The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-12

that Miss Rowland had quarrelled with her
brotheI-in-law, the father of Miss Robinson,
and being resolved, If possible, to exclude
him from all share not only of her own pro-
perty, but of his daughters also, she pro-
posed about September, 1860, to her neice
then about twenty three years old, that if she
(Miss Robinson) would make a will so that
her father should inherit no part of her pro-
perty, she miss Howland) would, in return.
make will leaving everything to
her niece, the will of each to be depo-
sited with the other and neither to make
any other will without notice to the other, and
returning to that other her will. Miss Robin
son agreed to this, and the wills we're exc
cuted accordingly. But the subsequent will
and codioil made by the aunt in 1868 and
1854 were executed without notice to the
niece. Thus arose question of law, a novel
question in the courts of this country namely,
whether contract for mutual wills, if proved,
can be enforced as being without consideration
and against public policy and good morals.
But the most singular feature in this case
still remains to be stated. To the will origi-
nally made by Miss Rowland in favor of her
niece there is an addition sewed in with fine
thread to the page, not changing any provi-
sion of the will, but sort of protest by the
testator against the validity of any subsequent
will which she, under undue influence from
those around her, might be induced to make.
Part of the text is:-'I implore the Judge to
induce me to make will unfavorable to my
niece; but being i'll, and afraid, if any Of my
caretakers insisted on my making a will, to
refuse, as they might leave me or be angry,
give this will to my niece to show if
absolutely necessary to have it appear against
another will found after my death" Miss
Robinson testifies under oath, that she wrote
this appendage to the will at the suggestion of
her aunt, and that her aunt signed it in dupli-
cate in her presence. The defense to this is
nothing less than charge of forgery. 1t is
denied that the signature to this additional
page is genuine, and alleged that it was copied
by tracing from signature (admitted to be
genuine) of the testatOr to the original will to
which this appendage is found stitched. This
opens up wide field, in which not only ques-
tions of law but OF science, and even of art,
come up. On the question of forgery both
parties have spent much time and labor. Two
skilful photographers have been employed for
weeks, and experts have expended months in
procuring and comparing, in a great number
OF cases, numerous signatures by the same
person, so as to determine the chances that
any one person should write three signatures
exactly alike. The testimony is to the effect
that Miss Howlands signature to the original
and genuine will, and the two signatures to
the appended paper, executed in duplicate,
are in every letter and line and in the spaces
between the three words, Sylvia Ann Rowland,
SO precisely coincident, so identical in fact,
that nothing but a deliberate purpose
to make them so can explain the phe-
nomenon. Mr.. Crossman, for the defense,
testifes that he has spent nearly five months
in examining many hundreds of signatures of
many well-known persons; comparing the
coincidence by superimposing one on the other
on glass in front OF window, and also by
tracing and superimposing the tracings. He
says there was greater similarity in Miss How
| lands signatures, forty or fifty of which he
! compared with each other, than in any other
case; and he considers the two signatures to
the detached sheets to be genuine. On the
| other hand Mr.. Southworth after similar re-
search, declares that the three signatures coin
eide with mathematical accuracy, not only
| letter for letter and space for space, but also
| that each has the same slant to the base line of
| each paper, so that the eye sees them parallel.
His testimony covers fifty pages, and he pro-
nOunces the two contested signatures to be
forgeries, executed by tracing.
But the most curious and interesting testi-
mony of the whole is that of Professor Benja-
min Peirce of Harvard College, Superintendent
of the Coast Survey, and one of the best mathe-
| maticians of the age, upon the doctrine OF
chances. He said :-"He had large expe-
rience relating to the computation of chances
that the mathematical discussion of the sub
ject of coincidence of signatures had never,
to his knowledge, been proposed, but that 1T
applicable to this problem, the correctness oil
which would be recognized by all the mathe-
maticians in the world, could readily be oo-
tanned" Then, having ascertained the rela-
tive frequency of coincidence by comparing
numerous signatures of Miss Rowland to bills OF
sale of vessels. etc., he concludes that in her
case. sthis phenomenon (of coincidence)
could occur only once in two thousand six
hundred and sixty-six millions Of millions OF
millions of times, or 2,666,OOO, OO0, OOO,O
600 OOO.n s0This number" the Professor re-
marks. Hfar transcends human experience
So vast an improbability is practically an I'M
possibility. Such evanescent shadows OF llh-
: probability cannot belong to actual me- tney
are unimaginably less than the least Ihlnsa
, which the law cares not for, ana ms COL
clusion from these data is thus expressed
MTInder a solemn sense of the responsibility
involved in the assertion, declare that the
coincidence which has here occurred must
have had its origin in an intention to pro-
S duce it."
million of dollars has often been stakeo
on fine calculation of chances; but there is not
in ALI probability, another example on record
9 i'm which the verdict of a law-ease involving
{ that amount was liable to be determined by
a the testimony of learned professor, following
! out the principles which La Places great worl
has SO ably set forth, and applying the unal
2 terable rules of mathematical science to deter
4 mine what may seem, to the uninitiated
n purely fortuitous matter, namely, the chances
r of coincidence, in its action, while writing, o
It the human hand.
n notice which would lead us too far. Amonj
| Ia Il s,,kn