erence 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. He was a man placed in about as terrible a
position as it is possible to conceive. He was, if we are to believe the
story of Miss Smithers, most sincerely anxious to revoke a disposition of
his property which he now, standing face to face with the greatest issue
of this life, recognised to be unjust, and which was certainly contrary
to the promptings of nature as experienced by most men. And yet in this
terrible strait in which he found himself, and notwithstanding the
earnest desire which grew more intense as his vital forces ebbed, he
could find absolutely no means of carrying out his wish. At length,
however, this plan of tattooing his will upon the living flesh on a
younger and stronger person is presented to him, and he eagerly avails
himself of it; and the tattooing is duly carried out in his presence and
at his desire, and as duly signed and witnessed. Can it be seriously
argued that a document so executed does not fulfil the bare requirements
of the law? I think that it cannot, and am of opinion that such a
document is as much a valid will as though it had been engrossed upon the
skin of a sheep, and duly signed and witnessed in the Temple.

"And now I will come to the second point. Is the evidence of Miss
Smithers to be believed? First, let us see where it is corroborated. It
is clear, from the testimony of Lady Holmhurst, that when on board the
ill-fated Kangaroo, Miss Smithers had no tattoo marks upon her
shoulders. It is equally clear from the unshaken testimony of Mrs.
Thomas, that when she was rescued by the American whaler, her back was
marked with tattooing, then in the healing stage--with tattooing which
could not possibly have been inflicted by herself or by the child, who
was her sole living companion. It is also proved that there was seen upon
the island by Mrs. Thomas the dead body of a man, which she was informed
was that of Mr. Meeson, and which she here in court identified by means
of a photograph. Also, this same witness produced a shell which she
picked up in one of the huts, said to be the shell used by the sailors to
drink the rum that led to their destruction; and she swore that she saw a
sailor's hat lying on the shore. Now, all this is corroborative evidence,
and of a sort