ABSTRACT
The presumption in this case appears to operate so as to increase artificially the probative value of the basic facts in the absence of any contrary evidence. So far as probative worth goes, there is nothing special about seven years’ absence as opposed, say, to one of six years. Yet, the former period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of law, while the latter gives rise to no more than an inference of fact that may be made or not.
