Case ID: scl_26/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Bird vs. Robert S. Millar.
    This was an action of assumpsit against defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy :
    
      Charleston, 12th March, 1840.
    250 dollars. Thirty days after date, I promise to pay to Robert S. Millar, or order, two hundred and fifty dollars, for value received.
    WILLIAM BOYD.
    (Endorsed,) Robt. S. Millar,
    W. Bird.
    Pica — The general issue. Defence — Forgery.
    The evidence in the foregoing case of James Robertson & Co., is considered as given in this ; the bundle of notes introduced, objected to and admitted.
    
      * Robert S. Smith, the only witness examined in this case, being sworn— Said he believes the endorsement to be the handwriting of defendant; would take it as his without any hesitation ; witness was loading a boat for Bird ; while he was loading it, Boyd bought it; Bird would not let him have it without an endorsement ; Millar’s endorsement was given, and the boat delivered ; thinks the note in suit is a renewal of that, because Boyd gave Bird an order on him for §65, the up freight of that boat to Camden ; after this note came out of hank, he talked with Millar on the subject; he said that the note that came out of bank was not endorsed by him, but recollected endorsing an original note to Bird; this conversation was after Boyd’s death.
    These two cases were submitted to the jury on the evidence, and they found for the defendant in both cases.
    The plaintiff’s counsel served me with the annexed grounds of appeal.
    JACOB ANSON, Recorder.
    
    1. That his Honor erred in ruling that comparison of handwriting was admissible to disaprove the genuineness of defendant’s signature in these cases.
    2. That his Honor erred in allowing the defendant to submit to the jury, iu these cases, a bundle of notes alleged to have been signed or endorsed by him, in order that the jury by comparison, might infer the forgery of his signature, or handwriting to the notes sued on.
    3. That the verdicts were contrary to law and evidence.
    
      Yeatfon, for the appellants,
    argued that comparison of handwriting was not admissible to prove its genuineness, and in support of this position, cited 2 Starkie, 654; Peake Ev. 155; Phil. Ev. 428; 13 J. R. 238; 2 McC. 518. lie contended also that it would be setting a dangerous precedent to suffer bandwriting to be proved by comparison. Defendants could always select, and plaintiff's could not, to such an extent.
    
      A. Moise, contra,
    cited Nor. Peake, 155—(25 Appendix.)
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

The facts of these cases are, the defendant was sued on two notes, as the endorser of one Boyd. *On the trial, witnesses were examined on both sides; those for the plaintiff declaring their belief that the signature was the defendant’s, and those for the defendant, that the signatures were forged. A bundle of other notes were handed to a witness for the defendant. He proved them to be genuine, and then pointed out to the jury the difference of Millar’s signature to those notes and the signatures on the disputed notes. When the jury retired to their room, they were allowed to take the bundle of «otes with them, “ that they might compare the handwriting of them with the handwriting of the notes in suit, with a view to test the accuracy of Young’s (the witness for defendant,) testimony.” The admissibility of this evidence, and its being allowed to go to the jury room, are the grounds upon which the case comes to this Court.

See Desbrow vs. Farrow, 3 Rich. 383. An.

The general principle is to be found in all the elementary books, in Starkie and Peake, that mere comparison of handwriting, by juxtaposition, is inadmissible ; that is, where the witness has no knowledge on the subject, he shall not be allowed to prove a signature genuine or false, by comparing it with what another witness proves to be the true signature. Admitting the principle to be correct, that such evidence is inadmissible in the first instance, yet, in a case of conflicting evidence, this kind of evidence was admitted in the case of Plunket & Bowman, not as original, but as confirmatory evidence, to enable the jury to decide upon which of the witnesses they could most confide. In a practice of many years, I have not known the admissibility of this kind of evidence, for the purposes above stated, questioned. I have made these remarks because this question was much discussed by both sides, on the argument. The case itself may be decided on a ground entirely independent. The question was, whether the note was endorsed by the defendant ? The witnesses on both sides were acquainted with the handwriting of Millar. The witness, Young, testified the signature was not Millar’s. He was well acquainted with handwriting. The object, as 1 understood the report of the Recorder, of submitting the notes to the witness was, that he might point out to the jury the difference between the notes in dispute and the genuine signatures, and in this way to test the accuracy of bis opinion that the notes were forged. If the notes were admissible for this purpose, I can see no reason why they should not be sent *to the jury, It is the usual practice to send all written or documentary evidence to the the jury, unless there is some confusion in it likely to mislead.

The motion is dismissed.

Gantt, O’Yeael, Eakle, and Richardson, JJ., concurred. 
      
       2 McC. 518; Post 473. An.
      
     
      
      
         See 10 Rich. 214. An.