Disputed Handwriting

o Identify the Work of the Pen-Where and When an Expert's Services Are Needed-Large Field and Growing Demand for Experts-Qualifications of a Handwriting Expert-How the Work Is Done-A Good Expert Conti

etect Forged Handwriting-The Courts and Experts-What an Expert May Testify to-Trapping a Witness-Proving Handwriting by Experts-General Laws Regulating Experts-The Base Work of a Handwriting Expert-I

ation, cashiers, paying tellers, other bank officers, attorneys, bookkeepers, business men, conveyancers, county officials, photographers, treasurers and clerks of railroads, etc., and writing teachers have in various cases been held competent to testify as an expert. And it has been

had the means of gaining experience. He need not claim to be an expert, but he must c

not as affected by the facts of the case. He cannot state any inferences deduced from the facts. He must also testify himself. Evide

but not with irrelevant papers, and the whole of the te

iting machines are not originals and therefor

uineness of a signature based upon a compariso

tings are in evidence and the genuineness thereof disputed, magnified photographic copies of the writing and of admitted genuine writings are admissible in evid

onymous letters, money orders, registered letter receipts, letters, pension papers, and in smuggling, and in short, on any kind of document where it becomes necessary to establish the ide

riting as well as to the thought. A number of students of about the same grade, under the same teacher, will write much alike. Fifteen or twenty of these students could each write a line on a page and it might baffle a layman, and

sums of money, or the liberty or even the lives of suspected malefactors, has awakened widespread interest

the possession of some mysterious occult power, is enabled to distinguish at a glance the

o powders of like weight and color, identical in appearance to the common eye and perhaps in taste to the common palate, and say: This drug is harmless, wholesome; that is a deadly poison-and to specify not only their various individual constituents but the exact proportion of each. The trained eye of the handwriting expert (as in another case could that of the expert chemist) can often detect at a glan

n be established by it better than by portraits or almost any other means. As lawyers and laymen and courts are find

the notice of the general public is drawn to it. The average person would be surprised to know of the great number of cases that find their way to the office of th

andwriting, there are but five or six men in this country who give to it pr

stimony regarding handwriting. In one well-known case, a case, too, involving life and death-the court unwittingly accepted the "expert" testimony of a witness who, it was afterward proven, was unable to write even so much as his own name. In the litigation attend

bject deeply in all its various phases with those who have had occasion to examine it casually, or who may possess uncommon facility with the pen wit

al training and specialized experience really should have disqualified them from giving testimony. Though any one may call himself an "expert," or a "professional expert," for that matter, thus opening the door to charlatanism in exactly the same

educed to a science, to detect the spurious from the genuine handwriting with almost unvarying success. But their concl

e stroke where it is applied, and the positions of the line as a whole relative to the edges of the paper. The simplest punctuation mark under the microscope has its own individuality. It would be difficult to find two writers whose semicolons and quotation marks cannot be distinguished at a glance. The dotting of th

t value in legal trials and outside of courts. Its use cannot be dispensed

resemblance to the original. However, let the two be placed in the hands of an expert on disputed handwriting and he will pretty quickly determine which is the original and which th

's general physical condition. Whether he was standing or sitting when the signature was made is a matter of importance. The quality of the paper and the make of the pen also have to be taken into consideration. In the case of forgery, where the forger has employed a finger movem

lly known as "opinioned evidence." There probably is no class of professional witnesses which is subjected to such severe cross-examination as experts in handwriting, and, considering the great importance of their testimony, they should be ever ready a

rd, from the knowledge of the writing, from having frequently seen a person write; fourth, where one has received letters whose authorship has been subsequently verified by admission, or acted upon in such manne

Internal evidence is such as is presented by the peculiar quality of lines when drawn or worked up by slowly following traced lines

only a mental comparison of writing in question with such a vague idea or mental picture as may remain from a casual view of the writing at some time more or less remot

ope and the mere relation of such facts as the jury can see. Where a forgery is well executed the difference in general appearance between it and the genuine writing of the person whose signature is question

annot be appreciated intelligently and unless taken for granted as meaning something which the experience of the expert who gives the opinion understands, and which they wit

tten at the same time, with the same pen and ink, and by the same person, and as to alterations or erasures therein; and as to the age of the writing

may be asked to write on cross-

nuine to the satisfaction of the judge. His decision on this question is final if sup

ture is genuine. A plaintiff, on one occasion, denied most positively that a receipt produced was in his handwriting. It was thus worded, "Received the Hole of the above." On being asked to writ

one of the most sagacious of German jurists, Mittermai

allowed to prove writings which are not old enough to prove themsel

ordinary writing of one able to write, but also writing done in a disgu

roof of handwriting apply equal

be produced in court, but such production will be excused when the paper has been l

is required to be identified by an official seal, and exc

y witnesses who corresponded with the party; by witnesses who had seen papers a

or admitted to be in a party's handwriting, and a witness entirely unacquainted with the party's handwriting, or the

n its nature comparison. It is the belief which a witness entertains upon comparing th

y testify as to comparisons made and the results based on such comparisons, except tha

ng are in question and one exhibit is a forgery and the other is genuine, or where both are genuine, yet in question, the expert is in the position of making his proofs and demonstrations convincing to the l

ures in almost any case and show to the layman that the first question of forgery arose from the fact that these two signatures at a first glance are identically alike to almost the minutest detail. With all the skill which the forger

tch of paper which a man may cover without lifting the pen from the paper and shifting his hand to continue the line. In even the freest, swinging movements of a pen where the hand follows the pen fingers, there

e of one's name, too, it should be one of the easiest and lest-studied group of words which he is called on to put upon paper. In writing a letter, for example, the pen scope through it may show an average stretch of one inch for the text of the letter, while in the signature the whole length of the signature twice as long, may be covered. But

acteristic fails in one and another in another. Here is where the handwriting expert makes his service

has led to the hope that in this difficult subject means will be found t

lts may be stated to the jury, just so long will the character of expert testimony suffer in the opinion of th

t the best, because no man is capable of always observing and judging correctly, and the most careful man may be led astray by elements in the problem before him of which he does not suspect the existence. It would seem, there

be detected without accusing the expert of lack of good faith or ignorance of his subject. The fact that he has testified in hundreds of cas