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 to nobody 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.
Pages:
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318