Subject to these formalities required by the
law, the form of the document--provided that its meaning is clear--is
immaterial. Now, do the tattoo marks on the back of this lady constitute
such a document, and do they convey the true last will or wish of the
testator? That is the first point that I have to decide, and I decide it
in the affirmative. It is true that it is not usual for testamentary
documents to be tattooed upon the skin of a human being; but, because it
is not usual, it does not follow that a tattooed document is not a valid
one. The ninth section of the Statute of 1 Vic., cap. 26, specifies that
no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing; but cannot this
tattooing be considered as writing within the meaning of the Act? I am
clearly of opinion that it can, if only on the ground that the material
used was ink--a natural ink, it is true, that of the cuttle-fish, but
still ink; for I may remark that the natural product of the cuttle-fish
was at one time largely used in this country for that very purpose.
Further, in reference to this part of the case, it must be borne in mind
that the testator was no eccentric being, who from whim or perversity
chose this extraordinary method of signifying his wishes as to the
disposal of his property.
Pages:
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268