forgery. William, still in custody but not in prison dress, again gave evidence of his own wrongdoing and various witnesses attested to Richard Palmer's careful business habits and his handwriting and signature.
Forensic document examiner Charles Chabot gave
expert evidence that the signature was not Richard Palmer's. The judge,
Mr Baron Channell, warned the jury as to the unreliability of William's testimony and put to them four questions: • Was the deed of gift in question signed by Richard Palmer in the presence of two witnesses? • If not, did Richard Palmer, sign and seal the deed, despite the absence of witnesses? • Was the will bequeathing property to Richard Palmer's wife genuine? • If not, was Richard the rightful heir? The
jury retired,
The Times observing that they jury had a pile of shorthand notes about a foot in height that would overwhelm them and that the jury would probably be confused anyway. The jury returned after three hours, finding that the deed had not been signed in the presence of witnesses but unable to agree whether Richard Palmer had signed the deed at all. Further, the jury agreed that the will was a forgery but were unable to agree on the proof of Richard's rightful inheritance. Even after several hours' further deliberation, the jury were unable to agree. Though a retrial was mooted, the issue ultimately settled out of court. William was released on
parole in September 1876. Richard spent the rest of his life attempting, largely unsuccessfully, to recover some of his lost fortune ==Cultural references==