The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-20
EXPERTS IN HANDWRITING.
GENUINE PAPER MAY BE EXAMINED
by THEN IN COMPARISON WITH
ALLEGED FORGERIEs.
An Important Decision by the su'
preme Court Opinion Rendered
bv Judge II. w. Lacy.

bv Judge II. w. Lacy.
In the Supreme Court Thursday the case
OF Hanriot against Sherwood and others
an appeal from the Circuit Court OF Nor
folk county--was decided. Francis Han
riot, an eccentric and miserly Frenchman,
residing In the county OF Norfolk, died Mt
clearinghouse in the city OF Portsmouth
on the 23d OF December, 1880, to which ne
had been removed by the appellee, sher-
wood, on the Goth OF the same month. BE-
fore his removal ne had lived alone, having
but little intercourse with his fellow-men,
with few associates. II, indeed. he could De
said TO have any, except fellow-country-
man, pauper In the county poor-house,
near by, named Peter Dufrane, who was
more or less constant in his attendance
upon Hanriot, according TO the moods OF
Hanriot, who was an old man. feeble In
health and variable in his temper. A Few
days after the death Of Hanriot this Peter
Dufrane exhibited a paper-wrltlng, IN
broken English, which he claimed to have
found in the loft OF the old mans house,
in box wrapped I'm an old shirt, and
which bestowed the property OF Hanriot
on the said Peter Dufrane, the appellee
Sherwood. who was also bis nelgbbor, and
others, and providing that none Of the rela-
tiyes Of the testator should have any oil his
property. rhis will was not witnessed.
but purports TO be wholly in the hand
writing of the testator. This paper was
ordered TO be recorded as the last will and
testament OF Francis Hanriot, deceased, in
the County Court Of Norfolk county.
A SUIT in equity was then instituted in
the Circuit Court OF Norfolk county by the
APPELLANT, John Hanriot, residing in New
Jersey, and his two nieces, residing in
France. who are his next OF kin, to I'M
peach the said will.
The Jury was empaneled to try the issue,
and their verdict found the said paper
writing to be the true last will and tesla
mrnt OF Francis Hanriot, deceased.
The appellants moved the Circuit Court
to be allowed to introduce experts fol the
purpose OF comparing the handwriting OF
the alleged will with the handwriting OF
other papers already in the cause for other
purposes admitted to be genuine, and OF
other papers proved to the satisfaction OF
the Court to be genuine, with the view oi
eliciting the opinion OF such experts as to
whether the paper writing in dispute is in
the same handwriting as the other papers
mentioned above. The Court held the Use
OF expert testimony in comparison OF hand
writings TO be inadmissible. To this ruling
OF the Court the appellant excepted.
THE QUESTION.
The question raised in this cause is
whether expert testimony can be employed
under the rule OF evidence in this Stale to
test the genuneness OF fdisputed writings by
comparison of them with writings admitted
or proved TO be genuine. 1t was held that
experts had asserted the possibility OF in
veStigating handwriting upon scientific
principles, and the courts had consequent.
| lv admitted the persons to testify in cases
OF disputed handwrltings. and that expert
ment and observation had disclosed the fact
that there are certain general principles
which NAV be relied upon; that in every
person's manner OF writing there is a Ger.
tain distinct prevailing Characteristic which
can be discovered by observation, and
being once known. can be afterwards ap
piled as standard TO try other specimen:
Of handwriting. the genuiness OF which Ii
disputed. ICiting I'd McCOrd, page 139.
That there is justification for the holding
of the courts that there is a science o
handwriting, and that experts. who have
qualified themselves by study and eXpe
rience, should be received to testify to th'
genuineness and identity OF the hand
writing, among whom might be classeC
tellers and cashiers OF banks. and, in gen
eral. any officer OF a bank whose business
it is to examine papers with view OF de
tecting alterations and erasures and ascer
tanning genuine from spurious writings
[Citing Dubois as. Baker, 80 New York.
That .the fact that the expert has N
Fother knowledge of the writing il
dispute than that derived bv
comparison OF the disputed writin;
with others that are genuine is not regard
ed as any disqualification whatever, citin!
Miles uerSus LOOMS, 75 New York. Tba
where the witness has no personal know
edge Of another's handwritings has beior
him i'm iuXtapOsition the writing in dis
pute with other writings admitted o
proved to be genuine, and from compari
son OF such writings expresses an opinion
whether the writings were made by tn
same party, is the method Of the expert
That in England such testimony has alway
been allowed in the ecclesiastical court
but different rule prevailed in the com
mon-law courts until the year 1884, whel
it was authorized by act OF Parliament
but in this country a difference OF opinion
has prevailed. Some OF the State court
have denied while others have maintained
the right to introduce such testimony. Tha
in some Of the States Of this country it ha
been authorized by statutory enactment
The English rule as IL obtained before th
act of Parliament was adopted by tn
Supreme Court OF the United States
citing Strother Us. Lucas, Peters's Rt
ports. The exceptions to the rule in tha
court are stated in Moore Us. United State:
81 L. s. X. That the rule admitting TIL
testimony was adopted by the Suprem
Court of Alabama, citing Kirksey Us. kirk
sey, Al Alabama, and that it has also bee
adopted by the Supreme Court OF Arkan
sas, citing McComber Us. Scott, 10 Kansa
Reports; that in the Supreme Court Of In
diana the same rule is now followed, citin
Forgery rs. The First National Bank an
Cambridge city. 66 Indiana, page l23
also, by the Supreme Court OF North Care
lima, citing Yates Us. Yates, 76 n. c. X.
citing the following cases where the sam
rule has been adopted: Miller rs. Eicholfi
8 Colorado. 243; Vinton Us. Peck. Ia NJ
cbigan: Corby, eX., US.' Weddle, u
Missouri. That in the foregoing State
there had been no statutory enac
ment upon the subject before th
action by the courts, and that in man
other States the rule has been adop
ed In obedience to statutory provisions
That in this State there has been no statr
tory enactment upon the subject; and it
insisted by the appellees that the old rul
J of the common-law courts of England sti