The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-20

| Judge Moncure had said In the case cited
above, expert testimony Is admitted by
the courts Of Justice In tie trial OF cases,
Is this case where the ends OF Justice
would be subseryed by It's use. That 1t
may be laid down az a general rlile that
all evidence here used 10 prove the issue
| I'm any case, ANYTHING that forms link in
chain OF evidence that tends TO prove
such issue, subject to some exceptions,
should be admitted.
THE DECISION.
To exclude any evidence which tends to
prove the issue Is the exception and not
the rule, and that before any exception
can be allowed to d general rule, there
must be some good reason Tor the excep-
ton.
| II will not be contended that the evil
dence excluded in this case does not tend
to prove the issue, or that IL Is wholly
| irrelevant. but 1t will be admitted that II it
| Is competent it is also relevant. and tends
TO prove the issue.
Can il be contended that such evidence
should be excluded merely because 1t Is a
comparison OF handwriting, for all evil
dence OF handwriting, except when the
witness himself saw the writing done, il q
comparison Of handwritingy IL Is upon the
belief which the witness cntertaine upon
comparing the writing In question with
the exemplar In his mind derived from
preyious knowledge OF the PERSONS hand
writing that evidence Of this kind may
be introduced and admitted.
IL is conceded that comparison may be
had between writings where the writings
TO be used as specimens are admitted to be
penuine-where the different writings are
already properly in evidence, or properly
in the case for some other purp0se-lchere
the ,c;fnesS tcho has seen the person lchoSe
SIGNATURE is disputed ,orite previously. IT
was so allowed in Pepper Us. Garnett.
although the witness had no recollection
OF the writing, and could not distinguish
it from others. because the witness had once
seen The party write. and then only his
signature, and had no eXemplar IN his
mind.
Some OF the writings In this case were
introduced for other purposes, and prop
erlv In the cause. To exclude the eyi'
dences of skilled persons, and under the
same circumstances admit those OF un-
skilled persons, who in fact have no real
acquaintance with the disputed hand.
writing. seems to be artificial and unrea
sonabe. This is ease Of an alleged for
gerry. The testimony OF experts has beer
generally admitted in cases OF erasure anc
of feigned hands where the writing com
pared is admitted, or proved to the salts
faction OF the Court TO be genuine.
III the witness. Edwards, could compare
the writings because he had once seen th'
party write his name. although an unSkill
ed witness, and did not remember L
without looking at and comparing 1t
is there any sound reason for holding
that one skilled and more competent, ant
not less acquainted with the disputed hand
writing. il neither knew it, is inadmissi
bic? II was held not, and the court was
opinion, both upon reason and the weigh
OF authority. that such testimony was adj
missible. and to reverse the court below 10
so excluding the best evidence that coult
be employed in the cause which tended t
prove the truth Of the case, and attain tn
ends OF justice.
Judge Lacy delivered the opinion.
Judge Hinton dissented. The othe
Judges concurred in the opinion.