The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-01-30
SCIENCE WAS BAFFLED.
Can Forgery Always Be DetectedP The
Question Raised in a Great Boston
viii Case.


ture be counterfeited so skillfully that the
fraud cannot be detected by expertsI Is it
possible to determine positively in every
case whether bit of handwriting is genu-
inc or counterfeitl
These questions were tested but not an
swered by the famous Rowland will case,
brought in the United States circuit court
in BOston-a contest that enlisted the lead
ing Massachusetts, lawyers of the time and
has no parallel in the annals Of litigation.
Sylvia Ann Rowland died in New Bed
ford in 1865. She was then a maiden lady.
old and wealthy. She came of a family
which had dwelt and thrived in that seaport
town of Massachusetts, during a period
running well back into the last century.
When she died she left a will disposlng of
property amounting to more than 81, 100000
About one-hah was distributed in legacies
and charities, the income of the rest was
given to her only niece. Hetty Robinson.
MORE MILLIONS FOR HER.
Hetty was young unmarried woman,
the only child of Edward Mott Robinson.
who had married Abby S. Rowland, a sis
ter of Sylvia Ann. She lost her mother in
1860, aud then took up her abode with her
aunt, her father living in New York. Mr..
Robinson died in June, 1875. His wealth
amounted to about SIX million dollars. He
willed nearly a million t. his daughter alb
solutely, and the other five millions to trus-
tees for her benefit. The income was to be
paid to her during her life, and on her
death the principal was to go to her chill
dren if she should leave any or if not she
was empowered to dispose of it by will.
1t was only month after the death of
Hetty'S father that her aunt, Miss Sylvia
Anu Rowland, died. By her aunt's will the
niece was entitled to the income of 81, OOO.-
900; by her fathers will she received
$l,000.000 absolutely and the inc )me of
s5,000,0O0. She was. therefore, in possession
of 100000 outright and the income on
100000.
sTRY OF THE NIECE.
Now comes the singular part of the story.
The niece protested against the will of the
aunt, which gave to her the income on half
the estate, and produced will bequeath-
ing to her the entire wealth of the old lady.
She explained that she had made her home
with her aunt during the last years of Miss
Howland's life, and lived with her on terms
intimacy, affection, and confidence. One
day the aunt proposed that if
Hetty, who, though an heiress,
was possessed of only about
$2O, 900, would make a will excluding her
father from inheritance, she, the aunt,
would do likewise. The reason given by
the old lady for this singular proposition
was that she did not want any more of the
Rowland wealth to go to Robinson The
agreement was entered into. 1t was verbal,
not in writing. The aunt made her will
and delivered it to the niece The niece
made hers and gave it to her aunt. II was
further agreed that neither should make
any future will without notifying the other
and returning the others will.
THE SECOND WILL
Such was the story told by Miss Hettie
Robinson. After her aunt's death she pro-
duced the will which she averred had been
made by her aunt and delivered to her in
fuldlment of the agreement The will was
dated Jan. II, 1869. 1t bsqueathed all the
old ladys property to the niece. The other
will, the one offered for probate, bore
later date-namely, Sept. l, 1863-and had
codicll dated Nov. %, 1864. Miss Robin
son claimed that this will was violation of
the agreement between her aunt and herself.
She moved in the courts to have it disre-
garded and the property of Miss Rowland
disposed of in accordance with their agree
ment and the will made in pursuance of 1t.
CONTRASTING THE WILL.
The executors of Miss Howlaud's last
will opposed this move with great determI-
nation. They advanced legal objections to
the niece's claim, even if her story was
true. But they insisted that it was not true,
contending that it was impo sble on its
face, and citing circumstances to show its
inconsistency with facts. The body of the
will presented by her was confessedly in
her own handwriting. Only the signature,
Sylvia Ann Rowland, purported to be in
the handwriting of her aunt. The execu-
tors declared that this signature was not
genuine. but forgery; that it had never
been written by Sylvia Ann Rowland, but
that it was the work of Hetty Robinson.
WAS IT A FORGERY -
This raised the great issue of the case.
Legal annals present no parallel to the con-
troversy that followed over the sixteen let
tiers forming the name of Sylvia Ann How
land. There was then but one living being
who knew whose hand traced those letters.
That was hetty Robinson, and her word
was disputed. The signature was left as the
silent witness from W ich alone its own
gepuineness or spuriousness could possibly
be dete mined. 1t was examined and
studied by an array of experts surprising
in number, variety, distinction and conflict
Of opinion anything ever before or
since known in a court of law. The
best judges of writing were called
from all Quaruers-from schools of pen
manship, counting rooms and public Offices.
There were writing masters, bank presi-
dents, cashiers and tellers, heads of COM
mercial colleges, profes ional accountants
men Of long study and daily experience in
handwriting. There were also summoned
college professors, headed by AgassiZ,
Pierce and Holmes of Harvard, photograph
ers, engravers, chemists, microsc Dpists,
naturali5ts and mathematicians. Every
letter of the signature, every ne, curve,
point, dot, was su jected to crucial exami-
nation by microscope. Chemical and micro
scopical tests were applied to ink aid paper.
Every known means Of discovering the
the truth was called into requisition. But
all in vain.
MARVELLOUS, IF A COINCIDENCE.
On one side the experts pronounced the
signature forgery; on the other side they
declared it genuine The opinion of the
former was that the disputed signature was
too much like genuine one to be genuine
Their theory was that ii had been traced
on paper laid over a genuine signature.
This genuine signature was produced, and
the disputed signature tailed with it in
every stroke, curve, dot, aud even position
on the paper. Experts in writing declared
that they had never seen VI known two
genuine signatures by the ame hand to
bear q resemblance so clos, and exact.
They said that no person eve does or can
write his or her own name pecisely alike
twice. Professor Benjamin. Pierce, the
great mathematician of Harvard, presented
a demonstration to show that the chance of
one making two signatures perfectly alike
was so enthusiastically small as to amount to
an impossibility. The coincidence could
on ~ ANA