It is in the nature of a sequel, for _A_ and _C_ are parties to it, and probate of the will of _B_ is the question at issue. Two or three years before her death, _B_ confided an envelope endorsed in her own handwriting to her son _A_. This incident took place at a fashionable French watering-place, just prior to the departure of _B_ (_A_ was remaining on). The writing on the envelope, which was sealed, announced that it contained “The last Will and Testament of _B_.” _A_ threw the envelope, carelessly, into a trunk with a mixed assortment of other papers. The trunk ultimately found its way to a country place of which _A_ was tenant. It was then and there forgotten, until the death of _B_ recalled the question of the endorsed envelope. An anxious investigation ultimately brought it to light, when it was found to contain a holograph will in the un-legal phraseology of the deceased lady. It was signed and witnessed approximately in due form. The signature of one of the witnesses was, however, that of the wife of _C’s_ brother; the other was that of a servant in her employ. This servant, who had subsequently married and disappeared, was traced, and she forthwith made an affidavit that _B_ had signed the will in her presence, and in that of the other witness; furthermore, that she, the servant-witness, and her mistress, had both attached their signatures in each other’s presence and in that of the testatrix. This was clearly perfectly true. Steps were then taken to prove the will, but owing to certain fictions on the part of the other side--statements that there was still another will, etc.--it became necessary to prove the will _in solemn form_. With the exception of an omission to appoint an executor, the will was complete and definite in its wording. _A_ was left everything. Unfortunately, twenty shares of stock, worth several thousand pounds, were mentioned as having been given on a certain date to _C_. Mention of this gift should not have been referred to in the will, which was about six years old. It was clearly the confirmation of a gift, so that it could be shown that _C_ had profited from time to time to a considerable extent during his wife’s lifetime. Meanwhile, during the six years which had elapsed between the making of the will and the death of _B_, _B_ had exchanged with _C_ the stock referred to in the will for other property of equal or greater value. When the case got to the Probate Court, _C_, after taking action to obstruct the free passage of the will by entering a _caveat_, agreed to withdraw opposition if he were forthwith handed half the stock in dispute. _A_, forced into a financial corner by an intimation that the wife (one of the will witnesses) of _C’s_ brother would come forward and swear that she and her servant were not both actually present together at the time of the signing of the testatrix, was compelled to transfer the stock to _C_. _A_ was granted letters of administration _cum testamento annexo_