The Sun.
London, England, 1871-01-19 00:00:00

THE EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS.

In the great Howland will case, decided in one of the
courts at Massachusetts, an issue was raised as to the
genuineness of two signatures alleged to be those of the
testatrix, Sylvia Ann Howland. The signature to the
ant sheet of the will, which we will call signature A,
was admitted by both sides to be genuine, but it was
contended by the defendant in the suit that the other
two signatures, B and C, were forgeries. In support
of this view it w'as pointed out that the two latter
signatures, if laid over the first,
,corresponded exactly
with it, stroke for stroke, and it was urged that such a
correspondence between two genuine signatures by the
same hand was impossible, or at any rate unheard of.
•It was further maintained that an examination of
signatures B and C chewed that they had, in fact, been
traced from signature A, and that this had been done
in two different kinds of ink. In support of these
contentions—that the exact similarity between the
three signatures proved that the two latter were
forged - a host of expert evidence was produce d.
Cashiers, bank managers, examiners of franks, &c.,
all of them of many years' standing in their professions,
declared that they had never in their experience dis-
covered two signatures of the same person which
tallied with each other with the exactitude of those in
question. One gentleman had made 37,700 comparisons
of signatures with a view to the present inquiry, and had
failed to find such a similarity ; and, to crown all, a
mathematical professor was produced, who explained to
the court a method by which he had calculated the chances
against such a similarity to amount to many millions of
millions to one. Against this mass of testimony the
plaintiff produced only two pieces of evidence, but they
were of a crushing character. The first was an exhibit
consisting of 12 signatures of the late President Adams,
selected from a quantity placed in the hands of the plain-
tiff by the President's grandson. Two photographs of each
signature had been made, one on thick and the other on
transparent paper, and each was found to tally ith
every other with the utmost exactitude. The second
piece of evidence consisted of three undoubted signatures
of Sylvia Ann Howland herself, which on being applied
to signature A were found to cover it nearly as closely as
signature B, and far more closely than signature C. In
support of the second theory of the defendants—that sig-
natures B and C spewed marks of being traced—engravers
and electrotypers of many years' experience were called,
who swore positively that these signatures had been
traced. Their evidence was met by that of experts of
equal credit, who as strenuously swore that they could
not have been so traced; but having been thus reduced
to contradictions, science was next destined to be
set against herself. On the third point a multitude
of scientific witnesses were called, among whom Dr.
Jackson, chemist, and State assayer for Massachusetts
affirmed that on a microscopical examination he had de-
tected the presence of two inks. On the other side were
time eminent names of Professor Agassiz and Dr. Oliver,
Wendell Holmes, whose utmost microscopic skill had failed
in detecting two inks, and who were confident that
only one had been used. The deadlock of expert evi-
dence was thus complete. As a fitting conclusion to the
story, we may add that the issue as to the genuineness of
the two disputed signatures turned out afterwards not to
be the governing issue of the case, which was decided upon
another point.