In this action the plaintiff, Mr. C.C. Creeke, architect and surveyor, of Bournemouth, propounded as executor the last will, bearing date the 4th of February, 1880, of Mr. John Hibidage, late of Bournemouth, in the county of Hants, who died at an advanced age on the 24th of February, 1880. The defendant Miss Sarah Ann Butler, a legatee under an earlier will, opposed probate of the instrument on the ground that it was not duly executed, that its execution was procured by undue influence, and that the testator did not know and approve of its contents.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., Sir J. Holker, Q.C., and Mr. Searle appeared for the plaintiff: Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Bayford for the defendant.

In opening the case it was stated, that the testator, who began life in humble circumstances, carried on for many years the business of builder at Bournemouth. His fortunes advanced with the prosperity of the place, and at his death he was possessed of property, principally leasehold houses, of the value in the whole of £25,000. He was married, but had no family, and he had lived with his wife, who was about the same age as himself, on affectionate terms. She had had a daughter (now Mrs. Lance) before her marriage with the testator, and her child had been brought up by him, educated at his expense, and treated by him all respects if she had been his own. Mrs. Hibidage's sister married a Mr. Butler, and on his death the testator, at the instance, as it was alleged, of Mrs. Lance, took the defendant who was then very young, into his house. After a time she undertook the duties in the household which had been previously discharged by Mrs. Lance, and in time obtained a place in the old man's regard and affections. In his first known will, made in May 1873, he gave her a legacy of £200, the bulk of his property being left to his wife for life. By a codicil to the will made in September, 1876, he gave Miss Butler a further gift of three houses of the value or £1,600. By a subsequent of the date of September, 1879, he revoked those bequests to Miss. Butler, and substituted for them a gift of four houses of the value of £3,000; and by a final codicil, executed in December, 1879, he further increased his bounty to Miss Butler by an additional gift of a house (Linwood-house) and furniture, making the total amount of his bequests to her about £7000, all of which, with the exception of Linwood-house, were subject to his wife's life interest in the whole of his estate. Up to this point in respect of the history of his testamentary dispositions both parties to the suit were agreed. The husband of Mrs. Lance died towards the end of 1879, and it was then arranged that she should return to and resume her old place in the testator's house. Very shortly afterwards the testator was attacked with his fatal illness. In January, 1880, he gave instructions for the preparation of his last will to Mr. Creeke, who is an architect and builder at Bournemouth and who had been in partnership with the deceased in a brickmaking concern, and he executed the paper on the day it bore date - the 4th February, 1880 - in the presence of Mr. Creeke, whom he appointed one of his executors, and of a Miss Banger. By this instrument he revoked all his previous gifts to Miss Butler and substituted for them a pecuniary legacy of £1,000 and he renewed his bequest of the whole of his property to his wife for life, with remainder to Mrs. Lance.

The plaintiff (Mr. C. C. Creeke) was called, and gave evidence to the effect of the testator's capacity. He seemed to have something on his mind about his testamentary dispositions, and after he had taken instructions for the will the testator asked him whether the will he was about to execute would rescind all previous testamentary dispositions. Witness said it would, and the testator then said, "Very well, that is the document I wish to execute." The will was accordingly executed under these circumstances.

As the authenticity of the testator's signature to the will was called in question, several gentlemen who had done business with the testator were called to speak to the genuineness of his signature.

Dr. William Stewart Falls, senior physician of the Sanatorium at Bournemouth, gave evidence as to attending the deceased, who died on February 24th, 1880. In the opinion of witness, at the time of the making of the will of 1880 the testator was perfectly competent to transact business.

Mr. Sheppard, manager of the bank at Bournemouth at which the testator had kept his account, deposed to the genuineness of the signature to the will.

Miss Banger having given evidence, Mrs. Lance, the testator's stepdaughter, and other parties resident at Bournemouth, were called and spoke as to the defendant, Miss Butler, causing disagreements between the testator and his wife, and her efforts to exercise an improper influence over the testator.

For the defense, Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., supplemented the outline of the case as above detailed by a further and additional circumstances. He stated that the will of 1873 and the codicil of 1876 had been executed in duplicate, the testator retaining one set of copies, Mr. Webb, who had been a solicitor at Bournemouth, and who had prepared the documents, taking charge of the other set. In March, 1878, Mr. Webb having got into difficulties owing to building speculations at Bournemouth, absconded, and some time afterwards the testator sent Mrs. Lance to Mr. Druitt, Mr. Webb's successor, for the papers which had been in Mr. Webb's possession. A sealed packet was brought back by Mrs. Lance to the testator, and later on it was discovered, so counsel alleged, that the documents enclosed in it were not the genuine duplicate copies of the will of 1873 and the codicil of 1876, but a triplicate and spurious, though exact, copy of these documents, including the signatures of the testator and of Mr. Webb and, the and the second attesting witness. This fraud was imputed to Mrs. Lance, and the object of it, as suggested, was this - that, knowing she had no claim on the testator, being no relation of his, she had kept the original documents as a protection in the event of the deceased changing his disposition towards her. Arguing from this alleged fraud and the resemblance between the signatures to the "triplicate papers" and the will of 1880, and the circumstances surrounding it's execution, the learned counsel asked the jury to come to the conclusion that the alleged signature of the deceased to this last document was a forgery, or, failing that, to find that its execution had been procured by the undue influence of Mrs. Lance and her mother.

At the close of the counsel's address the case was adjourned until Wednesday, when Mr. James Druitt, solicitor, gave evidence as to acting for the deceased in business matters. On December 10th, 1879, the testator brought him two documents, which he alleged were a spurious will and codicil. He was very much struck with the appearance of these documents. Upon an examination he was convinced that two of the signatures the attesting witnesses were not in their handwriting.

Arthur Joy, solicitor's clerk, said that he attested the will and codicil of 1873. The documents now produced were not in his handwriting, nor that of Mr. Webb, his late employer. He had not seen them before, nor had he any knowledge whose handwriting they were in.

William Burt stated, that he was one of the attesting witnesses to the codicils of September and December, 1879. When the latter was executed, the testator distinctly said that he would cut his wife's life interest of the Linwood property, and leave it to the defendant Miss Butler, on his death. Miss Butler was then present. The only parties in the room were the testator, Mr. Druitt, himself, and Miss Butler. The testator was at the time properly competent.

Sarah Ann Butler, the defendant, said that she used to assist the testator in keeping his books. He was always kind to her, and had told her that he had benefited her by the testamentary papers he had executed. On the day that the will of February 4th, was said to have been en executed, she did not see Mr. Creeke, nor Miss Banger, at the house of deceased.

A number of other witnesses were called, and before their evidence was completed, the jury intimated that they had come to a conclusion in the matter, and counsel accordingly forbore addressing them.

The President, in briefly summing up the case, pointed out that the existence, of the spurious documents might be explained on the hypothesis that they were prepared for the purpose of execution by the testator. He himself seemed to admit that his signature to them was genuine, and neither Mr. Druitt nor Mr. Chabot would undertake to say that it was a forgery. That was a thought which had occurred to him, but he did not profess to it as the true explanation of the mystery.

The jury, without leaving the box, found for the plaintiff on all the issues, and the Court pronounced for the will, with costs.