The sun., 1918-11-22
FORGERY OF TYPEwRITTNG.
The Chance Of Two Machines with
Similar Defects One In Four Billions.
From Loo Notes.

From Loo Notes.
In n recent case ESTATE of Dreyfus,
ITS Cal AT, 16b Pac. o4l) In holding
, that will whose body was in type
writing could not be probated as a
Photographic will the court said: From
time immemorial letters and words have
been written with the hand by means
Of pen and ink or pencil of some de-
scriptlon, and II has been a we'll known
fact that each Individual who writes
I In tins manner acquires style OF FORM
Ing. placing and spacing the letters and
words which Is peculiar to himself and
which, In most cases, renders his writ
Ing easily distinguishable from that OF
others by those familiar with II or by
experts In chirography who make a
study OF the subject and who are af-
forded an opportunity Of comparing a
disputed specimen with those admitted
TO be genuine. The provision that a
will should be valid II entirely written,
dated and signed by the hand OF the
testator' Is the ancient rule on the sub
ject There can be no doubt that It
owes It's origin to the fact that a sue
cessful counterfeit OF another's hand
writing is exceedingly difficult, and that,
therefore. the requirement that II should
be in the testators handwriting would
afford protection against a forgery OF
this character. The meaning
hero contended for would greatly en-
largo the opportunities for successful
forgeries by taking away the means Of
detection which the Legislature had in
mind and would defeat the purpose Of
the statute by destroying the safeguards
which Its requirements were designed
to secure"
decision. the reasoning of the court is
certainly fallacious. Some YEARS ago
r. writer in LntU Notes tissue OF Novem-
Der, 1900 argued forcIbly that the for.
gerry Of typewriting may be more readily
detected than that OF Handwriting That
conclusion finds support in several cases
in which the identity of mechanical de-
fects In two pieces OF typewriting has
been held to show that they were pro-
duced by the same machine. See State
vs.. Freshwater. 80 Utah 442; People vs..
Storrs, 207 n. Y. 147; Huber Mfg Co.
vs.. Clandel. II Kan. al; Scott vs. Gre
rar, II Ont App. 1863. In People VS..
Risley, PA N. Y, IT'S. a scientist testi-
fed that the chance OF two machines
possessing the defects manifested by a
particular piece OF typewriting In evil
dence was one to four billions. The Pc
culiarities OF handwriting may be sim
ulated Moreover. they are variable. no
persons writing ever being identical on
two occasions
The minute mechanical defects which
appear from use in every typewriter are
absolutely invariable in their manifes-
tation and incapable OF imitation. The
one possibility of successful forgery is
writer and even that will not avail II
considerable time has elapsed or IL the
machine has been oveyhauled In the
meantime. II any lawyer Is sceptlcal
on the subject. let him take a specimen
Of typewritlng from his own machine.
pick out the imprints that are rough
encd or out OF alignment, and then see
how long II will take him to find a piece
OF typewritlng from another machine
which exhibits those defects and no
others. An examination OF the plates
OF enlarged typewriting shown by Mr..
Osborn cQuestioned Documents" p.
4S7 ct sea- will be even more convinc-
ing. As Is said by that author. a gen.
eral knowledge on the part Of the pro-
fession OF the certainty with which for
gerry Of typewriting may be detected
would in many cases lead to a discov-
cry OF the truth and prevent m!scar-
riages OF Justice.