Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1889-01-11
MR.. NELSON'S WILL.
BY h. RIDER HAG0ARD.

Ana now L NIL G1I4iC ~ taiN oNSNtAN@
point Is the evidence Of Miss Smithers
10 be believed? First, let US see where 1t
Is corroborated 1t is clear from the testi-
mony of Lady Holmhurst, that when on
board the Inflated kangaroo, Miss Smith
ers had no tattoo marks upon her shout
ders. 1t is equally clear, from the I'M
shaken testimony Of Mrs. Thomas, that
v hen she was rescued bY the American
whaIer her back was marked with tattoo
ing. then in the healing stage-with tat
tooinp which could not possibly have been
inflicted bv herself or by the child, who
was her sole living companion. 1t is also
nroyed that there was seen upon the is
land Inv Mrs Thomas the dead body OF
man which she was informed was that OF
ar Mceson, and which she here in court
identified by means of photograph. AlS',
This same witness produced shell which
she picked up in one Of the huts, said to
he the shell used by the sailors to drink
the rum that led TO their destruction; ana
abe sV0rc that she saw a sailors hat lying
on the shore Now all this is corrobOra-
tive evidence. and Of Il SORT not to be de
spised Indeed, as TO one point, that OF the
eDDr0ximate date of the execution of the
,attooimg, it is to my mind final. Still,
there does remain an enormous amount
that must be accepted or not according as
10 whether or mot crrlence can he placed
IN the unsupported testimony OF Miss
Emithers, for we cannot call on a child so
young as the present Lord HOlmhurst ue
bear witness in a court Of justice. II Misc
Smithers, for instance, is not speaking the
truth when she declares thatthc signature
OF the tcstator was tattOoed upon her back
under his immediate direction, or that il
was tattOOed in the presence of the two
sailors. Butt and Jones, whose signatures
were also tattOucd in the presence Of the
testator and of each other, no viii at all
was executed, and the plaintiffs case col
lapses utterly, since. from the very nature
OF the facts, evidence as to handwriting
would, Of course tie useless. Now, | APP
prOach the decision Of this point after anX
ious Thought and some hesitation. 1t is
not n light thing TO set aside formally
executed document such as the will Of
Nov. 10, upon 50 Inch the defendants rely,
and to entirely alter the dcyolution of q
vast amount Of property upon the uuSup
ported testimony of single witness. u
seems TO me, however, that there are two
tests which the Court can more OF less set
up as standards, whercwith to measure
the truth Of tho matter. The first Of these
an individual under any given set OF cir
eunstancrq ms drawn from orr common
knowledge Of human nature: and second,
the behavior iud tone Of the witness, both
in the box and in the course of circum-
stances chat led to her appearance there
Will take the last of those two first. and
may as we'll -tute without further de
lay, that am convinced of the truth OF
the story told by Miss Snirhrr4. II would
to nv mind be iupDesfblr for aDy man.
whose intelligence had been trained bv
wears of experience in this and other
courts. ana whose daily duty it, is TO dis
crImiu;fira4to the rrcdjbiIity of tr.tiruouy
to disbrliryr the history -ucircufn.tantiaI.
" detailed in tEo box Iv Miss SmiIhcrs
1-rusatiun1 watched lrf. tIarnrauor both
under examination aud cross examination
very closely indeed, and ! am convinced
that she was telling the absolute truth so
far rs she know il
"A nd unW to come to the second point.
1t has been suggested. ns throwing doubt
upon Miss Smithcrs story, that the exist
eHCe Of an engagement to marry, between
her and the plaintiff. may have prompted
her To coucuct moustrous fraud for his
benefit; and this is suggested although at
she time of the execution Of the tattooing
no such engagement did rs a matter Of
fact, exist, or was within measurable dis.
lance of the PARTIES. II did no exist, said
the Attorney General; but the dsposing
mind eNirtcd-iu other words that she
was then in luve'-if Notwithstanding
Mr.. Attorneys difficulty in defining II. I
may use the term witlrthc plaintiff. This
nluy or may not have been the case. There
are some thing. which it is quite beyond
the power of nuy iudre or iury to decide.
and one of them certainly is. mt what ey-
act period of her acquaintance with fu.
ture husband young Iady's REGARD turns
into warmer feeling, But Fupposing
chat the Attorney General is right. and
thot although she at that moment clearly
Ind no prospect Of marrying him. since
she had left En- sland 10 seek her fortune
nj the Auttpodcs and plaintiT was looked
upon by this lady with that kind Of regard
which is supposed to prcccJe the mutri
monal contract, the circumstance, in my
mind, tolls rather in his favor than against
him For in passing | may remark that
shs young Indy hus done thing which is,
IN its WAY, little short. Of heroic; the more
so because il Inns II Iu,li,.r,ns sidn sbo
has submitted to an operation which must
not only nave, been pgfu(uI but ,.birh il
and always will bc 70 blot upon her beauty.
l am Inclined To agree with the Attorney
General when hc says that She did not
make tins sacrifice uith,ut q, r,,ti,,,
which may have sprung from "A keen sense
Of Justice. and of gratitude 10 fine nI,intiT
e.. ~. f.... 49, 1900. .. -,