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.

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

to serve his brother merely meant that he had helped him, knowing he had a difficulty with some woman, which any other man would have done. The identity between Frieake and the prisoner Thomas was not clearly made out. In fact the links in the case against Thomas were all imperfect, and the prosecution asked the jury to adjust them and complete the chain. He (Mr. Moody) asked them to reject the theory of the prosecution, and say that whatever the prisoner had done he had no guilty knowledge. The prisoner Thomas had been unhappy in his domestic relations and had been wanted by the police for neglecting his wife, a charge upon which he was dismissed by the magistrate. As he had no fixed home, it was impossible for him to say after an interval of twelve or eighteen months where he was on any particular evening; he could not therefore prove a complete alibi, but he could bring evidence that, in Sept. 1874, Thomas Wainwright was in regular attendance at the place where he was employed.

A witness called for Thomas Wainwright gave evidence as to his being in his service and his regular attendance from March to October 1874.

The Attorney-General replied on behalf of the Crown. He said that the theory of suicide by the woman whose body was found was absurd. Then Henry Wainwright had to face at the outset the fact that a murdered body lay under the floor of his paint-room, that he mutilated it, and was taken while endeavouring to remove it to another and a more secret place. He urged that the identity of E. Frieake and the prisoner Thomas was fully established and there was no evidence to show that Harriet Lane was likely to leave the man to whom she had borne children for a stranger. The facts of the purchase of the lime, and the hearing of the shots, and the respective dates, Sept. 10th and 11th, were clearly proved. The letters and telegrams, sent in the name of Frieake, were sent by Thomas Wainwright, at his brother Henry's instigation. The Attorney-General then examined the evidence as to the remains found in the prisoner Henry's possession. He showed the immoral relations existing between Henry Wainwright and Harriet Lane, and the differences between them. He noticed the fact of the smell at No. 215, the purchase of an axe and spade, and said that these were circumstances which, taken together, must convince every reasonable man that the prisoner Henry Wainwright was guilty of the murder of Harriet Lane.

As to Thomas Wainwright, it was evident that he lent himself to a plot, instituted by Henry, to pass himself off as a man named Frieake. It was not for him (the Attorney-General) to suggest what the motive was; it was enough for him that there was a plot, and that being so, it must have had some motive. In conclusion, the Attorney-General showed that Henry Wainwright must have had help in removing the body, and that everything pointed to the fact that Thomas helped him.

On the ninth day of the trial the Lord Chief Justice summed up. He began by remarking that on Sept. 11 the prisoner Henry Wainwright was found in possession of the mangled remains of a body that had been severed by some rough instrument, that those remains had been recently taken from a grave on the prisoner's premises, and that the death of the person whose remains they were had been occasioned by pistol shots. The jury would have to inquire whether the life thus taken by foul means was taken by the prisoner. There could be no doubt in this case that the life was taken by violence; the question for the jury was whether it was the prisoner by whose hands that life was taken. The next thing to consider was as to the identity of the remains. His lordship proceeded to consider the relations between Henry Wainwright

and Harriet Lane. He showed how the former fell into difficulties, and that Harriet Lane was evidently a great burden to him. His lordship then remarked on the Frieake episode, and showed the various theories held as to it, pointing out that it might have been part of a scheme to assure Harriet Lane as to her future means of subsistence. The prisoner Henry's replies to the inquiries of Harriet Lane's friends were contradictory. Anyhow the fact remained that there were remains lying in Henry Wainwright's house which he deemed necessary to remove, and that he made preparations for that purpose. That the cause of death was by shots or by knife was evident, and the body was found in Henry Wainwright's possession, in the act of concealing it. The presumption was reasonable that the man removing the body from one hiding-place to another was the one concerned in the original offence. The evidence showed that this body closely corresponded with that of Harriet Lane, and the jury had now to consider whether it was that body; if it was, Harriet Lane was killed by the hand of an assassin, and they must say if they had any honest, reasonable doubt that she fell by the hand of Henry Wainwright.

With regard to Thomas Wainwright, his lordship said it was clear that he lent himself to a scheme for turning aside inquiry. But the argument urged in his favour, that his brother induced him to aid in stopping the inquiries, telling him the woman had gone off somewhere, he did not know where, might be true; the jury must say if it was consistent with the evidence. If he gave his help under the impression that his brother had got into some scrape, but did not know of the murder, then, although guilty of the gravest indiscretion, he was not guilty of the charge. If they thought he knew of the murder, they must find him guilty. He (the judge) was convinced that the jury, who had given such undivided attention to the case, would find a verdict to the best of their ability which would give satisfaction to the country at large.

The jury then retired to deliberate, and on returning to court the foreman gave as their verdict that Henry Wainwright was guilty of the murder of Harriet Lane, and Thomas Wainwright accessory after the fact.

Henry Wainwright on being asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, made a statement declaring his innocence. Sentence of death was then passed on him, the Lord Chief Justice declaring his complete concurrence with the verdict.

Thomas Wainwright was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.

V.

THE TITLE OF "REVEREND."

THE case of "Keet v. Smith and others came on on July 24 at the Arches Court, before the Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore, the Dean of Arches. It was an appeal from the judgment of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln (Dr. Walter Phillimore), who had refused an application by the Rev. Henry Keet, a Wesleyan minister, to issue the usual citation and faculty for the erection of a certain tombstone, with a particular inscription, in the churchyard of Owston Ferry, in that diocese. An inhibition to show cause why such a