Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1900-03-01
WRITING THE NAME.
One Cannot Always Identify Bis
Own Signature
Experts Say No Man Can Safely Go
Upon the Witness stand and
Swear to His Own
Writing.

The general opinion is that Il is an
easy matter to identify a signature,
and there are few people who would
not say with positiveness that they
could identify their own signatures
under almost any conditions. A discus
sion by some lawyers the other day
makes it appear that a person cannot
at all be sure of his signature, be-
cause Of the nicely TO which the
forger has brought his art.
One of the lawyers said that no
man could safely go upon the witness
stand and swear that a signature
shown him was his signature. he
claimed that in the Identification of q
signature person was largely inHu-
enced in his decision by the quality
OF the paper upon which the sigma
ture was written and by what pre-
coded or followed the signature. II
the name was written on blank piece
of paper, like that in common use.
the lawyer claimed that a witness
could not swear with any degree of
positiTeness that the signature was or
was not his own.
In support of his argument, the
lawyer said that handwriting experts
claim that no person can write his
name twice exactly alike, and that
any litigation where signatures are in
dispute, and two signatures appear
that are exactly alike, the experts will
pronounce one of them a forgery. 1t
may be true that in general conform
alton two signatures may be alike, but
In saying that no two signatures were
ever made alike, the experts mean
that the loops of the letters and the
distances between them will not be
the same, distinctions which can be
determined only by q system of close
measurements. In support of this
theory the experts take the case of
farmer who is in the habit o. going
from his house to his barn at about
the usual time every morning. They
say that not once in 100000 times will
he walk in exactly the same tracks.
Another lawyer told of an sxpe-
rience he had in the trial of a case
In Tolland county 25 or 80 years ago.
A note was in contest and a question
was raised as TO the genuineness Of the
signature. George P. Bissell was called
as a handwriting expert. He testified
that the signature on the note was a
genuine signature. For the purpose
Of testing his ability as handwriting
expert, while on the witness stand,
he was given a piece of paper and
asked to write his name three times.
A blank space was left between the
signatures. Mr.. Bissell did not know
for what purpose he was asked to
write his name, and after the paper
had been handed to the lawyer who
examined him, it was given by the
lawyer to an expert with the pen. The
expert wrote the name Of Mr.. Bissell
on the paper three times, and after
this was done Mr.. Bissell was recalled
TO the witness stand and the paper
containing the six signatures was
handed him. he was asked to point
out the signatures that he had writ
ten. BE endeavored TO do so, but not |
one of the signatures he picked out |
as having been written by himself was
his writing. The three he selected
we're written by the pen expert.
Reference was made during the con-
versation 10 a trial which recently oe-
CURED in Washington, where a will
was in contest. Several experts on
handwriting VINO testified at the trial
claimed that the viii was in the hand |
writing of the testator. II was
proved, however, that the entire will |
had been traced. One of the relatives |
of the deceased had found many OF the |
letters Of the deceased. Words to put |
into the will were taken from the diff |
ferent letters, and by a chemical proc
ess reproduced in the document which |
made the will. John Sherman's name
was signed by one Of the witnesses Of
the will, and it was also proved that |
the signature had been taken from a
signature which Mr.. Sherman had
placed in an article in Gen. Grants
Memoirs of the War"
The conclusion which the lawyers
came to when the discussion ended /
was that it is not such an easy matter