(“administration with the will annexed,” which is the equivalent of probate where no executor is appointed by the will). In this way the matter ended. Had not the difficulty arisen of combating an attack on the point of the combined presence of the witnesses and the testatrix at the moment of signature, _A_ would no doubt have been left in tranquil possession of what was after all his rightful property. This apparently trifling detail compelling the presence of all three parties at the time of signature is of enormous importance. The greatest issue may hang upon it. The quality of witnesses is also not to be forgotten. No one who it is intended shall profit under a will should be used, for, though good as a witness, he or she is bad as a beneficiary. Then, again, a person with hostile motives can always quite easily go into court and swear that he or she was not actually in the room with the testator when the testator and the other witness attached their signatures. This was the suggested line in the case stated. A probate action of some passing interest, owing to the notorious criminal reputation of the testator, recently came before the Probate Court, Sir Samuel Evans, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, sitting. The will of Crippen, the murderer, was in dispute. It appeared that shortly before suffering the death penalty, Crippen made a will, in which he left all of his property to the woman Le Neve, or Neave. Her counsel contended that, until the applicant representing the defunct Mrs. Crippen’s next-of-kin had conclusively proved by admissible evidence the fact of the wilful murder of the wife by the husband they could not oust the legal personal representative from obtaining probate. Mrs. Crippen’s sister was the applicant, and the application was grounded on the contention that Crippen was not entitled to any benefit arising out of his own felonious act. (It seems that the bulk of the property left by Crippen was personal property which had come to him from his wife at her death--incidentally, after he had murdered her.) Le Neve’s counsel argued that Crippen, as he had suffered the extreme penalty of the law, was no longer a felon.