The cremated remains of the deceased's son and husband were interred in adjoining plots within the churchyard. The deceased's remains were mistakenly interred with those of her son, rather than her husband. The deceased's niece petitioned for the exhumation of the husband's remains to allow their re-interment in the adjoining plot with those of the deceased and their son. The chancellor considered the fact that, although a mistake had been made which might readily justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation, the remains which were sought to be exhumed were not those in relation to which the mistake had been made, but rather the remains of another. The chancellor stated that permission would less readily be given for the exhumation of remains other than those mistakenly interred; the presumption of permanence of burial applied to those remains, but not to remains mistakenly interred. The court has a wide discretion in such cases. The chancellor considered the facts that the exhumation would result in a family grave for all three sets of remains and that the remains were only to be moved a very short difference. The faculty was granted. [RA]