The Irish standard., 1900-04-07
FACTS ABOUT SIGNATURES.
According to Experts Man Cannot
Always Swear to His
own Writing.

Own Writing.
i The general opinion is that it 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 amy conditions. A discus
sion by some lawyers the other day
makes it appear that 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
signature a person was largely inllu-
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. If
the name was written on blank riece
Of paper, like that in common use,
the lawyer claimed that a witness
could not swear with any degree of
positiveness 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 on" of them a forgery. 1t
may be true that in general conforms
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 a system of close
measurements. In support of this
theory the experts take the case Of
farmer who is in the habit of going
IRON 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 eNpe-
rience he had in the trial of case
i'll Tolland county 25 or so years ago.
A note was in contest and Il question
was raised as to the genuineness of the
signature. George p. BsselI was called
as a handwriting expert. lie testified
that the signature on the note was a
genuine signature For the purpose
of testing his ability as a handwriting
expert, while on the witness stand,
lie was given piece of paper and
| asked to write his name three times
a blank space was left between the
signatures. Mr.. I'issell 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. lie cndeavored 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
| "SlS NiitteA Dy tIe pen eApefl.
Reference was made during the con-
versation to a trial which recently oc-
CURED in Washington, where a will
was in contest. Several experts on
handwriting who testified at the trial
claimed that the will was in the hand
writing of the testator 1t was
proved, however, that the entire will
bad 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 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 Il
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
TO identify signatures as many people
magine.-Hartford Comp Courant.
Cheese Fritters.