I maintain that the document remains the document; and that for all
purposes, including the giving of evidence concerning its execution, Miss
Smithers still remains Miss Smithers. It would surely be absurd to argue
that because a person has a deed executed upon her she was, _ipso facto_,
incapacitated from giving evidence concerning it, on the mere ground that
she was _it_. Further, such a decision would be contrary to equity and
good policy, for persons could not so lightly be deprived of their
natural rights. Also, in this case, the plaintiff's 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 recognised in their tattooed form, and there is no other
living person who could depose under what circumstances the signature
came to be there. I submit that the objection should be overruled."
"This," said his Lordship, in giving his decision "is 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,
I am convinced that it is an objection that cannot be supported" (here
Eustace gave a sigh of relief).
Pages:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255