therefore rests upon evidence of a positive character. My
learned friend asserts that the testator is presumably dead, and it is
for him to prove what he has affirmed. Now, has he done this? I
submit that he has not. He has argued with great force and ingenuity
that the testator, being a bachelor, a solitary man without wife or
child, dependant or master, public or private office of duty, or any
bond, responsibility, or any other condition limiting his freedom of
action, had no reason or inducement for absconding. This is my learned
friend's argument, and he has conducted it with so much skill and
ingenuity that he has not only succeeded in proving his case; he has
proved a great deal too much. For if it is true, as my learned friend
so justly argues, that a man thus unfettered by obligations of any kind
has no reason for disappearing, is it not even more true that he has no
reason for not disappearing? My friend has urged that the testator was
at liberty to go where he pleased, when he pleased, and how he pleased;
and that therefore there was no need for him to abscond. I reply, if
he was at liberty to go away, whither, when, and how he pleased, why do
we express surprise that he has made use of his liberty? My learned
friend points out that the testator notified nobody of his intention of
going away and has acquainted no one with his whereabouts; but, I ask,
whom should he have notified? He was responsible to nobody; there was
no one dependent upon him; his presence or absence was the concern of
nobody but himself. If circumstances suddenly arising made it
desirable that he should go abroad, why should he not go? I say there
was no reason whatever.

"My learned friend has said that the testator went away leaving his
affairs to take care of themselves. Now, gentlemen, I ask you if this
can fairly be said of a man whose affairs are, as they have been for
many years, in the hands of a highly capable, completely trustworthy
agent who is better acquainted with them than the testator himself?
Clearly it cannot.

"To conclude this part of the argument: I submit that the circumstances
of the so-called disappearance of the testator present nothing out of
the ordinary. The testator is a man of ample means, without any
responsibilities to fetter his movements, and has been in the constant
habit of traveling, often into remote and distant regions. The mere
fact that he has been absent somewhat longer than usual af