Quote: “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’? Surly 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 excited with certain formalities, but if it is so executed by a person not laboring under any mental or other disability, is it indefeasible, except by the subsequent execution of a fresh testamentary document, or by its destruction or attempted destruction…or by marriage”. 

Comment: This quote and the courtroom scenes made me think of the concept we worked with in ENG 206 of legal narratology and what this class has been working on with reading case law versus statutes and noticing the stylistic differences. In this Haggard story, especially, I found myself thinking about how he weaved in legal commentary and phrases to this dramatic courtroom finale, where we read through all the questions of the case, the story of how it came to be, and the evidence from other statutes. Augusta being a novelist is what stuck out to me in the sense of narratology because the whole series of events that lead to the tattoo of the will is an adventure/romance story – that also relies on the sole testimony of Augusta, who acts as witness and document. The choices here of how to relay her story, full of seeking justice, sacrifice, and bravery, all add to the arguments surrounding both her character as the center of this case and the permissibility of the will. 

Question: I found the section regarding the romance or affections between Augusta and Eustace interesting in why the opponents felt so strongly about it blurring the motive of Augusta’s action of self-sacrifice to tattoo the will. Is there any deeper meaning besides looking for any other possible angle to question the will’s legitimacy? I also thought the feelings of the public aligning with what the Judge deemed heroic behavior interesting; I might have anticipated some views that she is just looking for money or status, perhaps questions regarding her character since she would have allowed a tattoo, with all the connotations it brings, unless there was something in it for her. I think that is representative of the other side’s questions since there is such a large inheritance at stake, and they are recently engaged.