Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-10-05

self tongue aud speak by word of mouth
also; and, in support of this, | may call
your lordship's attention to the general
principles of law governing the interpre-
l3tion of written documents"
u am quite aware of those principles,
Mr.. Attorney, and | cannot see that they
sonch this question"
AS your lordship plcascs. Then will
'aU back upon my main contention that
Miss Smithcrs is. for the purpose of this
'lse, y document and nothing but n docu-
1neri, and has no moro right to open her
mouth in support of the plaintiffs case
han would any paper will, if it could be
tremendously endowed with speech
well. - said the judge, III certainly
Strikes me rs Il rovcl point What have
you TO say to it, Mr.. Short
All orcs Nvcrc row turned upon James
Tor It was felt that if the point was de
cidch against him the case was lost
'FJhc point to which | wish YOU to adj
-iirnss yourself, Mr. Short, " went on the
lesrrncd judge, isis the personality of
Miss Smithc-. 20 totally lost and merged
IN v..T.l, for want of a better term, | must
CAN hCr documentary capacity as to take
,sw0y rom her the right TO appear before
This court like any other sane human
being and givc evidence of events con
.1gCuO with its C.CCutiOnI
III vour lordslep plcases, said James,
u mjuntain that Mis- is not so. ! main.
'.aip lhat thc document remains the docu
-Dcpt and that for all purposes, including
Cha giving Of evidence concerning its exc
cation, Miss Smithcrs still remains Miss
SIn,thcrs il would surely be absurd to
argue That because a person had a deed
tASo6dtcd upon her skin she was, ipso
foc5o, incapacitcd from giving evidence
'o9ncWning it, ON the mere ground that
silc WAS it. Further, such decision
SoEl3 be contrary to equity and good
policy, FOR persons could not SO lightly be
iCyprcd Of their natural rights Also,
Ia This case, the plaintiffs action would
&c absolutely put an end to by any such
decision, seeing that the signature Of
Jonathan Mceson and the attesting wit
.9esscs to The will could not, of course, DO
recognized in their tattoood form, and
-'hert is no other living person who could
e1cpose under what circumstances the sig
-latr5e came 10 be there. | submit that
Chc objection should be ovcrrulcd.'
This, said lis lordship, in giving his
decision, is very curious point, and one
-Fhich, when first raised by the learned
attorney general, struck me with some
foyoe: but, on considering it and hearing
Mr. Short, ] am convinced that it is an
objection that cannot be supported"
jhero EustGce gave a sigh of relief. 1t
Is argued on the part of the defendant
fbat Miss Smithers is, for the purposes of
II lila case, d document. and moi hing but a
locument, and as such that her mouth is
shut, Now J think that the learned at
torncy general cannot have thought this
matter ont when he came to that conclu-
aion. What are the circumstances? A
VIII is supposed to have been tattooed
'lpon this ladys skin; but is the skin the
whole person? Does not the intelligence
5Nemain and the individuality? | think
,bat 1 can put what l mean more clearly
by means of an illustration. Let us sup
Posc that were to uphold the defendant
objection, and that, as a consequence, the
plaintiffs case were to break down. Then
iet us suppose that the plaintiff had
persuaded the witness TO be skinned
lhede Augusta nearly jumped from her
Seat}-"and that she, having survived
fhe operation, was again rendered to
The court rs witness. would the court
then be able, under any possibility, to re-
fuse TO accept her evidence? The Gocu-
-Eent, in the form of human parchment,
,yOnld then hc in the hands of the officers
oi The court, and the person from whom
The parchment had been removed would
also he before the court. Could it be still
maintained that the two were so identical
nnd iu7eparGblc that the disabilities at
5aciG2 TO document must necessarily
attach to the person? In my opinion, Ger
AMY not. Or, to take another case, let
rs suppose hat The viii had been tattOoed
upon the leg Of the person and under
similar circumstances, the leg were cut of
lud produced before the court either in a
ApSh or n mummiiicd condition, could it