By the Court.-Saw no evidence of Mrs. Gedney having had any disease. Made preparations in consequence of Mrs. Gedney saying she was going to be confined. Dr. Farre came on the Tuesday after the alleged confinement. Stained linen was taken from the room up to Saturday. Witness changed it herself.

Mr. John Stevens, the husband of the last witness, remembered Mrs. Gedney coming to the house. He wrote himself to Dr. Goss, expressing disapproval of what was going on.

Cross-examined.-Took a message to Mr. Uppleby on the Sunday morning. Christian Denner stated that Dr. Goss used to practice in Great Queen-street, and he believed that now the doctor's place of business was in Sutherland-street, Pimlico.

Thomas W. Smith examined.-Is Secretary to the York-road Lying-in Hospital. Produced admission-book of hospital for unmarried women of otherwise good character. There was a nurse in the hospital named Roberts in February, 1854. Dr. Goss had nothing to do with, and never had any thing to do with the hospital.

Lydia Fletcher examined. Is now a married woman. Was at the York-road Lying-in Hospital on the 4th of February, 1854, and was confined of a female child that evening. A gentleman and lady came and proposed to take her child and adopt it. The child was fair and had blue eyes. They said they would like a little girl with blue eyes; and the child was taken away on the following Monday. They had been on the Monday before. They promised she should hear of her child in three months. She never saw or heard of it again. Witness's mother was living at the time and knew of the proposal. Her mother was now dead. Witness had since been married and was now a married woman.

Mr. Edward James (to witness).-I will not distress you by asking you any questions.

By the Court (to Sir Hugh Cairns).-Is the child like the witness?
Sir Hugh Cairns.-No; like the father.

Mr. Stapleton Smith, the alleged uncle of the plaintiff, examined.-Delivered a letter to Mr. Gedney on the day of his wife's funeral. It was from witness's father. Witness was aware of the contents, having copied it. His father signed it.

Cross-examined.-Lived thirty miles from Candlesby Hall. Was on terms of intimacy with his sister and Mr. Gedney, in 1853. Mr. Gedney frequently came to his house.

By the Court.-My sister had dark hair, not light.

Rev. Conway Walter examined.-Knew Mrs. Gedney, and had stopped at her house for two or three days together at different times. Mrs. Gedney was suffering very much. Had a conversation with her in reference to the plaintiff. She said that the child that passed as her own was not so; that she had been delivered of a still-born child; and that the plaintiff was a changeling. Witness told her that it would be unjust to the child to throw it on the world by such a statement, and that she should consult her father in preference to witness on such a subject.

Cross-examined.-No one was present.

feeble.

Mrs. Gedney at the time was very

By the Court.-Mrs. Gedney and her husband were not on good terms. Had no conversation with her about her husband. Saw no indication of wandering in her mind. Witness is thirty-three years of age, and was a clergyman at the time of the conversation referred to. Had been a year and a half in holy Orders at the time.

Elizabeth Evans examined.-Was Mrs. Gedney's maid in 1855. Mrs. Gedney did not seem fond of the child. Asked Mrs. Gedney if the child was like Mr. Gedney. She sighed, and said, "No; how could it be?" She gave witness her confidence, and promised that witness and she would be as fellow-heirs of an immortal kingdom. Those were her words. She admitted the plaintiff was not her child, but adopted as such to deceive Mr. Gedney. She said she believed it came from a hospital, and that she selected a girl instead of a boy, as a boy would have sooner become her master when he came of age. She said she had done it on account of her husband's unkindness. She frequently referred to the subject afterwards, and wished witness not to mention it to her father or his housekeeper. She said she never wished the child dressed costly because it was of mean birth.

Cross-examined.-Is a
-Is a farmer's daughter, and lives in Montgomeryshire.

Came

to town in consequence of a letter. A solicitor called on her last Wednesday. Knew this case was coming on while she was on a visit in Lincolnshire. Saw Mrs. Tuck, who spoke to her about the case. Had not discussed the case, except with Mrs. Tuck. Witness never mentioned the matter before she went into Lincolnshire this time. Mrs. Gedney gave her to understand that the doctor who attended her in her confinement was her regular medical man. Mr. Gedney seemed very fond of the child.

Mary Roberts, examined by Sir Hugh Cairns.-Had been a monthly nurse in the York-road Lying-in Hospital from January, 1854, to June in last year. Recollected Lydia Fletcher being confined of a child, and a lady and gentleman calling on two occasions, and taking away the child on the last. The child was a fair child. Had since seen the gentleman who took away the child. Saw him at Pimlico. The gentleman's name was Dr. Goss. Saw him herself. Was sure he was the same person who took away the child with the lady. Had never before seen him since the child was taken away. Tried to see Mrs. Goss, but she was said to be unwell.

Cross-examined. It is about a month ago since she called at Pimlico. Lydia Fletcher that had been, went with her the second time she went to see Mrs. Goss. There was no name on Dr. Goss's door. The gentleman did not tell her his name was Goss. Did not know he was Dr. Goss when he came to the hospital. A solicitor told her the doctor's name was Goss, and that she was to identify him. She saw the doctor about five minutes in the hospital. Was told to ask for Mrs. Goss at Pimlico, but did not see her. The second time Lydia Fletcher went with her to try to see Mrs. Goss. Saw the child taken from the hospital. The child sucked before it left, and the mother had plenty of milk. Was first spoken to about this matter in May last by the solicitor's clerk. He told her to go and see whether she could recognize Mrs. and Dr. Goss as the two persons who came to the hospital. Might have sometimes mistaken one person for another. It was ten years since the child was taken away. Had known another instance of a child being taken away about seven years ago. Five other women with children, besides Lydia Fletcher, were in the room when Fletcher's child was taken away. Did not remember the gentleman who took away the child saying any thing when he took it away. Remembered nothing that any one said on that day. She put a shawl on the child before it was taken away. No gentleman went with her to Pimlico.

Re-examined.

When she called at Pimlico she asked for Mrs. Goss, and was shown upstairs. She went to Pimlico in a cab with Lydia Fletcher, and no one else.

By the Court.-Was the gentleman much altered ?—He was a little greyer. Ellen Northover called and examined by Sir H. Cairns.-Remembered going in a cab to Pimlico; thought it was Sutherland-street. She followed Mrs. Roberts into the house and asked to see Dr. Goss. Was shown into a separate room, and waited there till Mrs. Roberts and Lydia Fletcher had finished with the doctor, when he came into the room where she was.

Cross-examined.-A Mr. Holland and a solicitor went with her in a cab. She took a paper with her to serve as a subpoena on Dr. and Mrs. Goss, and showed the original. He seemed rather surprised. Mr. Holland gave her two sovereigns, and told her to give one to Dr. Goss and one to Mrs. Goss. This was on the 20th of last October. Had not seen Dr. Goss since.

Sarah Cooper called and examined by Mr. Cracknall.-Was a monthly nurse, and was sent for to Mrs. Stevens's house in Park-street, in February, 1854. Saw a lady there, and Dr. Goss, and a child. Was there only twenty-four hours, when she was sent away by Dr. Goss. Did not see the child naked, but saw enough to see it was not a newly-born baby. Did not say so to any one at the time. Did not take the band off the baby. Mrs. Goss did all that was necessary for the baby. Remembers that the child was dressed when she arrived. She fed the child, but did not remove the bandage that kept its stomach comfortable.

A matron of the York-road Lying-in Hospital was here called, and identified an entry of the birth of Lydia Fletcher's child in the books of that hospital, on the 4th of February, 1854.

Dr. Ogle called and examined by Sir Hugh Cairns.-Was house-surgeon at the York-road Hospital in February, 1854, and remembered making an entry of Lydia Fletcher's child in the hospital book. Knew nothing about what became of the child, and did not see it taken away.

Sir Hugh Cairns then addressed the Court on the defendant's case, urging on the jury the weakness of the allegations on the part of the plaintiff, as compared with what he conceived to be the convincing proofs adduced by the defendants.

Counsel for the plaintiff having replied, the Master of the Rolls reviewed the evidence, and concluded by saying it was a very painful case. It was for the jury to consider what motives influenced Mrs. Gedney in foisting a supposititious child upon her husband, if she really was guilty of having done so. If she did so for the purpose of gaining the affection of her husband it must be remembered that she must have been aware that the scheme would deprive her father and brother of 30007., which would go to a child who was no relation to her at all. That was one motive by which, according to the suggestion of the defendants, she might have been influenced. Then there was another suggestion, that on her death-bed she wished to revenge the disasters of her life by inflicting on her husband one of the greatest of calamities. With these observations he would leave the case in the hands of the jury. He might observe that, so far as he was concerned, the decision of the jury, whatever it might be, should be held to be final.

The jury retired. On their return the foreman said their verdict was for the defendants-that, in their opinion, the plaintiff was not the child of Mr. and Mrs. Gedney. The jury trusted that the innocent sufferer by this verdict would still be protected by some member of the family.

IV.

THE HUTCHINSON WILL CASE.

KNOX v. SMEE.

(Court of Probate and Matrimonial Causes.)

This action, which raised questions affecting the competency of the testator, a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, and a member of the Brompton Oratory, to dispose of his property by will, was tried before the Judge Ordinary, Sir James Wilde, and as is usual in cases involving matters of religious controversy, was contested with much warmth on both sides. The plaintiff, the Rev. Thomas Francis Knox, propounded the will and codicil of the Rev. William Hutchinson, deceased. The defendants, Dr. Alfred Smee and Mrs. Smee, his wife, pleaded that the will was not according to the requirements of the statute, that the testator was of unsound mind and was unduly influenced by the plaintiff and others.

Mr. Karslake, for the plaintiff, said the will was dated 7th July, 1860, and the codicil on the 7th August, 1860. The testator died on the 12th July, 1863. Alfred Smee, one of the defendants, married Elizabeth, the testator's sister, who is the other defendant. The testator was son of George Hutchinson, a cashier in the Bank of England, who died in 1833, and the defendant Smee's father, Mr. Smee, was also in the Bank of England. The testator was born in 1822, and his sister in 1818. After their father's death, the testator, who inherited considerable property, and his sister, were brought up by William Smee with his own children, and, as already mentioned, Alfred Smee married the testator's sister, who was amply provided for under her father's will. The testator entered Cambridge University in 1843, and in 1845 he went to Italy, and made the acquaintance of Dr. Faber, a member of the Oxford University. The testator had previously expressed an intention to become a Catholic. This was violently but unsuccessfully opposed by Alfred Smee, who, in a letter dated 17th September, 1845, said such resolution arose not from reason, but from a mind diseased, and that he was lending himself to the "mummery" of such a relentless body, who would rob him of every farthing. On the 21st of the same month the testator was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Birmingham, and subsequently he became a member of the Oratory at Brompton. For three weeks before his death he was under the professional care of the defendant, Dr. Alfred Smee, who is a medical practitioner. The value of his property at his death did not exceed 5000Z.

The Rev. Geo. Fred. Ballard, a member of the Brompton Oratory, proved the testator's signature to the will and codicil, to each of which he (Mr. Ballard) was an attesting witness. The Oratorians took no vows of poverty or obedience, and the members were entitled to withdraw at pleasure. The deputies of the order, and also the father of the order, were elected every three years. Witness never influenced the testator in making his will, nor did he know its contents when he witnessed the execution. Father Rowe, the other witness, and himself were the only persons present with deceased at the time.

Cross-examined.-The testator sent for witness to witness the will. There is

something like an erasure in the signature to the will (produced). That may have been caused by a thick pen. The ink is darker in the testator's signature, but not much, than in that of the witnesses' signatures. Father Faber was not present, but he was in the house at the time. Afterwards the codicil was witnessed by Father Stanton and witness. In 1855 witness noticed a great difference in the testator's health. His speech became partially affected, and his mouth was partly drawn aside. He left off preaching in 1855, owing to the state of his health, and to his defective articulation. His walk was not materially affected till he returned from the East in 1856. So long as a member remained in the house he was subject to regulations. The members did not sign the regulations, but they assented to them. Father Faber had great influence over the members, not as superior, but from his own attributes.

Re-examined. Though Father Hutchinson had strong convictions on the subject of obedience, he exercised an independent opinion. Father Faber was a man of considerable abilities and distinction, remarkably pleasing in his manners, and very much beloved by those who knew him in both religions. I have myself been in a conveyancer's office. Blotting-paper makes a difference in the appearance of ink. We signed last, and if the blotting-paper had been on our signatures, they would probably be rather different in colour from the signature of the deceased.

Sir H. Holland said in 1857 he met Mr. Hutchinson at Mount Carmel, while travelling in the East, and was with him for about fourteen days. They travelled together, and for seven or eight days they were stationary at Jerusalem. With regard to intelligence, Mr. Hutchinson was perfectly competent. The only complaint for which he consulted him was a swelling of the larynx, which affected his voice, and he did not observe any sign of paralysis.

The Judge Ordinary.-Evidence as to the state of the deceased in 1857 appears to be immaterial.

The Rev. G. William was called for the plaintiff. He said,-In 1858 I was engaged in preparing a work on the East; and I had a correspondence with the testator (the Rev. W. Hutchinson) which I produce. (Five letters were accordingly put in.) I afterwards had an interview with him in January or February, 1859. I saw him at the Oratory. I found his mind perfectly clear and intelligent. He appeared to be of perfectly sound mind. (The witness was not crossexamined.)

In answer to the Judge, Dr. Deane, Q.C. (for the defendants) stated that his case would be that from 1855 the mind of the deceased began to show symptoms of that state in which it would be contended he was in 1860, the time when the will and codicil were executed, and when it would be shown that he was suffering from paralysis.

The witness was then recalled by his lordship, and stated that he had seen no symptom either of insanity or paralysis in the testator.

Sir James Fergusson, M.P.-I met the testator in 1858 in the Desert, and travelled with him for about a month. I spent the greater part of every day with him, and had a great deal of conversation with him on every kind of topic. He was then of perfectly sound mind. In April, 1861, I called on him at the Oratory, and spent about ten minutes with him. He appeared then to be in a state of extreme weakness, whereas in the East he seemed to be as vigorous as I had been myself. It did not occur to me that his mind was affected in the slightest degree. He seemed to take great pleasure in hearing me talk of our travels.

Cross-examined. He spoke very little. I saw that he was weak, and I begged