Comparison of Handwriting

1912 Harvard Law Review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact the receiver is in a position to fulfil that duty. But the question in the principal case is between the lessor and the lessee. The lessee also owes this public duty,'5 and as the lease is necessarily made with public authority16 and the lessee assumes the obligation, his liability is primary. The receiver is appointed and operates on behalf of the lessee estate and the benefit to the lessor is incidental. Consequently, it is difficult to find a basis for the lessor's responsibility to the receiver.l7 COMPARISON OF HANDWRITING. -The phrase "similitude" or "comparison of hands" was employed by the early judges to express their aversion for all handwriting testimony which involved a comparison between one piece of writing and another.' To the peculiar reverence manifested by later judges for this phrase must be traced the technical rules which obtained at common law wherever this sort of evidence was involved.2 Where the comparison is made by the jury the lack of necessity for any such rules is clear, for the genuine writing offered in evidence 3 for comparison with the disputed writing differs on principle in no respect from ordinary circumstantial evidence. Yet in England it required a statute 4 definitely to settle the permissibility of such comparison, and in many American jurisdictions such comparison was either entirely forbidden or permitted only under various restrictions.5 The opinion of a witness as to the genuineness of a disputed writing in court, after comparison, should be admitted in the discretion of the court, which in all cases of opinion evidence should be extensive, if there 15 i ELLIOTT, RAILROADS, 2 ed., ? 458. 16 Ibid. ?? 429, 430. 17 Cf. Phinizy v. Augusta & Knoxville R. Co., 62 Fed. 77I. See Brown v. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 35 Fed. 444, 445. But see Mercantile Trust Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 8I Fed. 254, 258. The broad ground discussed is not necessary to the decision in the principal case since there the intervening of the lessor gave assent to the receivership, and since the deficit was not caused by simply operating the road but by payments to protect the lessor's franchises. Moreover, the question might well be different if the lessee had no assets and the creditors of the receiver during the trial period were seeking to charge the lessor for their services in enabling the discharge of his public duty. 1 For illustrations see Trial of Sir Richard Grahme, 12 How. St. Tr. 646, 735; King v. Crosby, 12 Mod. 72. 2 Testimony by witnesses directly to the act of writing the words in dispute, and direct testimony to circumstances leading up or pointing back to that act, are merely ordinary illustrations of testimony from knowledge and involve no considerations peculiar to handwriting evidence. 3 The theoretical objection to the introduction of all handwriting as a basis for comparison on the ground that, the question of genuineness being for the jury, it will tend to complicate the issues, is clearly untenable, since the genuineness of the document, like all preliminary questions of fact regarding the admissibility of evidence, should be determined as a preliminary matter by the court. 4
doi:10.2307/1324483 fatcat:w2nrcwabxjeflmcoe6gl5n6nb4