although it was not corroborated with regard to the residuary bequests. Concluding his observations on the first part of the case, his lordship stated that he found as a fact that the contents of the will were as set out in the declaration, with the exception of a bequest of 750l. to the present Lord St. Leonards, which was given by a codicil and not by the will, and he should order that the declaration be amended by striking out the passage in question.

Passing to the second branch of the case-namely, whether or not the will had been revoked by the testator, he observed that the question was one of fact. Undoubtedly, he continued, where a will had been shown to have been in the custody of a testator, and it was not to be found at his death, the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, was that the testator himself destroyed it. But that presumption might be rebutted by evidence leading to the opposite conclusion. Now, that evidence must of necessity be of great variety, according to the various circumstances of the cases that were presented to courts of justice. He had already said that the first element in such a consideration as to whether or not the testator had himself destroyed his will was to be found in the instrument itself; and he should for the rest of his observations take it as proved that the contents of the will were as Miss Sugden said they were. That being so, it appeared to have been a will well considered, dealing with the interests of a large number of the members of the testator's family, settling certain estates upon the peerage, settling other estates upon his second son, accompanied by the declaration of the testator to those interested, especially to the present Lord St. Leonards, that as to one of those estates he had a fixed determination in his mind, and the Court had to consider whether it was probable that at some subsequent time the testator changed the intention which he had formed at the date of the execution of the will. When it was suggested that such a change had come over the mind of the testator, they must look for proof of it in a change of circumstances. Was there any here? It appeared not only from the parole evidence, but it appeared also from various documents, that the testator ceased to entertain the strong affection for his grandson, now Lord St. Leonards, that he previously entertained at the time of the making of his will. The deceased thought, and we had nothing to do with the justice or injustice of his reasoning, that he had cause to complain of his grandson's conduct; but, having had the opportunity of reading the letters which were not read in court, and which showed exactly what was the cause of the testator's displeasure with his grandson, he should say that there was nothing in the case which in the least degree reflected upon Lord St. Leonards' character.

On the other hand, we know as a fact that his affection for his daughter, Miss Sugden, was naturally increasing with years and months, and that as he became more and more dependent upon her he grew the more and more anxious to show the gratitude he entertained towards her. With regard also to his son, Mr. Frank Sugden, he never had any difference with him, and the codicils showed that he desired more and more to benefit him, and to make him, as Miss Sugden said, the head of the family, by placing him in Boyle Farm, with a sufficient income to maintain it. There was, therefore, a total absence of any assignable motive for the testator to have revoked all the important provisions of his will.

In the absence of any reason why he should change his mind with reference to his son, Mr. Frank Sugden, what was there in the evidence that he ever did change his mind? There had been given a considerable body of testimony as to subsequent statements by the testator, which, upon this point of the case,

were, without doubt, admissible in evidence, and they showed that down to the latest period of his life he invariably spoke of having given his Kingsdown estate to his second son. The declarations to which he more particularly referred began in January 1874, and were repeated by the testator down to his death. He accepted the evidence as to those declarations as true, and the conclusion to which it led him was this-that at the time they were made by the testator he believed that his will of 1870 was still in existence.

But it was said that if that were the case, what was the theory which was to be put forward as to its disappearance? He was not called upon to suggest any theory which would account for the will not being found at the testator's death. Several of various degrees of probability might be suggested, but he guardedly and purposely abstained from putting forward any theory of his own upon the subject. It was sufficient for him to say that, believing as he did that the testator made those statements in the belief that the will was in existence at a time subsequent to that at which he could have revoked it, he came to the conclusion that the testator did not destroy it at any time at which he could have had access to it; for to adopt any other view would be to hold one of two things which appeared to him equally untenable-either that Lord St. Leonards had, in fact, destroyed the will upon one of the occasions upon which no doubt he might have had access to it between August 1873 and March 1874, but had forgotten it-an hypothesis which, to his mind, was altogether untenable-or, on the other hand, that he had revoked it, and purposely concealed the fact from his daughter, Miss Sugden, who had been in his confidence for years, and for whom his attachment never diminished. That the testator should have done an act so much to her injury, while he kept up the semblance and pretence of an undiminished interest in her welfare, was impossible to believe, and was wholly inconsistent with the whole tenour of his conduct towards her. Equally was it to be observed that he would never have kept concealed from Mr. Frank Sugden the fact that so great a change had been made in his prospects by the revocation of the will; and, in addition, it was impossible to believe that Lord St. Leonards, with his knowledge upon such a subject and of the consequences of his act, would have, under the circumstances supposed, destroyed his will, with the result, which must have been well known to him, of introducing confusion into his affairs after his death, and with the certainty of bringing about that litigation from which he had himself endeavoured to protect the public.

Now, let me, in conclusion (continued Sir James Hannen), call attention to a passage in one of Lord St. Leonards own works which has a bearing upon this subject, and it shows how the wisest of men may be mistaken, as I think, in the advice which they give to others. And I may say this case illustrates the false security in which Lord St. Leonards lived, and in which I dare say we all of us live. With the other members of his family he lived in the belief that his will was secure from the hands and eyes of either the curious or the dishonest. It was thought that the only means of access to it was by the only key which Lord St. Leonards carried about him, and that there was no means of access to the duplicate key, which would open the will-box, and yet it turned out that there were no less than four keys in the house by which anybody might have opened the escritoire in which the duplicate key was kept, and so have obtained possession of it. Believing as I do that this will has been lost, and not destroyed by the testatrix, and that the loss has arisen from its insecure custody, though that custody seemed to all concerned to be perfectly safe, it is well that it should be known, and I particularly desire that it should be

N

known, to the public that the law has provided a means of obtaining as nearly as certainty can be obtained in human affairs that a will will be forthcoming at the death of the testator. It has been provided for by 20 and 21 Vict., c. 77., s. 91, that wills may be deposited at the registry of this court, sealed and signed, and that their contents can never be known to any one until the proper time arrives. They may, upon payment of a small fee, be deposited at the registry of the court, and there they will be kept in safe custody; and yet, notwithstanding this provision of the law, I regret to say that in 1872-73 there were only seven instances of wills having been so deposited at the registry; in 1873-74 there were nine; and in 1874-75 there have been seventeen instances of the kind. Now Lord St. Leonards, observing upon this in his Handy-Book of Property Law, says :—

The act which abolishes the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction and establishes a Court of Probate (20 and 21 Vict., c. 77.) provides not only for the custody of your will after your death, but directs that convenient depositories shall be provided under the control of the court for all such wills of living persons as may be deposited therein for safe custody; and that all persons may deposit their wills in such depository upon payment of such fees and under such regulations as the judge of the court shall by order direct. If you are likely from time to time to alter your will, I should advise you not to place it in this depository. If I were a devisee of a living testator, I should like to hear that the will was in the new depository. The expense and difficulty attending the gathering of the will out of this custody would deter many men from capriciously altering their donations."

I think it is to be regretted that advice was given, for it is competent for any person to alter his will as before, even though he should deposit it for safe custody in the registry of the court. The result is, that I find as a fact that the will of 1870 was duly executed and attested; that the several codicils also were duly executed and attested; that the will was not revoked by the testator; and I further find that the contents of the will were, with the exception I have mentioned, as set out in the declaration.

IV.

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.

TRIAL OF THE BROTHERS WAINWRIGHT.

THE trial of Henry and Thomas George Wainwright, for the murder of Harriet Lane, was commenced at the Central Criminal Court on Nov. 22, before the Lord Chief Justice.

The counsel engaged in the case were :-For the prosecution, the AttorneyGeneral (Sir J. Holker), Mr. Poland, and Mr. Beasley. For the defence of Henry Wainwright, Mr. Besley, Mr. Douglas Straight, and Mr. Tickell; of Thomas, Mr. Moody.

The proceedings were commenced by the Attorney-General, who stated the case to the jury. He remarked that it would be competent to them to find

Henry Wainwright guilty of murder, and Thomas guilty of being an accessory before the fact or after the fact.

After stating the facts regarding the relations of the prisoner Henry with Harriet Lane, otherwise Mrs. King, counsel remarked that while Mrs. King was living at Sidney Square a man called upon her, who gave the name of Edward Frieake. This man, it was alleged by the prosecution, was the prisoner Thomas Wainwright. He then proceeded to show that Mrs. Foster had given notice to leave to Mrs. King, and that consequently Henry Wainwright would have been obliged to get her another lodging. He had therefore a motive for getting rid of her. The learned counsel next proceeded to mention the purchase on Sept. 10th, by the prisoner Henry, of 1 cwt. of chloride of lime, the statement by Harriet Lane on the 11th, that she was going to 215, Whitechapel Road, Henry's house, when she took leave of her children, and the noise of shots heard by workmen next door to the prisoner's house, 215, Whitechapel Road. According to the prosecution it was by one of those shots that Harriet Lane was murdered. Subsequently to this it was alleged her body was buried, in a grave previously prepared, beneath the floor, and covered with the chloride of lime. Various inquiries were made by Miss Wilmore, in whose care the children of Harriet Lane had been left, as to the whereabouts of Harriet Lane, and she received a letter purporting to be from "E. Frieake,” stating that the writer intended to marry "Mrs. King,” and that they were about to leave the country. The deceased's father also made inquiries, and discovered that this "E. Frieake was not Mr. Frieke, an auctioneer, a friend of Henry Wainwright's, as had been supposed, and the latter said it was another person altogether. The Attorney-General then described how Thomas Wainwright had established himself as ironmonger at the "Hen and Chickens," Borough, and had got into difficulties and had been sold up, and how the mortgagee of Henry Wainwright's lease of 215, Whitechapel Road, had put in Mrs. Izzard to occupy the house. Henry, being alarmed lest discovery should be made by any person living in the house on account of the bad smell, then proceeded to make his plans for removing the body. The learned counsel then described the discovery of the contents of the parcels which he was carrying for Henry Wainwright by Stokes, the search of No. 215, the discoveries made by the police, and that on medical examination of the remains two bullets were found lodged in the brain. The prisoner Thomas was arrested on being identified as the man calling himself Frieake.

دو

Alfred Philip Stokes then gave evidence to the effect that he was asked by the prisoner Henry to carry two parcels for him, and that he had peeped into them, and, on the discovery that they contained human remains, had followed Henry Wainwright, who was conveying them away in a cab, and given him into custody.

Alice Day, examined, gave evidence as to her acquaintance with the prisoner Henry, and her being with him in the cab in which he carried the parcels.

Matthew Fox, examined, gave evidence to the arrest of Henry Wainwright and the search of premises of No. 215.

Ellen Wilmore gave evidence as to Harriet Lane's relations with Henry Wainwright, her disappearance, and the receipt of the letter signed E. Frieake. She also had identified the remains found in Henry Wainwright's possession as the body of Harriet Lane.

A number of witnesses were then examined, chiefly giving evidence as to the identification of the remains, the relations of Harriet Lane with Henry

Wainwright, the bad smells noticed at No. 215, and the firing of three shots heard by workmen next door.

Mr. Besley addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Henry Wainwright. He represented the excited state of public feeling with regard to the prisoner, which he contended was very prejudicial to him, and pointed out that the evidence being simply circumstantial the jury should satisfy themselves that the chain was in a perfect state. No evidence was given, Mr. Besley contended, as to the first acquaintance of the prisoner and Harriet Lane or to show that Thomas Wainwright and Edward Frieake were identical. He disputed the evidence as to the time when the lime was bought. The smells at No. 215 were perceived, he said, before Sept. 11th, and the evidence as to the firing of the shots was entirely untrustworthy. As a motive for the charge in the indictment-that the prisoner had immoral relations with other women than Mrs. King-the prosecution had utterly failed. Whether it had been intended to establish that point by Alice Day he (Mr. Besley) did not know; but not a scintilla of evidence had pointed to any such relation. That the prisoner became aware on the 11th that there was that on the premises which would gravely compromise him there could be no doubt. But a man conscious of guilt would not have asked Alice Day to ride with him, and would not have employed a man like Stokes in the way he did. A guilty man would have sent Stokes for the cab, instead of going himself; for the discovery resulted from the prisoner's carelessness in that respect. The learned counsel proceeded to discuss the evidence of identity, and contended that it was not proved beyond doubt that the remains were those of Harriet Lane. As to the second count in the indictment, that the prisoner had murdered an unknown woman, that showed that the prosecution doubted the identity of the remains. Then what became of all the evidence which related to Harriet Lane? And if that evidence was gone, what remained? He should contend that there was no evidence that the death was not occasioned by suicide-that there was nothing in the scientific evidence inconsistent with the theory that it was a suicide. The Judge: I shall make the remark to the jury that a person who commits suicide does not bury himself. You find here not only a death from the bullets, but also an interment.

In conclusion, Mr. Besley said that his contention was that the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of not guilty if one link in the chain of the case for the prosecution was broken. That that was so was clear from Mr. Martin's evidence that his van was being repaired (when the three men heard the shots) on Sept. 9. The prosecution alleged that the death of the person whose body was found occurred on Sept. 11; and if it did not occur on that day the whole prosecution was shattered. The learned counsel also laid great stress upon the opinion of Dr. Meadows, that the remains were those of a woman who had not been a mother, and concluded by an appeal to the jury to give effect to the doubts which he considered he had thrown upon the case.

Mr. Moody then addressed the jury on behalf of Thomas Wainwright. He should contend that the offence of murder had not been committed, and that even supposing the jury should think the fact of a murder had been established-it was not proved that his client was an accessory. Upon the first point he should not enlarge, inasmuch as Mr. Besley had exhausted the arguments in respect to it. If there was a doubt as to the identity of the remains, then as regarded Thomas Wainwright there was nothing to answer. It was not shown that any unkind feeling existed between Thomas Wainwright and Harriet Lane. The prisoner Thomas's statement that he had done anything