按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
public mind respecting it。
Constant experiment and successful demonstrations；
covering a period of over fifty years； was necessary to
overcome prevailing prejudices and ignorance。
The conditions to…day； which happily obtain； are
that the objection to the introduction of such evidence
finds its source usually in the side seeking to obscure
and hide the truth or facts； while the honest litigant
or innocent individual hastens to advocate its employment。
Another feature worthy of consideration is that
persons who possess intimate knowledge of ink chem。
istry and who might otherwise successfully perpetrate
fraud if opportunity presented itself； refrain from
making the attempt because of that very knowledge；
which is sufficient also to teach them of the possible
exposure of their efforts。 Again； they and others are
aware of the reliance placed on chemico…legal evidence
as an aid to the cause of justice by courts and
juries and this is an added reason why they hesitate
to take chances。 These propositions being true； they
establish another one； viz： that most of the attempted
frauds at the present time in this connection； are by
the ignorant and those whose conceit does not permit
them to believe that any one knows more than themselves。
Chemico…legal ink evidence as before stated has
been employed in the trials of causes for many years；
but it was not until the year 1889 that a precedent
was established for the chemical examination of a
suspected document preceding any trial。 The honor
of this departure from the ordinary modes of procedure
belongs to the Hon。 Rastus S。 Ransom； who was
surrogate of the county of New York at the time。
The matter in controversy was an alleged will executed
in triplicate by one Thomas J。 Monroe。 Charges
were made that the three wills were spurious； as they
were facsimiles of each other。 It was for the main
purpose of determining the methods of their make…up
that Judge Ransom rendered the opinion and made
the order for its chemical examination which is cited
in full：
Estate of Thomas J。 Monroe。〃This is an application
by the special guardian and contestant in
this proceeding； which is now pending before the
assistant； for leave to photograph the various
papers which have been filed as the will of the
deceased； and to compel the filing of two parts of
one of said wills； which was executed in triplicate；
likewise that the last paper be subjected to chemical
tests for the purpose of disclosing the nature of
the composition of the ink and the process or
processes to which it has been subjected。
〃Upon the oral argument the surrogate decided
the applications first stated in favor of the petitioner；
reserving only the question of his power to
direct or permit the chemical tests。 The special
guardian on the oral argument stated that he was
unable； to find any authority for the application。
〃Consultation of the various sources of authority
upon the subject of expert testimony and the
various tests for the purpose of establishing or disproving
handwriting has not resulted in the discovery
of any authority for granting the application。
It is apparent； however； from some of the cases
that such an examination must have been permitted；
for instance； in Fulton v。 Hood （34th
Penn。 State Reports； 365）； expert testimony was
received in corroboration of positive evidence to
prove that the whole of an instrument was written
by the same hand； with the same ink； and at the
same time。 It is inconceivable how testimony of
any value could be given as to the character of
ink with which an instrument was written； unless
it had been subjected to a chemical test。 The
writer of a valuable article in the eighteenth volume
of the American Law Register； page 281 （R。 U。
Piper； an eminent expert of Chicago； Ill。）； in
commenting upon the rule as stated in the case of
Fulton v。 Hood （supra）； very properly says：
〃 'Microscopical and chemical tests may be competent
to settle the question； but these should not
be received as evidence； I think； unless the expert
is able to show to the court and the jury the actual
results of his examination； and also to explain his
methods； so that they can be fully understood。'
〃The writer of this article is also authority for
the statement that in the French Courts every
manipulation or experiment necessary to elucidate
the truth in the case； even to the destruction of the
document in question； is allowed； the Court； as a
matter of precaution； being first supplied with a
certified copy of the same。
〃The most obvious argument to be urged against
allowing a chemical test to be made on a will； and
one that was suggested by the court on the argument
of this motion； is that； inasmuch as the paper
may be the subject of future controversy in this or
some other tribunal； future litigants should not be
prejudiced by any alteration or manipulation of the
instrument。 I do not think； however； that this
objection is sound。 Take an extreme case； of permitting
a sufficient amount of the ink （which the
affidavit of the expert shows to be but infinitesimal）
for the purpose of chemical examination；
the form of the letter would remain upon the paper；
if not； the form and appearance of the entire signature
might； as a preliminary precaution； be preserved
by photography。 The portion of the signature
remaining would afford ample material for
future experiments and investigations in subsequent
proceedings wherein it might be deemed advisable
to take that course。
〃Because the subject matter of the controversy
may be litigated hereafter should not deprive parties
in the proceeding of any rights which they
would otherwise have。 They certainly are entitled
to all rights in this proceeding that the parties to
any future proceedings would have。 Besides； all
the parties whose presence would be necessary to
an adjudication in； for example； an ejectment proceeding；
are （or their privies are） parties here。 It
certainly cannot be that the law； seeking the truth；
will not avail itself of this scientific method of
ascertaining the genuineness of the instrument because
of some problematical effect upon the rights
or opportunities of parties to future litigations
respecting the same instrument。 The possibilities of
litigation over a will are almost infinite； and if such
a rule should obtain this important channel of
investigation would be closed。 Suppose the same
objection were raised to the first action of ejectment
which might be brought； it might then with
the same force be urged that parties to some future
ejectment suit would be prejudiced by a chemical
test of the ink used in the will； and so on ad infinitum。
〃By not availing itself of this method of ascertaining
the truth as to the character of the ink； the
Court deprives itself of a species of evidence which
amounts to practical demonstrat