| 297 | 298 | 299 | 300 | 301 |
| 1 | 90 | 180 | 269 | 359 |
|
Soleil has employed an exceedingly suspicious phrase. The pieces, as
described, do indeed 'look like strips torn off;' but purposely and by
hand. It is one of the rarest of accidents that a piece is 'torn off,'
from any garment such as is now in question, by the agency of a thorn.
From the very nature of such fabrics, a thorn or nail becoming entangled
in them, tears them rectangularly--divides them into two longitudinal
rents, at right angles with each other, and meeting at an apex where the
thorn enters--but it is scarcely possible to conceive the piece 'torn
off.' I never so knew it, nor did you. To tear a piece off from such
fabric, two distinct forces, in different directions, will be, in almost
every case, required. If there be two edges to the fabric--if, for
example, it be a pocket-handkerchief, and it is desired to tear from it
a slip, then, and then only, will the one force serve the purpose. But
in the present case the question is of a dress, presenting but one edge.
To tear a piece from the interior, where no edge is presented, could
only be effected by a miracle through the agency of thorns, and no one
thorn could accomplish it. But, even where an edge is presented, two
thorns will be necessary, operating, the one in two distinct directions,
and the other in one. And this in the supposition that the edge is
unhemmed. If hemmed, the matter is nearly out of the question. We thus
see the numerous and great obstacles in the way of pieces being 'torn
off' through the simple agency of 'thorns;' yet we are required to
believe not only that one piece but that many have been so torn. 'And
one part,' too, 'was the hem of the frock!' Another piece was 'part
of the skirt, not the hem,'--that is to say, was torn completely out
299
Page
Quick Jump
|