In the Probate and Divorce Division on Saturday, Mr. Justice Butt and a special jury resumed the hearing of the case, Ludlam v. Ludlam. This was a probate suit in which the testamentary dispositions of Mrs. Mary Ludlam, late of Netherbury, were in dispute. The plaintiff, Mr. Edward Ludlam, propounded the will of his deceased wife, dated in 1865, and the defendant, the brother and next of kin, opposed. He denied that the will was executed in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and pleaded that the deceased died intestate.

Mr. Edward Ludlam said he was the plaintiff, and resided at Victoria-villa, Stapleton-road, Bristol. By profession he was a schoolmaster. He had been head master of Netherbury school, He had retired from that, and was now carrying on a house agency business in Bristol. Mr. Joseph Ludlam was his first cousin. He (plaintiff) was married to Mary Ludlam on the 4th of July, 1861, the defendant's sister. He had been married twice before that. There were two children, one by each of his former marriages. Mrs. Mary Ludlam was a Court milliner in Bond-street. Her fortune was settled on her marriage. Wills were made after marriage in each other's favour, Mrs. Ludlam declined to leave her brother any of her property, as she said he had her business and his Government income. Miss Budd was governess to the children, and she remained with them until 1865, when she left to go home, about ten miles from his (witness's) house, After that, in July, he (witness) went to London for the holidays, and went to Mr. Pitfield’s house. He met Miss Budd there, and he took her to the Crystal Palace and other places. On his return home in August he found matters unpleasant, as his wife had heard of his going about with Miss Budd. He explained matters to her. She was satisfied, and after that she went to see Miss Budd at Lyme Regis, where she resided. Matters all became pleasant after his explanation. In October, 1865, the deceased went on a visit to Mr. and Mrs. Nicholls, at Buckland, and they afterwards went to Netherbury, on a return visit. At this time he knew a Mr. Wainwright, and he visited them after deceased returned from Buckland. After the death of Mrs. Ludlam he saw Mr. Wainwright, and had a conversation with him about deceased’s affairs, and after that he did not see him for sixteen years or hear from him, until matters occurred with respect to the present suit. He, prior to that, saw the Nicholls’s, who told him there was a will. He had looked for Mrs. Ludlam’s will soon after her death. Not being able to find it, he spoke to the Nicholls's about it, and they said they knew there was a will. On the 21st July, 1866, he was married to Miss Budd. In 1880 they left Netherbury and went to Bristol. The signatures to the documents now produced were those of Mr. Nicholls. He had a book Mrs. Nicholls gave them. At the time she wrote her name in it. He saw her write it. (Book produced). Sarah Nicholls died in 1874, and John Nicholls in 1883. He took a number of papers with him when he left Netherbury for Bristol, and he did not think he went to the deed box from the time of his wife's death until last year. He had looked into the strong box for the will after the testatrix's death, but he could not find the will. He looked in the jewel box, which was in the chest which he searched, but he found no will. Lately he was turning out the whole of the papers in the strong box, and with other testamentary papers he found the will now propounded. It was tied up with other papers with which it had no connection. He found the will on the 17th of August last year. The signature was certainly that of his late wife, and he knew the signatures of the attesting witnesses were those of Mr. and Mrs. Nicholls. His impression was the will was in the handwriting of a young man named Paris, who had been a pupil of his, Paris died in 1884, aged 24. He would be at the date of that will about 15 years old. The paper (a poem) now placed in his (witness's) hands was in Paris's handwriting. Paris’s father was Nicholls’ bailiff, who lived at Barbridge. Young Paris was at Barbridge at the date of the will. On finding this will he showed it to some old friends of his, and he ultimately sent the will to Mr. Hortin.

In cross-examination, the plaintiff said Mary Ludlam was his fourth wife. Miss Budd came to their house in 1862. There was a quarrel about her in 1865(?). His reconciliation with the testatrix after his return home from London was complete. The mutual wills were drawn up between himself and wife. They were kept in the jewel case. He did not find his own will in the jewel case, The deceased never told him that she had executed another will, or that she had destroyed his. She never told him that she had destroyed any will. He married Miss Budd six months after testatrix's death. He was friendly with the Nichollses after his fourth marriage. Nichols never told him he had witnessed a will dated 20th October, 1865. Mrs. Nicholls, however, told him, when he was speaking about testatrix’s death, all would come right in time, as there was a will. Neither of them after testatrix’s death told him there was a will. Young Paris died in 1875, at his father's place, which was about five miles from his (witness's) farm. Paris was in his (witness's) school in 1865. He was at Nicholls's farm, at Barbridge, while testatrix was there. He lost sight of Paris for nearly ten years, but he saw him a short time before his death. He never had any information from either Paris or his father about a will being drafted for testatrix. He would swear the poem was in Paris’s handwriting, and he believed the will in dispute was written by him also.

Mr. Finlay, who was cross-examining the plaintiff, said their contention was that the will was never written by young Paris.

Mr. Thomas Wainwright, master of Barnstaple Grammar school, said in 1865, he saw Mrs. Ludlam. She told him she had destroyed her will, as she did not approve her husband’s going about in London with Miss Budd. He told her she ought to entertain a higher opinion of her husband. He further told her his opinion of Mr. Ludlam was that in the little attentions he paid to Miss Budd in London he (Ludham) was only endeavouring to repay to some extent the kindness and attention she had paid to their children. His opinions seemed to have an affect on the lady before he left the house. Some time after that, towards the end of the year 1865, he saw Mrs. Ludlam, and she then said to him, “I have thought over your advice, and made my will, and made Edward all right."

Mrs. Mary Ann Ludlam, formerly Miss Budd, proved that she received visits from Mrs. Ludlam while she was residing at Lyme Regis, and that she was on the best of terms with her. She (deceased) gave witness a testimonial, which enabled her to obtain her next situation.

There was no cross-examination.

Mrs. Webber, of South-street, Bridport, said she was well acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. and Mrs. Nichols, and she was sure the signatures to the will were theirs.

MONDAY.

The further hearing of the case was resumed on Monday, when Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Middleton appeared in support of the will, propounded by the plaintiffs, dated in 1864, and Mr. Finlay Q.C., Mr. Bayford, Q.C., and Mr, Deane for the defendant.

Some other evidence having been given to prove the genuiness of the signatures of the will, the case for the plaintiffs closed.

Mr. Bayford then stated his case for the defendant, and his main contention was that the will was not in the handwriting of the young man Paris, and that the signatures to the document were not in the handwriting of the deceased, and the attesting witness, and submitted various documents to the jury in support of his contention.

Mr. Giles Symonds, solicitor, of Dorchester, was now called. He said he identified the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Nicholls, the attesting witnesses, as being in their handwriting.

Mr. John Thomas Ludlam said he was brother of the deceased. He recollected his sister's marriage, and the unpleasantness that arose afterwards about Miss Budd, He received letters from the deceased almost daily (letters produced). Some of the letters produced, were addressed to his wife. The letters were dated in 1865, and one in May, 1866. He never saw the plaintiff after February, 1866. He had had the management of the deceased's business up to the present. The first he heard about the will now produced, was last August. He clearly recollected his sister telling him she had destroyed her will. She never told him she had made another or said anything that led him to form the belief that she had made another. When he first saw the the [sic] will, his impression was that it was not genuine,

Mr. Justice Butt: What is your present impression?

Witness: It has never altered from the first.

Mr. Deane: What do you think about the handwriting of the will?

Witness: I think that the body of the will is in the handwriting of my brother-in-law.

Cross-examined: He thought the signatures of the two Nicholls’s, and the body of the will, were all in one handwriting. If the will was not proved, he could take the whole of the deceased’s property.

William Bryant, a farmer at Boldre, in Hampshire, said be married the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Nicholls. He had seen Mrs, Nicholls’s handwriting. Looking at the signature to the will, he did not think it was in the handwriting of his mother-in-law.

Mr. Justice Butt: What fault do you find with it, is it too good?

Witness: It is better than she could write.

The witness was here shown some genuine signatures of Mrs. Nicholls. and he said he did not think they were in the handwriting of his mother-in-law.

Mr. Justice Butt said he had no doubt the witness believed what he had stated, but it showed the value of such evidence.

Elizabeth Miller said she was well acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. Nicholls, but she did not think the signature, John Nicholls, to the will, was in his handwriting.

Mr. Thomas Meger gave similar evidence.

Mr. George Smith Inglis said he was a professional expert in handwriting. He had been consulted in the present case. He had had before him the will of Mary Ludlam. Speaking only to the signatures, he had had some genuine letters of Mrs. Mary Ludlam also submitted to him. There was a similarity in all of the letters. Speaking of the “M” and from the patching of the bottom of the capital “L” he came to the conclusion that it was not in the usual handwriting of the person supposed to have written the name.

His Lordship: It is suggested that the person who wrote the notice was the writing master of the boy Paris, who is said by the plaintiff to have written the will. Would that account for any similarity in the writing in the two documents? — Witness: Yes, that would account for the similarity. —Have you formed a strong opinion that the notice and the will were written by the same hand?—I have. Really a strong opinion?—Yes: the body of the will was the last writing that I examined.—Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Inderwick as to various points in the signatures—Mr. Inderwick: Gentlemen in your profession are not always infallible? (laughter). —Witness: Oh, no; we sometimes make mistakes, I was quite right in Harver's case.~—Mr. Inderwick: I don’t like to mention another case in which you were not right (laughter)—only in the next court.—Witness: Exactly so.

The plaintiff was recalled by his Lordship, in reply to whom: he said that in his school at Netherbury he had 30 or 40 pupils. The boy Paris was one of the pupils. Witness taught them writing. A copy of his school appointments (produced) was not in witness’s handwriting. Two other documents—a notice of a meeting and some accounts —were in his writing. The copy of his appointment was given to him at Mr. Michael's house, at Barbaridge [sic]. He believed that the notice was drawn at Barbaridge.

His Lordship remarked that all those documents and the alleged will consisted of paper bearing one mill mark dated 1837. If the other documents came from Barbaridge it would look as if the will came from there also.

Mr. Finlay then addressed the jury, remarking on the absence of any expert on the plaintiff's side. In the course of his address, the learned counsel said that Mr. Inderwick had made use of the phrase that his client was “in the habit of getting married” (laughter). It appeared that plaintiff had been married five times.

His Lordship: I thought it was four times.

Mr. Inderwick: I do not think it was proved.

Mr Finlay: According to my friend’s opening the deceased was only the second wife, but Mr. Ludlam, in his evidence, said he bad been married five times.

Mr. Inderwick: I know they seemed to increase as the case went on (laughter).

The plaintiff, replying to counsel, said he had been married five times (laughter).

WEDNESDAY.

The case was resumed to-day. Counsel, having addressed the jury, his Lordship summed up the evidence and, in doing so, said the will in question had slumbered in an iron box for twenty years without discovery, and everybody connected with it was dead. The attesting witnesses were also dead, as was the young man Paris who it was said wrote the will for the deceased. A will propounded under such circumstances should be received with the greatest caution. If the document were genuine, it must be admitted to proof irrespective of the result to any person. Mr. Finlay, in his address, had laid stress upon the deceased having “hidden” her will, but he did not think that could be taken for granted. The will now in dispute, was found wrapped up with other testamentary papers in which the deceased had been interested, and it was not at all unlikely that she had been reading over these papers, and having her own will in her possession, might have tied up the whole of her testamentary papers together. It might also have come there by accident, as he did not think it at all an extraordinary thing this will should get mixed up with the papers that had been referred to, as most of them, no doubt, had often mislaid a paper which had eventually turned up in the most out of the way place. He then commented on the expressed intentions, of the deceased as detailed by the witnesses, and coming to evidence that had been given by the experts in handwriting, his Lordship advised the jury not to pay too much attention to evidence given by experts, because it was not to be taken that a signature was a forgery, because experts gave it as their opinion that the signature was not in the handwriting of the deceased. They would have to form their own opinion on the subject, and to enable them to do so they should have a variety of documents signed by the parties to the will placed in their possession, and on them and the evidence they had heard they would have to come to a conclusion. His Lordship then minutely examined the evidence on both sides, and concluded by telling the jury that with them rested the duty of saying whether they thought the will in question a genuine or forged one.

THE VERDICT.

The jury, after an absence of about half-an-hour, returned with a finding for plaintiff.

His Lordship then pronounced for the will of 1865 with costs, intimating that he quite agreed with them in the conclusion they had arrived at.

THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

Mr. Inderwick stated that the amount as mentioned in the marriage settlement was £1,500 in cash and some mortgaged leasehold houses.

ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT.

In the course of Wednesday's proceedings, Mr. Deane, who appeared for the defendant, called the attention of Mr. Justice Butt to a comment on the case which appeared in Tuesday's “Star,” which, he said, was an interference with the course of a case which was still sub judice. The comment was as follows:—“Mr. Inglis, the expert in handwriting, is again to the fore. Has this individual already forgotten the late lamented Richard Pigott? We implore juries to trust their own senses on questions of handwriting, and to resist the impertinent interference of so-called experts in matters which are equally patent to all men of ordinary sense.” Mr. Justice Butt said it was a direct contempt of court, and very improper. Mr. Deane said that he personally did not wish to take any notice of it, but his clients had called his attention to the paragraph. Mr. Justice Butt: It is not a question of you personally. Mr. Deane: I am not afraid of this case. Mr. Justice Butt: As my attention has been called to the matter I must take notice of it. I hardly know whether it is the editor or publisher I should summon, His lordship asked to see the paper, and after examining it said that he would direct that the editor and publisher be summoned to attend on Friday next, at 10,30. Mr. Deane: I think somebody should represent my client. Mr. Justice Butt: That I shall direct to be done. A summons was accordingly directed to be made out.

[BY TELEGRAPH].

TO-DAY (Friday).

The editor and publisher of the “Star” newspaper appeared before Justice Butt this morning, and expressed regret that the comments on the case should have been published while it was still sub judice. The learned judge, being satisfied with the apology, allowed the case to drop.

The “Globe” says:— "A very much married man is Mr. Edward Ludlam, the plaintiff in the interesting probate case now being heard before Mr. Justice Butt. In the course of his evidence he stated that he married his late wife (over whose will all the trouble was raised) in 1861, and that before that he had been married three times. She died in 1866, and “six months later” he married again, This is pretty nearly up to Henry VIII form.”