Custer chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, Black Hills, D.T. [S.D.]) 1880-1890, 1889-12-07
MR.. NELSON'S WILL.
eY n. RIDER

swell" said the Judge, ''it certainl,
strikes me as a novel point. What hav
you to say TO it, Mr.. Shorts"
All eyes were now turned upon James
for 1t was felt that II the point was decides
against him the case was lost.
The point TO which / wish you 20 ad
dress yourself, Mr.. Short" went on tn,
learned Judge. "is-Is the personality Of
Miss Smithers so totally lost and merged
In what, for al OF a better term. I must
call her documentary capacity. as TO take
away from her the right to appear before
this cour like any other sane human be-
ing. and give evidence of events connected
with its execution"
"If your Lordship pleases," said James,
III maintain that this 10 not so. / main
tain that the document remains the docu-
ment; and that for all purposes, including
the giving Of evidence concerning its exc.
cution, Miss Smithers still remains Miss
Smithers. 1t would surely be absurd to
argue that because a person had a deed
executed upon her skin she was, tpso
fdcto, incapacitated from giving evidence
concerning il, on the mere ground that
she was IL. Further, such a decision would
be contrary 10 equity and good policy, for
persons could o SC lightly be deprived OF
their natural rights. Also, in this case,
the plaintiffs action would be absolutely
put an end TO by any such decision, seeing
that the signature of Jonathan Meeson
and the attesting witnesses to the will
could not, of course, be recognized in their
tattooed form. and there is no other living
person who could depose under what cir,
cumstances the signature came to be there.
I submit that the objection should be over.
ruled
''This," said his Lordship, in giving his
decision, sis a very curious point, and one
which, when first raised by the learned
Attorney-General, struck me with some
force; but, on considering it and hearing
Mr.. Short, | am convinced that ii is an CD
lection that cannot be supported there
Er.stace gave n sigh OF relief. ut is ar.
rded on the part of the defendant that
Miss Smithers is, for the purposes OF this
case, a document. and nothing but a docu-
ment, and as such that her mouth Is shut.
Now, | think that the learned Attorney
General cannot have thought this matter
ont when he came TO that conclusion.
What are the circumstances? \ will is
supposed TO have been tattoocd upon this
lady's skin; bu' is the skin the whole per-
SOM Does not the intelligence remain,
and the individuality, Think that | can
put what | mean more clearly by means
of an illustration. Let US suppose that ]
were to uphold the defendants objection,
and that. as a consequence, the plaintiffs
case were to break down Then LEI us
suppose that the plaintiff had persuaded
SIa xrft .. en- ha cEfn nalff-yhar 4 - Tfru4a
nearly jumped from her seat)E"and that
she, having survived the operation, was
again rendered TO the court as a witness,
would the Court then be able, ualcr any
possibility, to refuse To accept her evil
dencel The document, in the form CT HUI
man parchment, would then BE- in II,
hands Of the officers Cf the corrt, and thC
person from whom the ~parchuatnt had
been removed would also be before the
Court. Could it be still maintained that
the two were so identical AMI inseparabie
that the disabilities attaching to n docu
ment must necessarily attach TO the per
son? In my opinion, certainly not. OR
to take another case, let Us suppose thai
the will had been tattooed upOn The leg o.
q person, and, under similar circr.a
stances. the leg were cut Oh aai pCol.cel
before the Court. either in a fresh or (;
mummifed condition: could IL then be ser
iously advanced that because the inscribed
leg-standing on the table before tht
Court-had once belonged 10 the witnes.
sitting ia the witness-boZ, therefore IL wa:
not competent for the witness to give eyi
dence on account Of his or her docu;nen
tary attributes: Certainly il could not
Therefore, il seems 10 me that that whicE
is separable must, for the purposes cf law
be taken as already separated. and that
the will on the back of this witness must
be looked upon as though it were in The
hands, at this moment, Of the officers oI
the Court, and, consequently, l oyerrCi,
this objection"
"Wil your Lordship take n note Of your
Lordship's decisiont" asked the Attorney
General. in view of an appeal.
Certainly, Mr.. Attorney. Let the wit
ness be sworn"