son 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). "It is argued on the part of the
defendant that Miss Smithers is, for the purposes of this case a
document, a document, and nothing but a document, and as such that her
mouth is shut. Now, I think that the learned Attorney-General cannot have
thought this matter out when he came to that conclusion. What are the
circumstances? A will is supposed to have been tattooed upon this lady's
skin; but is the skin the whole person? Does not the intelligence remain,
and the individuality? I think that I can put what I mean more clearly by
means of an illustration. Let us suppose that I were to uphold the
defendant's objection, and that, as a consequence, the plaintiff's case
were to break down. Then let us suppose that the plaintiff had persuaded
the witness to be partially skinned"--(here Augusta nearly jumped from her
seat)--"and that she, having survived the operation, was again tendered
to the court as a witness, would the Court then be able, under any
possibility, to refuse to accept her evidence? The document, in the form
of human parchment, would then be in the hands of the officers of the
Court, and the person from whom the parchment had been removed, would
also be before the Court. Could it be still maintained that the two were
so identical and inseparable that the disabilities attaching to a
document must necessarily attach to the person? In my opinion, certainly
not. Or, to take another case, let us suppose that the will had been
tattooed upon the leg of a person, and, under similar circumstances, the
leg were cut off and produced before the Court, either in a flesh or a
mummified condition; could it then be seriously advanced that because the
inscribed leg--standing on the table before the Court--had once belonged
to the witness sitting in the witness-box, therefore it was not competent
for the witness to give evidence on account of his or her documentary
attributes? Certainly it could not. Therefore, it seems to me that that
which is separable must, for the purpose of law, be taken