Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-24
Experts On Handwriting.
tCornhnl Magazine

We are informed by one Of the pro-
fession land there are but two in Lon
don, who almost divide the work. that
within the last four years he has been
entrusted with more than 600 cases
from different parts of the country, in
connection with certainly not 200 OF
which has he had 10 appear publicly.
| The rest are compromised or
hushed up, or in many in
stances never even go SO far as that,
for often the consulting parties only
want their own suspicious confirmed for
their own satisfaction, without any in
tcntion Of taking further action. They
are for the most part matrimonial dis
putes scandalous communications from
disappointed suitors, secretly thrust UNI
der the front door /; abusive and threat
ening letters erasurcs in and suspected
signatures to wills; and--strange that
day of universal love and harmony
should be so desecrated no Valen-
tines day passes that does not bring
with il half dozen letters,
poesies, or pictures, as to the au-
thors of which the recipients show an
angry anda lively curiosity. Occasion
ally the experts opinion will be asked
on a difficulty which arose before the
profession attained its present emf
nence-on the validity ola signature to
a will, for instance, signed forty years
ago, and though at the time suspected,
never legally impugned. "Only the
other day." said the authority in ques-
ton TO us. IL was taken to see one Of
these wills. The moment set eyes on
il | knew it as rank forgery. No
thing 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 forge
ries, but which no one at the time had
the courage or the money to take into
court" And now that we have for
the moment turned TO the subject of
the experts examination of papers
written many years before. 1T will
not be uninteresting to refer to the late
Mr.. Chabot's opinion on the vexed ques-
ton of the authorship of Junius, founded
on a minute comparison of many hand
writings and embedded in an exhaustive
publication edited and prefaced by the
Hon. Edward TwistletOn-thc whole,
to our mind at any rate. conclusive
of the difficulty. The subject had
been previously somewhat similarly
dealt with in {" ,Iunius Identified"
written by Mr.. Taylor in 1916, where,
though not to the same extent on
the ground of identity Of handwriting,
subsequently more fully treated in
supplement to the same book published
in the following year, the author had
come TO similar decision. Under the
various wcll-considered and well-sus-
tanned heads of Verbal Agreement
in Phrases, Uncommon Phrases, Meta
phorical Phrases, Particular Doc
trines, Opinions, Cautions, Maxims, and
Rules of Conduct, Peculiar Sentiments,
Words Similarly Italicized, Similar Quo
tations, Manner and Personifcation,
Mr.. Taylor makes out very strong
case against Sir Philip Francis, and in
fact, so far as it be true that le style
c'ea rhomme, there can be little doubt,
after reading the book and verifying the
comparisons, that Sir Philip Francis
and Junius are the same.