Case ID: nh_3/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rich vrdso.n, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROCKINGHAM,
    FEBRUARY TERM, 1824.
    J. J. MYERS vs. B. TOSCAN.
    It cannot lie left to a jury to determine the genuineness of a signature to a paper, merely by comparing it with other signatures proved to be genuine.
    But when witnesses, acquainted with the hand-writing in question, have testified, other signatures proved to be genuine, may be submitted to the jury, to corrobO' rate or weaken their testimony.
    Trover, for sundry articles.
    The cause was tried here, at September term, 1823, upon the general issue ; when it appeared in evidence, that the articles were once the property of the plaintiff, and that they were in the hands of the defendant, who, when requested, refused to deliver them to the plaintiff.
    
      The defendant relied upon a sale of the articles to him by the plaintiff, and produced a paper, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and acknowledging the receipt of payment, for the articles. The defendant, then produced another paper, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and proved the signature to be genuine. The court permitted the paper, thus proved to he genuine, to be submitted to the jury, and instructed them that they might compare the signatures, and if satisfied from the comparison, that the receipt was genuine, they must return a verdict, for the defendant.
    The jury having returned a verdict, for the defendant, the piaintiif moved for a new trial, on the ground, that the jury had been misdirected.
    
      Emm, for the plaintiff.
    J. Bartlett, for the defendant.
   Rich vrdso.n, C. J.

We take it to be a well settled principle of law, that it cannot he left to a jury to determine, whether a signature is genuine or not, merely by comparing it with other signatures proved to be genuine. Phillips Ev. 371.—Peake's Ev. 72.—5 Johnson 155.—Swift’s Evid. 29.—4 Esp. cases 117, The King vs. Castor.—4 do. 37, Garrells vs. Alexander.

But when w itnesses, acquainted with the hand-writing in question, have been called and examined, other signatures, proved to be genuine, may be submitted to the jury, to corroborate or weaken the testimony of such witnesses, 1 Esp. cases 351, Allesbrook vs. Roach.—Peake’s Ev. 73.—1 Gallison 170, Smith vs. Fenner.—5 Binney 349.—11 Mass. Rep. 309, Homer vs. Wallis.

As it was submitted'To the jury in this case, to decide by a mere comparison of hand-writing, we entertain no doubt, there must be

A new trial granted.