The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1877-08-04
TIE PACIFIC
SATURDA Y. Al GU ST 4.
THE UNCERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE.
The Howland-Win Case.

What is truth? asked jesting PLATE {; an
the question comes up in many singular way
example of the difficulty of aseertaining thu
truth from conflicting evidence, has lately
come under our notice than the celebrates
Rowland will case, the eventful history o
which is related in the last number of Little
& Browns American Law review.
Hetty r.. Robinson was the daughter of c
New Yorker, Mott Robinson, and of Abby
Rowland, his wife. She lived with her aunt
| Sylvia Ann Rowland, in New Bedford, and was
estranged from her father. Edward Mott Robin
son died worth nearly six millions, all of which
his daughter inherited. Sylvia Ann Rowland,
the aunt, was an old and feeble woman, childless
of simple habits, and living retired life. She
died some time after Hetty's father, worth, ,
as the phrase is, over two millions. Hetty Rob-
inson was her chief companion in her later years;
and when the old lady died, a will was found
dated in 1868, giving about half of her estate in
charity, and the income of the remainder to her
niece. Hereupon Hetty Robinson produced
another will, which gave her the whole estate 4;
and asserted her claims before the courts of law.
Her story was that she and the old lady, her
anut, had exchanged wills, each agreeing to
bequeath to the other all her property /; that
this was done before the death Of Mott Robin
son, at the instance of the old lady, who did
not like Hetty's father; and that it was a
condition of this exchange of wills, that neither
should alter the testamentary disposition with
out notice to the other. Now the opponents
of Hetty Robinson's claims, disputed the gen.
uineness Of one of the signatures in this will
that on the " second page which was in fact
a fly leaf. 1t is an ugly word, but the fact
is, they charged that Sylvia Ann Howland's
signature on the two copies produced of this
g second page" were forged. And it is here
that we meet with the astonishing contradic-
ton, on which we remarked above.
John b. Williams, president of the Metro
pnlIt0n RopE IoSonb u 80 c D.aalI--
thirty years an accountant George Phippen,
Jr., OF Boston, a bank teller Solomon Lincoln,
cashier and president of a bank Chas. A.
Putnam, broker and banker, of Boston
William f. Davis, of Boston, formerly bank
clerk, and for twenty years a student of hand
writing; Lemuel CULVER, a bank cashier,
and Others, testified that the signatures were
undoubtedly forged. George N. Conner, pres
ident of the commercial college in Boston, an
expert in handwriting, declared that both the
signatures to the s. second page were for
geries, and that one was done by placing paper
over a genuine signature and making a tracing
with a wetted lead pencil, which was afterwards
written over with a pen and ink, while the
other was thus traced, but without a pencil.
Not only this, Mr.. Conner testified that the
s. writing of no two persons stains the paper
IN the same way" or produces the same
microscopical effect. James B. Congdon, treas
urer and collector of New Bedford for thirty
years, declared it utterly impossible for any
individual to write his name three times 10
that the resemblance may be such as appears
in the three signatures under examination.
c. Cary testified that one of the
Slipped in the tracing" George
Smith, an engraver, declared it impossible |
for signatures so closely to correspond. John
Gavit, president of the American Bank Note
thought the same. George A. Saw
ger, ~writing-master, of Boston, found the
disputed signatures unnatural, studied. made
with great EFFORT to make them look exactly
ike the authentic writing. DIR. Charles Il.
chemist and. State Assayer of Massa-
,husette, asserted that under the microscrope
me of the signatures was shown to have been
written in pale ink, and covered with a
,ery thick and black and gummy ink" Prof.
,. n. Horsford declared the same signature
o have been rewritten or painted,'' and
ound indications of tracing in both the disputed
Finally, Prof. Benjamin PIERCE,
celebrated mathematician, asserted that the
hances of three signatures being as much a.
ike as the three under examination, were,
automatically considered, as two thousand
tx hundred and ~sixty-six millions of millions.
gainst one.
Here were sixteen witnesses, all experts, some
and microscopes of renown, and all
len OF high character, who united in the asser-
on that the signatures were forged and some
ven showed how it was done, and found the
aces of bungling work. But see how these
NtSSA NARSAfo WIN A4G LIZ IL III HSReT-
on that no one ever writes his name twice or
lrice in succession so nearly alike, one hundred
nd ten old checks of President John Quincy
were put into the hands of Mr.. Cross
an, an engraver of Boston. This passage from
Law Review gives the results These are
refully compared by him, one with another,
Id understanding twelve thousand one
lndred comparisons. Twelve signatures are
leeted as being the most similar, and are pho
graphed IN a magniied form, with the assist
ice OF MI: Black, the photographer. Two
pies OF all are made, one upon transparent
on any other. These are filed in the case
exhibits, and the accuracy of their covering
eaks for itself. The signature is 81. O- =,
lams.' They certainly show a most STRIKING
nilarity, both in the formation Of tt, letters
d the spaces between both the words and the
tiers. In like manner the checks of Samuel
p. SWEET, president of the Suffolk National
INK OF Boston, are taken sixty-four given To
e experts, four thousand and ninety-six com
rlsons made of his signature, seventeen en-
,ged photographs are made, which are treated
the same manner, and show a most remarka-
uniformity. Inc same course is pursued with =.
2 signature of DR.. Clement A. Walker. suner- a
of the Boston Lunatic Hospital :
9phen Fairbanks, late treasurer of the West
4 railroad George @. Wide, clerk of the e
preme Judicial Court; Francis W. Palfrev.
lnselor at law, and special examiner for the
1ne complainant witnesses and
seph b. Spear, a copyist, former clerk to Gov
1or Andrew. These signatures all show a
uniformity, and in some of them the
'erlng appears as remarkable as in those of
case at bar"
But this is not all Sylvia Ann Howland's
n signatures to bills of lading were tested. y
1t Is asserted, in some instances found to -
tch as closely as the disputed signatures.
net shall we say then to Professor Peirce,
IN his calculation of probabili.
J..
)ther experts, George H. Morse, engraver. T. III
MulIin, writing-master Joseph A. Willard. IN
X OF the Superior Court, G.. French, princi. |"
OF the commercial college, and John A. r.
veil, eangraver, all believe tho signatures
uine: george Rye, draughtsman, experienced VI
thlot OF the Coast Survey Office, believes that
one but a practiced expert could have made
.acing which should be so well done and holdS