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 as already separated, and that the will on the back of this witness must be looked upon as though it were in the hands at this moment, of the officers of the Court, and consequently I overrule the objection." "Will your Lordship take a note of your Lordship's decision ?" asked the Attorney-General in view of an appeal.
"Certainly, Mr.Attorney.Let this witness be sworn.".