Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-03-24
Experts I'm Handwriting.

We are informed by one of the pro.
fession (and'there are but two in Lon
don who almost divide the work. that
within the last four years he has been
>ntrusted with more than 600 eases
from different parts of the country, in
connection with certainly not 200 of
which has he had to appear publicly.
The rest are compromised or hushed
up, or in many instances never even
go so far as that, for often the consult
ing parties only want their own sus-
picions confirmed for their own salts
faction, without any intention of taking
further action. They are for the most
matrimonial disputes; scandalous com
munications from disappointed suitors.
secretly thrust under the front door;
abusive and threatening letters; eras-
ures in and suspected signatures to
wills; and-strange that day of uni
versal love and harmony should be SO
desecrated!-no Valentin's Day passes
that does not bring with it half dozen
letters. poesies, or pictures, as to the
authors of which the recipients show an
angry and lively curiosity.
Occasionally the experts opinion
will be asked on difficulty which arose
before the profession attained its pres
ent eminence-On the validity of sigma
ture to a will, for instance, signed 40
years ago, and though at the time sus-
pected, never legally impugned. "Only
the other day." said the authority in
question to us, Il was taken to see one
Of these wills. The moment set eyes
on it knew it as rank forgery. Moth
ing could be done, nor ever can be
done, in cases where the parties are all
dead and the property has long changed
hands. The consequence is that, in
my own experience, have met again
and again with instances of estates and
incomes held under title founded on
the most indisputable forgeries, but
which no one at the time had the cour-
age or the money to take into court"
And now that we have for the mo-
ment turned to the subject of the ex-
pert's examination of papers written
many years before, it will not be unin-
teresting to refer to the late Mr.. Cha
bots opinion on the vexed QUE stion of
the authorship of Junius, founoed on
minute comparison of many hand
writings and embodied in an exhaus-
tive publication. edited and prefaced by
the Hon. Edward Twistleton the
whole, to our mind at any rate. con-
elusive of the difficulty. The subject
had been previously somewhat similar
ly dealt with in ''Junius Identified"
written by Mr.. Taylor in 1917, where.
though not to the same extent on the
ground of identity of handwriting,
subsequently more fully treated in a
to the same book published
in the following year, the author had
come to a similar decision. Under the
various well-considered and well-sus-
tanned heads of Verbal Agreement in
Phrases, Uncommon Phrases, Meta
phorical Phrases, Particular Doctrines,
Opinions, Cautions, Maxims and Rules
of Conduct, Peculiar Sentiments,
Words Similarly Italicised, Similar
Quotations, Manner and Personitica-
ton, Mr.. Taylor makes out very
strong case against Sir Philip Francis,
and, in fact, so far as it be true that
le style c'est rhoname. there can be little
doubt after reading the book and veri-
flying the comparison that Sir Philip |
Francis and Junius are the same.-The |
COrnhiH Magazine.