on to the other aspects of the case.  With much force and ability he dwelt upon the strangeness of the whole story, and how it rested solely upon the evidence of one witness, Augusta Smithers.  It was only if the Court accepted her evidence as it stood that it could come to the conclusion that the will was executed at all, or, indeed, that the two attesting witnesses were on the island at all.  Considering the relations which existed between this witness and the plaintiff, was the Court prepared to accept her evidence in this unreserved way?  Was it prepared to decide that this will, in favour of a man with whom the testator had violently quarrelled, and had disinherited in consequence of that quarrel, was not, if indeed it was executed at all, extorted by this lady from a weak and dying, and possibly a deranged, man? and with this question the learned gentleman sat down.

He was followed briefly by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Fiddlestick; but though they talked fluently enough, addressing themselves to various minor points, they had nothing fresh of interest to adduce, and finishing at half-past three, James rose to reply on the whole case on behalf of the plaintiff.

There was a moment’s pause while he was arranging his notes, and then, just as he was about to begin, the Judge said quietly, “Thank you, Mr. Short, I do not think that I need trouble you,” and James sat down with a gasp, for he knew that the cause was won.

Then his Lordship began, and, after giving a masterly summary of the whole case, concluded as follows:—­“Such are the details of the most remarkable probate cause that I ever remember to have had brought to my notice, either during my career at the Bar or on the Bench.  It will be obvious, as the learned Attorney-General has said, that the whole case really lies between two points.  Is the document on the back of Augusta Smithers a sufficient will to carry the property? and, if so, is the unsupported story of that lady as to the execution of the document to be believed?  Now, what does the law understand by the term ‘Will’?  Surely it understands some writing that expresses the wish or will of a person as to the disposition of his property after his decease?  This writing must be executed with certain formalities; but if it is so executed by a person not labouring under any mental or other disability it is indefeasible, except by the subsequent execution of a fresh testamentary document, or by its destruction or attempted destruction, animo revocandi, or by marriage.  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,