The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-23 00:00:00

THE BENEFACTOR OF THE:SKIN.

MOLLARMS PERFUMED SULPHUR
SOAP and CREAM for ordinary toilet purposes,
and " BAREGE' SULPHUR CREAM, for Baths, free
from disagreeable odour ; an infallible means of preserving
the skin and body in perfect health ; they are alsoan effectual
remedy in curing local and cutaneous affections and rheuma-
tism. Highly patronised and recommended by the most
eminent physicians (see Testimonials). Tablets of Soap, from
Nos. 1 to 5, according to the degree of sulphur they contain,
sold at the depot. 2, Rupert-street, Coventry-street, London,
W., and at all chemists. Prospectuses and testimonials sent
on application.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-April 22,

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

SNOT► V. SMEE AND SMEE-TIIE BROMPTON ORATORY.
In this suit the plaintiff, the Rev. Thomas Francis Knox,
propounded the will and codicil of the Rev. William Hut-
chinson, deceased. The defendants, Dr. Alfred Smee, and
Mrs Smee, his wife, pleaded that tho will was not aecord-
ing to the requirements of the statute, that the testator
was not of sound mind, and that the execution of the will
was secured by the undue influence of the plaintiff and
others.

Mr. Karslake, Q.C., Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Inder-
wick appeared for the plaintiff; and Dr. Deane, Q.C., Dr.
Swabey, and Mr. Fooks, of the Chancery bar, for the
defendants.

Mr. Karslake said he appeared for the plaintiff, the Rev.
Thomas Francis Knox, -who as executor propounded the
will and codicil of the late Rev. William Hutchinson, who
died on the 12th July, 1863. The will was dated 24th July,
1860, and the codicil on the 7th August in the same year.
Alfred Smee, one of the defendants, was the brother-in-
law of William Hutchinson, having married Elizabeth, his
sister, the other defendant, who had been made a party to
the proceeding, not only as the next of kin, but also as
heiress-at-law, there being some small Irish property, worth
£l5 a year, left by William Hutchinson at his death. He
should be able to show conclusively that when the testator
made the will and codicil he was in a perfectly sane state of
mind, and that he acted entirely according to the dictates
of his own conscience, without any undue influence on the
part of the Rev. Mr. Knox or any other person. The
testator was the son of George Hutchinson, a cashier in the
Bank of England, who died in 1833, leaving two children,
the testator and a daughter, who married Alfred Smee. The
testator was born in 1822, and the daughter in 1818, and
William Smee, the father of Alfred Since, the defendant,
was executor of the elder Hutchinson's will. Smee,
senior, who also held a position in the Bank of England, was
likewise appointed guardian of the children. The Rev. W.
Hutchinson inherited considerable property, both present
and prospective, under his father's will. Both he and his
sister were brought up by William Smee with his own chil-
dren, and some years ago Alfred Since married the sister.
In 1813 William llutchinson became a student at Trinity
Collor, Cambridge, and in 1844 he went to Italy. About
that time he made the acquaintance of Dr. Faber, a member
of the University of Oxford, bat had previously expressed
his intention to join the Roman Catholic religion. Mr.
Alfred Since did all he could, and in an extremely offen-
sive manner, to prevent his taking that course, but he was
ongnecessinl. That gentleman, who a nitdleal prac:i-
tioner, resident in Fiusbury-eireus, wrote a very long Jotter
in 1845, entreating him in the most carnet terms not to at-
tach himself to that community. In another letter, dated
September 17. 1845, he said his resolution arose not from
reason but from a mind diseased, and that the idea of his
lending himself to the "mummery" of such a relentless
body, who would rob him of every farthing, was most hor-
rible and distressing. It was addressed to " Win. Ilatchia-
son, EA., member of the Church of England, and student
of Trinity College, Cambridge." Oa the 21st of the same
month he was received into the Roman Catholic Church
at Birmingham. About the same time, or subsequently,
Dr. Faber joined the same religion, and they became ex-
tremely intimate and went on a tour together. In 1846,
they joined a community known as the Winifredians, who
had just removed to Cotton Hall, Staffordshire. Shortly
afterwards there was a paragraph in the papers stating that
Mr. Hutchinson had become a priest. This led to a letter
from Mr. Smee, dared October 13, 1846, in which he spoke
of the " debased" villain Faber, who ruled him for his own
ambitious ends, and complained of the injury which Hutch-
inson's embracing the Roman Catholic religion had done to
the writer in his professional capacity. In August, 1847,
Hutchinson was ordained a priest of the Roman Catholic
Church, In February, 1848, a new community called the
" Oratorians" was established in St, Mary-vale, Birming-
ham, and they worn joined by the Winifredians. Next year
they became divided into two bodies, and Dr. Faber and
some other members, including Mr. Hutchinson, came to
London and established a house of their own in King Wil-
liam-street. In 1850 they became an independent commu-
nity, but Dr. Faber ceased to be superior and was a simple
novice. Whatever authority he enjoyed over the rest of the
community was by reason of the rules and regulations of the
house to which ho belonged. During the same year they
removed to Brompton. Mr. Smee said he was deprived by
Mr. Hutchinson's will of £4,000 which ought to have been
left to him, but a large portion of the testator's property
was expended in charitable and other good works during his
lifetime. Among these were ragged schools in Holborn, and
Drury- lane, which he superintended himself, an orphanages
a reformatory, and model lodging-houses. He also contri-
buted largely towards the Oratory at Brompton. He fitted
up a side chapel entirely at his own expense, and also spent
several hundred pounds in forming a library, the catalogue
of which he was engaged upon at the time of his death.
The learned counsel then read several letters to show that
he transacted all matters in the most business-like way, and
that he had a fixed determination not to leave any of his
property to his family.
The Judge Ordinary—l suppose his capacity is distinctly
in issue ?

Dr, Swabey—Yes ; most distinctly.
Mr. Kerslake said that by the will the testator be.
queathed to the Rsv. Thomas F. Knox, of the Oratory, a
legacy of £3O, and subject to that all his real and personal
estate to the use of the Very Rev. F. W. Faber, D.D., of
the same place, his heirs, executors, and assigns, and if he
died in his lifetime then to the Rev. Charles Bowden and
his heirs and assigns. The Rev. F, W. Faber was appointed
executor of the will, and the codicil revoked that appoint-
ment and substituted the Rev. Thames F. Knox, the present
plaintiff. his will evidently carried out the long-cherished
intention of the deceased, and was not brought about by any
undue or improper influence. His sister had been amply
provided for under his father's will, and it was clearly his
desire that neither she nor her husband nor children
should participate in his property. There could be no
doubt that he suffered a good deal from illness, and was
ultimately ailicted with paralysis, but there was no ground
for alleging that he was of unsound mind when he executed
the will. As already stated, he died on July 12, 1863, and
three weeks previously ho was entirely under the profes-
sional care of Dr. Same. About three months afterwards
Dr. Faber died. The learned counsel then said that the
Oratorians wore under no vows, and were free to dispose of
their property as they liked, and to leave the community
whenever they chose. The whole property of the testator
only amounted to between £4,000 and £5,000, and nothing
was more reasonable than that he should leave it to those
for whom he entertained the greatest affection and regard.
Befe,ra his death he desired Father Knox to purchase a
diamond ring and pin of the value of about £4O, and present
it to Mr. Smee, as an equivalent for his professional ser-
vices. Mr. Since attended the funeral at the burial-
ground at Sydenham belonging to the order, and he then
intimated that it was his intention to dispute the will.
Afterwards he wrote to the superior of the Oratorians, say-
ing, that as far as bodily ailments were concerned, his
brother-in-lave had received the attention which might be
expected from gentlemen and Christine, but that he con-
sidered his death was duo to a spiritual intimidation, which
was not only contrary to rho Christian religion, but con-
trary to the law of the land, and that he should hold all
concerned in it responsible. In another communication he
said his wife claimed part of the Oratory as next of kin,
and he demanded particulars of all the receipts. The
learned counsel said he had no doubt the court, after hear-
ing the evidence which would be adduced, would pronounce
in favour of the validity of the will.
Tho following witnesses were then called :

The Rev. Georgs Fred Ballard, one of the clergy of the
Oratory at Brompton, which he joined in 1850, said that in
th it year he first made the acquaintance of Father Hutchin-
son, who was thea a member of the order. He said the