CHEMICO-LEGAL INK.
ESTIMATED VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AS HELD BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS--NOW BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF
CRITICISM--VERDICTS IN THE TRIALS OF CAUSES AFFECTED
BY SUCH EVIDENCE--LENGTH OF TIME NECESSARY
TO OVERCOME PREJUDICE AND IGNORANCE--
WHERE OBJECTIONS TO SUCH EVIDENCE EMANATE--
SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SUCH EVIDENCE GENERALLY--
WHEN PRECEDENT WAS MADE TO CHEMICALLY
EXAMINE A COURT EXHIBIT BEFORE TRIAL--THE
CONTROVERSY IN WHICH JUDGE RANSOM MADE THIS NEW
DEPARTURE--CITATION OF THE CASE AND ITS OUTCOME--
DECISION IN THE GORDON WILL CASE OBTAINED
BY THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--COMPLETE STORY
ABOUT IT--HISTORY OF THE DIMON WILL CASE AND
HOW CHEMISTRY MADE IT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER
IT--OPINION OF JUDGE INGRAHAM--PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK V. CODY--THE ATTEMPT TO PROVE
AN ALLEGED "GOULD" BIRTH CERTIFICATE GENUINE,
FRUSTRATED BY CHEMICAL EVIDENCE--THE DEFENDANT
CONVICTED--THE PEOPLE V. KELLAM--CHEMICAL
EVIDENCE MAKES THE TRUTH KNOWN--THE HOLT
WILL CASE AND THE EVIDENCE WHICH AFFECTED ITS
RESULT--THE TIGHE WILL CASE--OPINION OF JUDGE
FITZGERALD.
"The administration of justice profits by the
progress of science, and its history shows it to
have been almost the earliest in antagonism to
popular delusion and superstition. The revelations
of the microscope are constantly resorted to in
protection of individual and public interests. . . .
If they are relied upon as agencies for accurate
mathematical results in mensuration and astronomy,
there is no reason why they should be deemed
unreliable in matters of evidence. Wherever what
they disclose can aid or elucidate the just determination
of legal controversies there can be no well-
founded objection to resorting to them." Frank
v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 37 Superior Court (J. &
S.) 34, affirmed in Court of Appeals, 84 N. Y.
209.
THIS decision by a final court of adjudicature, expresses
in no uncertain terms the now generally estimated
value of evidence which science may reveal.
The importance which that branch of it denominated
"Chemico-legal ink" has attained and its utilization
in many trials of causes both civil as well as criminal,
places it beyond the purview of criticism or objection.
With the introduction of a new class of inks in the
last two decades, its scope has been much broadened.
Innumerable verdicts by juries wherever the system
prevails, all over the world, the opinions of learned
judges, whether presiding during a jury trial or sitting
alone, more or less affected by this character of evidence,
presents fairly the trend of the views of the
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 demonstration.
"I can see no reason why the application should
not be granted."
The order in part reads:
"It is ordered and directed that Charles H.
Beckett, the special guardian aforesaid, be and he
hereby is allowed permission to photograph the
aforesaid paper writings described in said order to
show cause, viz., one of the two parts of a triplicate
Will of Thomas J. Monroe, deceased, dated
February 10th, 1873, which were filed in the office
of the Surrogate of the City and County of New
York on or about the 9th day of May, 1889, and
also the contested Will herein dated March 27th
and June 1st, 1888, and to have the said paper
writing, bearing date March 22d and June 1st,
1888, subjected to such chemical test or tests as
shall disclose the nature of the composition of the
ink and, if possible, the process or processes to
which it has been subjected, if any.
"And it is further ordered and directed that
such chemical test be applied to the ink or writing
fluid on said alleged Will to the following specified
portion, or any part of such portions, viz."
Specifications in minute detail follow, calling attention
to the words and spaces which are permitted to
be chemically tested, and then continues:
"And it is further ordered and directed that the
said paper writings shall be photographed before
any chemical tests are applied thereto.
"And it is further ordered and directed that
such photographing and chemical tests be performed
by David N. Carvalho, Esq., a proper and
suitable person, at the places above indicated
respectively, between the 10th and the 20th days of
June, 1889, inclusive, in the presence of the parties
in interest or their attorneys, upon at least two
days' notice to all parties herein or their attorneys.
"And it is further ordered and directed that in
the event of destruction or breaking of the negatives
after such paper writings have been photographed,
the said special guardian, upon similar
notice, shall have leave to re-photograph the said
paper writings, at the same place and by the said
David N. Carvalho, between the 10th and 20th
days of June, 1889, inclusive.
"(Signed) RASTUS S. RANSOM,
"Surrogate."
On the 19th of June, 1889, pursuant to the order of
the court, the alleged will referred to was first photographed,
and later in that day such places as had
been designated in the order were chemically treated,
as part of a series of experiments. The results obtained
briefly summarized were as, follows: The instrument
which purported to be a holographic will of
Thomas J. Monroe the experiments showed conclusively
to be not the case, as neither pen nor ink in
the body writing portion or in the decedent's signature
had ever touched the paper; the date and names
of the witnesses thereon were written, however, with
pen and ink. Furthermore, the experiments demonstrated
beyond question that exclusive of its date and
names of witnesses, that it was what is commonly
known as a transfer taken from a gelatine pad (hektograph),
a method of duplicating popularly in vogue
at that time. The deduced facts in the matter being
that Thomas J. Monroe had written his will in an
aniline purple ink, to which he had appended his name,
leaving blank spaces to be filled in for the date, names
of witnesses, etc., and had transferred the same to a
hektograph, from which he had taken a number of
duplicate facsimile copies, and at some other time had
filled in the blank spaces by ordinary methods and to
which, at his request, the names of the witnesses had
been written with a pen and ink. In the trial which
followed the surrogate declined to sustain the allegation
of the proponents that the alleged signature was
the original writing of Thomas J. Monroe, or indeed
of any person. The will was not admitted to probate.
Experiments, both in open court or during its sessions
in the testing of ink and paper, microscopically
and chemically, are of frequent occurrence, and many
contests involving enormous interests have been more
or less decided as the result of them.
The contest of the alleged will of George P. Gordon,
tried before the late Chancellor McGill of New
Jersey in 1891, illustrates in a remarkable degree just
how certain are the results of investigations of this
character. The chancellor's decision, after listening
to testimony for many weeks, was in effect to declare
the will a forgery, largely because of the fact that the
premise on which it rested was a so-called draft, from
which it was sworn it had been copied. The ink on
this draft it was proved could not have had an existence.
until many years after the date of the forged will.
The decedent, who died in 1878, was the inventor
of a famous printing press, and left a large fortune.
A will offered for probate soon after the death of
Gordon was not probated, owing to the discovery that
the witnesses had not signed it in each other's presence.
The principal beneficiaries, however, under
that will, the widow and daughter of Gordon, agreed
to a division of the estate which was satisfactory to
the other heirs at law, and the matter apparently was
settled.
But a retired lawyer named Henry C. Adams began
in 1879, a year after Gordon's death, to endeavor to
obtain the assistance of some heirs at law in an enterprise
which was finally ended only when Chancellor
McGill's decision was rendered.
In 1868 Adams lived with his father and brothers
on a farm, near Rahway, N. J., adjoining the Gordon
place. The two men became well acquainted through
their common interest in music. Adams called upon
A. Sidney Doane, a nephew of Gordon, and told him
that Gordon had made a will in 1868 which might be
found or if lost, established by means of a draft of it
which he (Adams) had retained. Mr. Doane refused
to act upon this proposition. Then Adams presented
the matter to Guthbert O. Gordon, a brother to
George P. Gordon. He declined to consider the proposed
search for a new will. Adams then wrote to
Guthbert Gordon, Jr., cautioning him to say nothing
to any one, but to come and see him. Guthbert Gordon,
Jr., declined to accept Adams's invitation for a
secret conference. Adams did not write or communicate
with the widow or daughter of George P. Gordon,
or with any of the officials or other persons who dealt
with the estate. Finding that the heirs at law were
satisfied with the arrangement of the estate under
Gordon's daughter's management, he gave up his efforts
at that time.
In 1890 Mary Agnes Gordon, the daughter, died in
Paris, and remittances from her ceasing and her will
not being satisfactory to those who had been receiving
them from her, another contest was begun. This
caused a renewal of Adams's activity. In 1890 he
wrote to Messrs. Black & King, a firm of lawyers who
represented the contestants of Mary Agnes Gordon's
will. Adams's letter to the law firm contained this
expression:
"If one of you will come over here on Sunday
morning, bringing no brass band, fife or drums, I
will tell you something worth knowing."
Mr. King visited Adams, who was then living at
Orange, N. J., and was told by him that Mr. Gordon
had executed a will in 1868 which he (Adams) had
drawn at Gordon's instance, and that he had retained
a corrected draft from which the will itself had been
copied. He also told King that the original will after
its execution had been left with his father, and that
it must be at his father's homestead near Rahway,
where he would try to find it. A few days later he
wrote to Black & King that the will had been found,
and the next day went with the lawyers to Rahway
and identified the package found by his brother Edward
Adams, who occupied the Rahway farm, as that
which contained the will. The package, unopened,
was taken to a safe deposit company and the original
draft was deposited with the secretary of state. The
alleged will, which Chancellor McGill pronounced a
forgery when finally opened in the preliminary probate
proceedings, was found to be a very long and
complicated document, written on blue paper in black
ink. The draft, which was on white paper, was also
written in the main in black ink, but a copious quantity
of red ink had been used in interlineations. The
significant paragraph of the new will was a direction
to his heirs to purchase, if the testator had not succeeded
in doing so before his death, the Henry Adams
farm for $32,000. Minute directions were given to insure
the purchase, but no lower price than $32,000
was mentioned. Commenting upon this Chancellor
McGill's remarks:
"It is also to be here noted that the Adams farm
is now scarcely worth one-third the price for which
it is directed to be purchased."
Continuing the court says:
"The only living person who professes to have
had knowledge of this disputed paper prior to
November, 1890, is Henry C. Adams. He most
clearly and positively testified that he drew the
disputed paper at the instance of Mr. Gordon. He
produced a draft from which he said it was
copied. . . . I have already stated that Mr. Adams
testified most positively when the draft of the disputed
paper was offered in evidence that it was the
identical document from which the will of 1868 had
been copied, and it is to be remembered that the
interlineations in that draft are almost all made
with red ink, and that Mr. Adams testified that
those interlineations existed when the will was
copied from the draft. With a view to testing the
truth of this testimony the contestants submitted
the draft to scientific experts, who pronounced the
red ink to be a product of eosine, a substance
invented by a German chemist named Caro in the
year 1874, and after that time imported to this
country. At first it was sold for $125 a pound,
and was so expensive it could not be used commercially
in the manufacture of ink. Afterwards the
price was so greatly reduced that it became generally
used in making red ink. It is distinguished
by a peculiar bronze cast that is readily detected.
It was recognized in the red ink interlineations in
the draft of the disputed paper produced by Mr.
Adams by a number of scientific gentlemen, among
whom were some of the best known ink manufacturers
in the country, and Mr. Carl Pickhardt, who
first imported eosine. Upon further examination
the witness, Adams, said he thought the draft
produced to be the original until he saw the will on
blue paper, and that then he was perplexed, but
dismissed his doubt upon the suggestion of counsel,
but afterward he thought upon the subject 'in
the vigils of the night,' but by an unfortunate
coincidence did not reach substantial doubt enough
to correct his previous testimony until after the
testimony concerning the character of the red ink
he had used in interlining had been produced. . . .
It is impossible to study this remarkable case at
this point without grave doubts as to the truthfulness
of Mr. Adams, and indeed as to the frankness
with which the case was produced in court in
behalf of the proponents."
As to Adams as a witness, the court finally says:
"And as I read the confused answers of Mr.
Adams and note his apparent misapprehension of
questions that would tend to involve him, and note
the apparent failure of his theretofore wonderfully
clear and exact memory of the most trivial and unimportant
details, I am inclined to reject the whole
story as a fabrication that has been punctured and
fallen to pieces. . . . I find it to be impossible to
rely upon the testimony of Henry C. Adams. Excluding
it the will is not proved. . . .
"I will deny probate, revoking that which I
have heretofore granted in common form."
* * * * * * *
In the attempt made to prove the alleged last will
and testament of Stephen C. Dimon, deceased, chemistry
was the all-determining factor in the most important
branch of the case. The peculiar features of
this remarkable and unique case are best described
by presenting them with a brief history of the entire
matter.
In 1884 Stephen C. Dimon of the city of New
York made and executed a will, choosing as legatee
and executrix a Mrs. Martha Keery. The will he
intrusted to the custody of his counsel. It appeared.
that some time during the following year his attorney
transferred this will from its resting place in a desk
drawer to a new safe and recalled having seen its envelope
a year later, but said he never saw the will
thereafter.
In 1893 Mr. Dimon died. No will being produced,
his brother took, out letters of administration. Whereupon
Mrs. Martha Keery commenced a suit against
the brother and the next of kin he represented, in
an effort to obtain the dead man's estate. She based
her claim solely on the LOST will, the contents of which
were recalled in the trial by Mr. Dimon's former
counsel, who was also one of the witnesses to the lost
will. During the course of the trial in the Supreme
Court, presided over by Justice George L. Ingraham,
Mrs. Keery's attorney produced a mutilated document
which from its reading indicated that it had once
been a will, though not the "lost" one. But the
names of the legatee, executrix, testator, names of
witnesses and their addresses were completely obliterated.
The written portions still undisturbed showed
it to be in the handwriting of Stephen C. Dimon.
Mrs. Keery's story was that after the death of Mr.
Dimon in going over an old coat formerly worn by
him, she had found it in a side pocket and had given
it to her counsel just as it came into her hands.
Its condition showed it to be considerably pocket-
worn. The obliterations referred to represented huge
blots of black ink covering a lot of scratches and
making it impossible to decipher the under writing.
Defendant's Counsel immediately requested that the
document be turned over to an expert, to see what
could be done with it. The judge granted the motion
and adjourned the case for several days to await
results.
Counsel on both sides joined in the selection of
myself. Three days were occupied in its decipherment.
The will occupied two sides of a full sheet of
legal cap. The original ink which was employed in
the writing of the will was of pale gray color. The
first obliterations were a series of pen and ink
scratches and marks which destroyed the writing.
Not satisfied with them the operator had with a saturated
piece of blotting paper, brushed over the
scratches and as that ink was of good quality every
mark of writing had disappeared in the jumble and
blots. It so happened that three inks had been employed.
The original ink, the ink used for scratching
and the one employed to do the blotting. The three
inks were happily mixtures containing different constituents,
and so by utilizing the reagent of one which
did not affect the other, gradually the encrusted upper
inks were removed and later the original writing appeared
sufficiently plain not only to be read but to
identify it. Photographs made before and after the
chemical experiments, permitted court and counsel to
make their own comparisons during the giving of the
testimony about it.
It permitted also the finding of the two witnesses who
lived outside of the city and to learn many details
from them as to Mr. Dimon's conduct in the matter.
The restored will showed that Mrs. Keery at its
date (1891) was still in his mind, and its destruction
by himself--that he had changed his mind.
Justice Ingraham completes his opinion in deciding
the case as follows:
"In this case, however, the long time that
elapsed between the time of the delivery of the
will to Mr. Morgan and the death of the testator,
the absence of my satisfactory proof of the existence
of the will from the time it was delivered to
Mr. Morgan to the time of the testator's death,
and the fact that the testator made another will,
making substantially the same disposition of the
property, which he subsequently destroyed, all
tend to cast a doubt upon the fact that the will
was in existence at the time of the testator's death,
and there is positively no evidence that it was ever
fraudulently destroyed.
"I do not think the court is justified in diverting
a large sum of money from those legally entitled
to it, by allowing, a lost will to be proved, except
upon the clearest and most satisfactory evidence
of the existence of the will at the time of the testator's
death. And the testimony in this case falls
short of what I consider necessary to establish
such a will.
"There should be, therefore, judgment for the defendants
with costs."
* * * * * * *
A case of considerable interest was tried before
Hon. Clifford D. Gregory in the month of March, 1899,
in the city of Albany, New York. It was entitled
the "People of the State of New York against Margaret
E. Cody," as charged with the crime of blackmail,
in the sending of a letter to Mr. George J.
Gould, in which she threatened to divulge certain
information which she claimed to possess about his
dead father, Jay Gould. The character of this
information was such that if true it meant that Jay
Gould and his wife had lived in bigamous relations
during a great number of years preceding their death
and hence also affected the legitimacy of the entire
Gould family. Mrs. Cody asserted that Jay Gould
was married to a Mrs. Angel some time in 1853, and
that as a result of that "lawful" marriage she gave
birth to a daughter, a Mrs. Pierce, who was still alive
and living somewhere in the west. As Mrs. Cody
offered to sell or secrete the information which she
said she possessed for a consideration, Mr. George J.
Gould and his sister, Miss Helen Gould, instantly
determined that it could be nothing else than a clear
case of an attempt at blackmail, which falsely impugned
the reputations of their dead parents. They
instituted criminal proceedings against Mrs. Cody,
charging that Mrs. Cody when she wrote the letter
well knew that her claim that his father had been
married to Mrs. Angel and that Mrs. Pierce was their
daughter, was absolutely false. Two trials followed,
the first in 1898 in which the jury disagreed, and a
second one in 1899 which lasted over a week. It
was in the second trial that chemical tests on a certain
entry in a church record in the presence of the
jury were made, which showed conclusively that
ancient writing of another character than that which
had been substituted was still existent beneath the
writing which was apparent to the naked eye.
The following are excerpts of the judge's charge
to the jury:
"I wish to invite your attention, for a few moments,
to the baptismal certificate. You have had
produced here before you the original baptismal
record of the church at Cooperville. It has been
substantially admitted, in the arguments of this
case, that there has been a change made in this
certificate. I do not think that the District Attorney
claims that there is any evidence that Mrs.
Cody herself changed this record; there is no
claim, as I understand it, made by the prosecuting
officer that she went there and obtained this book,
and with her own hand changed this record; but
he asks you to infer and find from the evidence
that has been given, that she was a party to this
change, that she was privy to this change, and that
knowing that fact she had guilty knowledge when
she wrote the letter upon which the indictment is
based.
"You will remember that Mr. Carvalho, the
expert in handwriting, was placed upon the stand;
and he has testified in your presence as to his
qualifications in determining disputed handwritings,
and what his experience has been during a long
series of years. He tells you that he has examined
this record, and that there is no question but some
of the words have been erased and others substituted
in their places. He tells you that the words
'Jay Goulds' were not the original words in the
certificate, or if they were, the present 'Jay
Goulds,' as they appear in the certificate, have
been forged; that the words 'Mary S. Brown,'
the 'sex mois,' the French words for six months,
and other changes which he has described to you
are forgeries.
"I shall submit to you, as a question of fact,
whether or not Mrs. Cody had any knowledge or
took any part, or authorized or connived at any of
the changes made in this certificate. I do not
say that she did; I leave it to you to say, from
the evidence in this case, whether your minds are
convinced that she had any part or parcel, or
undertook in any way to accomplish the changes
which have been made in this baptismal record.
And if you find as matter of fact that she had
such knowledge at the time this letter was written;
if you find as matter of fact she had this information
given to her by Mrs. Angel, then I leave it
to you to say whether she had such knowledge,
such guilty knowledge, as should prevent her, if acting
honestly, from writing a letter such as has been
described here and contained in the indictment."
The jury brought in a verdict of guilty.
In the trial of the People v. David L. Kellam (1895),
who was charged with altering the dates of three
notes for $6,000 each, the contention of the prosecution
was that the dates of the notes had been changed
by chemicals, and with the consent of the defense a
reagent was applied to the suspected places and the
original dates restored. The verdict of the jury was
guilty.
In the Holt Will case, tried in Washington, D. C.,
in the month of June, 1896, great stress was laid on
the fact of the difference in the admixture of inks
found on letters contemporaneous with the date of
the will, and it was asserted also that the ink with
which the will was written was not in existence at
the time it was alleged to have been made, June 14,
1873, and probably not earlier than ten years later.
Furthermore, that it was a habit of Judge Holt up to
the time of his death, which habit was illustrated in
his writings and correspondence to "sand" his writing.
The jury decided the will was a forgery.
Another famous case in which the scientific testimony
about ink and pencil writing must have assisted
the court in arriving at a conclusion was in the trial
of the famous Tighe will contest, tried before Hon.
Frank T. Fitzgerald, one of the present surrogates of
the county of New York. The story of this case is
incorporated in the opinion which is cited in part:
"Hon. Frank T. Fitzgerald, Surrogate of the
county of New York:
"That Richard Tighe died on the 6th day of
May, 1896, at No. 32 Union Square, in the city
and county of New York, where he had lived for
fifty years prior to his death, and was at the time
of his death over ninety years.
"That the testator, on or about the 27th day of
March, 1884, in the presence of the attesting witnesses,
duly signed the instrument in writing, and
duly published and declared the same to be his last
will and testament, and requested said witnesses
to witness the same, and pursuant to such request
said attesting witnesses did subscribe said will as
attesting witnesses. That at the time said Richard
Tighe so signed, published and declared the said
instrument to be his last will and testament, the
said Richard Tighe was in all respects competent
to execute the same, and was not under any restraint
or undue influence. That the said instrument,
so signed, published and declared by
testator was and consisted of the identical sheets
of paper and the identical writing now appearing
upon the same as to all except pencil writing; the
testator did not publish or declare the marks, words
or figures written in or upon said instrument in
pencil to be a part of his last will and testament,
and it is not found that such marks, words or figures
were upon said instrument at the time when
said instrument was so published and declared to
be the last will and testament of the testator.
That the said last will and testament is written
consecutively upon two sheets of legal cap paper.
"That the said last will and testament was originally
prepared with blank spaces left for the
insertion of the numbers of shares intended to be
bequeathed and devised to the various beneficiaries
named therein, and as so prepared was in the
hand-writing of Caroline S. Tighe, the wife of testator,
and that at some subsequent time and before
the execution of the said instrument by the said
Richard Tighe, the blank spaces hereinafter referred
to as filled in in ink, were filled in by or under the
direction of the testator. Upon said instrument
as offered for probate there appears in the blanks
originally left thereon, in some instances, pencil
writings superimposed over other pencil writings,
which have been either wholly or partially erased,
and in other instances ink writing different from
the body of the instrument in the material employed,
appearing over pencil writings wholly or
partially obliterated. . .
"That the said words written in ink filling such
blanks as aforesaid expressed the final determination
of the testator with regard to the beneficiaries
to whom the same applied; and that the words
and figures written in pencil filling such blanks as
aforesaid were written only deliberately and tentatively
and that as to those words and figures the
testator had not at the time when he executed,
published or declared said instrument to be his
last will and testament determined as to whom or
in what proportions he would give the several
shares of his estate and property covered by said
words and figures, but the testator attempted
and intended to reserve to himself the power of
making disposition of said shares thereafter, and
intended the final disposition thereof to be in ink
writing. . . ."