The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLRAS.-FEB. 7.

Sittings M Nisi Prins in hfiddleses.—(Before the Lord
Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
HASP V. ROBINSON.

After our report left yesterday,
Mrs. Hump was celled and stated that she was the
mother of the plaintiff, and Mr. Chavasse, the surgeon who
attended her in her confinement, gave similar evidence.
Mn. Turner said that she was the sister of Mrs. Hamp.
Mr. and Mrs. Hemp were living apart from 1858 until
1863, but Mr. Ramp frequently visited his wife between
these period. ; and it was at his desire that Mrs. Hamp
took the house at Shirley in July, 1860, and she remained
there until February, 1863, except that she was away at
Birmingham during her confinement. Mr. Hamp first met
his wife at witness's house some months before his mar-
riage. He was then living an extravagant life ;ho was
fond of horses and the turf. He ran through a great deal of
money, and soon after his marriage he was arrested, and wrs
for some months in Hereford flea He and his wife seemed
to be very affectionate towards each other. In the spring
of 1861 Mr. Hemp visited his wife seven or eight tunes,
and be generally stayed with her for five or six hours. He
had often heard Mr. Ramp say that he did not like to
have young children about him until they could talk.
Cross-examined—When she became acquainted with
Mr. Hemp her husband was • trainer of race-horses;and
Mr. Hamp had one or two race-horses of him. She had
never heard any dispute between Mr. and Mrs. Hemp as
to misconduct between Mrs. Hamp and witness's husband.
There was no accommodation for Mrs. Ramp being con-
fined at Shirley, and it was by Mr. Hamp's wish that she
went to Birmingham to be confined. Hill-street, Birming.
ham, where the confinement took place, was a respectable
part of the town. Mrs. Hemp did not go to the christen-
ing of the plaintiff, but witness could not
tell why. It was the nurse who wished to have the child
I christened. She had never made any concealment as
to whose the child was. She never told any person that
, the child was the child of a cousin of hors who had gone
away and left five children behind ; nor that Mr. and Mrs.
I Hemp had no living child.
Mr. Turner waa called, and stated that Mr. Hemp
visited at Shirley on several occasions whilst Mrs. Hemp
was there, and stayed with her for several hours ; and he
spoke also to some circumstances confirmatory of this
statement. _ _

At this period the further hearing wee adjourned ; and
it is expected that the trial will occupy several days.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
FEB. 7.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MUNDT V. WILIRSTiIt.
(Concluded from yesterday's Express.)
In proof of the will, Dr. Aldis, one of the attesting wit-
nesses, and other persons, were called, who deposed to the
perfect capacity of the deceased, and the regularity of the
execution. The parties resisting the will in the first in-
stance were the brother and sister of the deceased (the
latter of whom was Miss Elizabeth Webster, an actress at
the Surrey Theatre); but neither having any interest in
law while their father was alive, the name of old Webster
was substituted in the suit.

On his behalf it was contended that on the face of the
document the execution could not have been in accordance
with the terms of the statute; but Mr. Holroyd, she
second attesting witness, who was placed in the box to
make oat this averment, stated that he had seen the tes-
tatrix sign her name three times, that his fellow witness
bad then signed, and that he had added his own name
last. Mr. Chabot (the expert in writing) waa of opinion
that the signature of the testatrix was not written with
the same ink as those cf the attesting witnesses,
or the insertions in the body of the will, which it should
be said was a lithographed form. He thought the name of
the testatrix had been put in after the other signatures,
because if she had written on a blank space she would not
have gone so near the other writing. Mr. John Thomas
Moss, the defendant's solicitor, swore that Holroyd had
twice told him that the attesting witnesses had signed
before the testatrix.

Dr. Spinks—And because one attesting witness told you
that, you thought yourself justified in charging undue
influence, fraud, and the other pretty things you have
alleged against the plaintiff