In July, 1898, there was a sensational law case in which I was subpoenaed to give evidence. Dr. Kingsbury, of Blackpool, was appointed executor and residuary legatee under the will of an old lady patient. The son as heir-at-law disputed the will on the ground of undue influence, and it was alleged that the doctor had hypnotized the patient, and by hypnotic suggestion had got her to make the will in his favour. The charge entirely broke down, and Dr. Kingsbury won the verdict.

It came out in the evidence that Mrs. Howard was on bad terms with most of her family, including the plaintiff, that she was greatly attached to Dr. Kingsbury, and that he had been very devoted in his attendance on her for more than ten years, and was her confidential adviser in all her difficulties. They used to talk a good deal about hypnotism, in which she knew he was much interested, and in 1894 she asked him to try to hypnotize her, as she suffered from sleeplessness.

Dr. Kingsbury consented to try, though he told her he did not think hers a suitable case. He was seeing her daily, and every day for three weeks, in the presence of her maid, he endeavoured to influence her hypnotically. But the attempt failed, and he fell back upon ordinary treatment.

Mr. Carson, Q.C., laid great stress upon the number of times Dr. Kingsbury hypnotized his patient, and the jury was asked to imagine the old lady lying helpless under his suggestions. Sir Edward Clarke, however, was able to put a different complexion on the matter, and the jundecided for Dr. Kingsbury.

In this case it was evident that hypnotism was introduced to prejudice the jury, and it is quite possible that had Dr. Kingsbury's position been less established at Blackpool he might have lost the suit. An interesting feature of the case was the evidence of Sir William Broadbent, who was called by Dr. Kingsbury. He was a member of the Hypnotic Committee of the British Medical Association, whose report is given on p. 424, and he expressed in court his continued adherence to the opinions therein set forth. Under French law the legacy would have been invalid, for in France medical men are not permitted to benefit from wills of persons under their care.*

* It is interesting to note that since the foregoing account was written (1900) Dr. Kingsbury has changed his profession, and as a barrister is now, apparently, the standing counsel for Christian Scientists committed for trial by coroners and magistrates for manslaughter. I understand that it is largely owing to his able advocacy that the prisoners in two recent cases have escaped punishment. Dr. Kingsbury's extensive medical experience has revealed to him the weak places in our medical armour, and he makes full use of his knowledge.

I have met with two cases which show the caution necessary in dealing with hypnotism. Strangely enough, I was consulted in both instances on the same day. The first case was that of a young lady of good education and position. She thought herself the victim of a plot hatched by two young men of her acquaintance to influence her telepathically; and she was under the impression that they could at any time direct her thoughts and actions from a distance. Though she had never been hypnotized, she supposed that hypnotism had something to do with it.

I found her, like all persons who suffer from a fixed idea, very difficult to hypnotize, but after six attempts I succeeded in inducing a state of mental receptivity, with inability to open the eyes. I suggested