The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-30
Superior C0urt-3eneral Term.
Before Chief Justice Oakley, and Hon. Ju lges Duer,
Campbell and Hoffman.


EvIDENCE-wHAT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE PORGERY.
JUNE 28.-Van W'yck agst. Mcintosh.-fhis was
an action brought against the defendant as endor-
ser Of promissory note, and the defence was that
the defendants name was forged. Upon the trial
the plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant bad
been accustomed to give his son blank checks,
allowing him to fill them up. The defendant OBJ
jected to the introduction of this testimony; the
objection was overruled, and an exception taken.
The defendant then offered to prove on the cross
examination Of one Blake, that the Defendants son
had committed other forgeries, but this testimony
was excluded. The defendant then offered TO prove
the defendants signature to checks drawn in the
regular of business about the time OF the suit
The plaintiff objected; the objection sustained,
and an exception taken. Judgment was rendered
for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
CAMPBELL, J.-Tne evidence that the defendant
Ind given to his son blank endorse was properly
admitted 1t was found that the note in question was
filled up by the defendants son, and delivered and
the piaintitfs name was written on the back ofsuch
note. Evidence that the defendant had given blank
endorsements To his son, think very properly
admitted as it tended to show that the endorsement
In question might have been one of such blank en-
dorsements. The evidence offered on the cross
examination of James Blake was properly excluded,
The impression OF the witness was that defend
ants son had written the name of the witness
to note shown to him. The examination
of tie witness in relation to that note might
tend to show the skill Of the in initiating other
peoples signatures, but we think would not be
relevant to show the signature OF the defendant to
eIed by the defendant in regard to his checks drawn
on the Greenwich Bank was properly rejected, be-
the object to allow the jury to institute
comparison of the handwriting Of the defendant on
the checks with the endorsement on the note in
suit. Such comparison is never allowed except in
cases where the documents necessarily before
the jury. When they are necessary exhibits in the
cause, and produced, then the Court will enter
with the jury upon the comparison. But it is done
in such cases as matter of necessity, and when from
the course of the trial 1t becomes unavoidable
Perry vs.. Newton, g.; A. L. Ellis, 5l9 This objec-
ton did not apply to the notes of Berry styled In
the case A and B l. They were exhibited to the
defendants witnesses on cross-examination to test
their knowledge of defendants handwriting, and
not for comparison by the jury. It was competent
to prove by Berry the commences OF those sigma
lures. His evidence did not fully come up 10 the
point Of satisfactory proof, and SO the Judge In
structed The jury He also instructed them that II
ought to be clearly established that they were
genuine. And the Judge further instructed The
jury that they must be perfectly convinced that tha
defendant admitted them to be genuine before they
could admit them as contradicting this witness
We see no reason growing out Of any Of defendanth
objections why the verdict Of the jury should be
disturbed. Nor do we think it is against the weight
of evidence. The motion for new trial is denied,
and judgment ordered upon the verdict.