eally dead."

"My dear sir," said he, "I fail to see your point. If it were certain
that the man was alive, it would be impossible to presume that he was
dead; and if it were certain that he was dead, presumption of death
would still be impossible. You do not presume a certainty. The
uncertainty is of the essence of the transaction."

"But," I persisted, "if you really believe that he may be alive, I
should hardly have thought that you would take the responsibility of
presuming his death and dispersing his property."

"I don't," said Mr. Jellicoe. "I take no responsibility. I act in
accordance with the decision of the Court and have no choice in the
matter."

"But the Court may decide that he is dead and he may nevertheless be
alive."

"Not at all. If the Court decides that he is presumably dead, then he is
presumably dead. As a mere irrelevant, physical circumstance he may, it
is true, be alive. But legally speaking, and for testamentary purposes,
he is dead. You fail to perceive the distinction, no doubt?"

"I am afraid I do," I admitted.

"Yes; members of your profession usually do. That is what makes them
such bad witnesses in a court of law. The scientific outlook is
radically different from the legal. The man of science relies on his own
knowledge and observation and judgment, and disregards testimony. A man
comes to you and tells you he is blind in one eye. Do you accept his
statement? Not in the least. You proceed to test his eyesight with some
infernal apparatus of coloured glasses, and you find that he can see
perfectly well with both eyes. Then you decide that he is not blind in
one eye; that is to say, you reject his testimony in favour of facts of
your own ascertaining."

"But surely that is the rational method of coming to a conclusion?"

"In science, no doubt. Not in law. A court of law must decide according
to the evidence which is before it; and that evidence is of the nature
of sworn testimony. If a witness is prepared to swear that black is
white, and no evidence to the contrary is offered, the evidence before
the Court is that black is white, and the Court must decide accordingly.
The judge and the jury may think otherwise--they may even have private
knowledge to the contrary--but they have to decide according to the
evidence."

"Do you mean to say that a judge would be justified in giving a decision
which he knew privately to be contrary to the facts? Or that he might
sentence a man who