Part 12 (1/2)
Economy of living, curiously enough, is marked by a spare use of ink.
The terminals are abrupt and blunt, leaving off short. Where economy is the result of circ.u.mstances, not disposition, only some of the words are thus ended, while others have open, free curves and the long letters are looped.
Generosity and liberality may be seen likewise in the end curve of every word. Where these characteristics are inconstant and variable, the disposition will be found to be uncertain--liberal in some matters, while needlessly economical and stingy in others.
When a bar is placed below the signature, it means tenacity of purpose, compared with extreme caution; also a dread of criticism and adverse opinions. No dots to the letter ”i” means negligence and want of attention to details, with but a small faculty of observation. When the dots are placed at random, neither above nor in proximity to the letter to which they belong, impressionability, want of reflection and impulsiveness may be antic.i.p.ated.
Ambition and gratified happiness give to the whole writing an upward tendency, while the rest of the writing is impulsive without much firmness.
Sorrow gives every line of the writing a downward inclination.
Temporary affliction will at once show in the writing. A preoccupied mind, full of trouble, cares little whether the letter then written is legible or not; hence the writing is erratic, uncertain, and the confusion of mind is clearly exhibited in every line. Irritable and touchy persons slope the nourishes only, such as the cross of the letter ”t” and the upper parts of the capital letters. When the capital letters stand alone in front of the words and the final letters also are isolated, it betokens great creative power and ideality, such as would come from an author and clever writer.
The most personal part of a letter or doc.u.ment is, of course, the signature, but alone without any other writing it is not always a safe guide to character. In many instances the line placed below or after a signature tell a great deal more than the actual name. A curved bending line below a signature, ending in a hook, indicates coquetry, love of effect, and ideality. An exaggerated, common-like form of line means caprice, tempered by gravity of thought and versatility of ideas. An unyielding will, fiery, and at the same time determined, draws a firm hooked line after the signature. A wavy line shows great variety in mental power, with originality. Resolution is shown in a plain line, and extreme caution, with full power to calculate effect and reason a subject from every point of view, is shown by two straight dashes with dots, thus --:--
The personality of a writer can never be wholly separated from his works. And in any question of date or authenticity of a doc.u.ment being called in dispute, the value of graphology and its theories will be found of the utmost importance, for the various changes in the style of handwriting, or in the spelling of words, although, perhaps, so minute and gradual as seldom to be remarked, are, nevertheless, links in a chain which it would be extremely hard to forge successfully so as to deceive those acquainted with the matter as well as versed in its peculiarities.
See specimens of handwriting in Appendix with descriptions thereof.
CHAPTER XIX
HANDWRITING EXPERTS AS WITNESSES
Who May Testify As An Expert--Bank Officials and Bank Employees Always Desired--Definition of Expert and Opinion Evidence--Both Witness and Advocate--Witness in Cross Examination--Men Who Have Made the Science of Disputed Handwriting a Study--Objections to Appear in Court--Experts Contradicting Each Other--The Truth or Falsity of Handwriting--Sometimes a Ma.s.s of Doubtful Speculations--Paid Experts and Veracity--Present Method of Dealing with Disputed Handwriting Experts--How the Bench and Bar Regard the System--Remedies Proposed--Should an Expert Be an Adviser of the Court?--Free from Cross-Examination--Opinions of Eminent Judges on Expert Testimony--Experts Who Testify without Experience--What a Bank Cas.h.i.+er or Teller Bases His Opinions on--Actions and Deductions of the Trained Handwriting Expert--Admitting Evidence of Handwriting Experts--Occupation and Theories That Make an Expert--Difference Between an Expert and a Witness--Experts and Test Writing--What Const.i.tutes an Expert in Handwriting--Present Practice Regarding Experts--a.s.suming to Be a Competent Expert--Testing a Witness with Prepared Forged Signatures--Care in Giving Answers--A Writing Teacher as an Expert--Familiarity with Signatures--What a Dash, Blot, or Distortion of a Letter Shows--What a Handwriting Expert Should Confine Himself to--Parts of Writing Which Demand the Closest Attention--American and English Laws on Experts in Handwriting--Examination of Disputed Handwriting.
While the qualification necessary for the permission of a witness to testify in court as an expert is largely discretionary with the judge, such discretion is usually exercised with so great liberality that it is not often that a witness offered as an expert is refused by the court on the ground of deficient qualification. It is usually held that any one possessed of anything more than ordinary opportunity for studying or observing handwriting may give expert testimony, which the jury may receive for what it is deemed to be worth. Bank officials and employees are declared by most courts to be competent witnesses. If on any previous occasion one has given testimony, that fact is usually accepted as a sufficient qualification, or if he has ever seen the person write whose writing is in question, he is deemed competent.
With such limited qualification it is no matter of surprise that expert testimony is sometime made to appear at very great disadvantage. Incompetent and mercenary witnesses will seek employment, and since there are always two sides to a case, and on each side lawyers who spare no efforts for victory, there is a chance for every kind of witness, as there is for every kind of attorney.
Expert evidence is that given by one especially skilled in the subject to which it is applicable, concerning information beyond the range of ordinary observation and intelligence.
Opinion evidence is the conclusions of witnesses concerning certain propositions, drawn from ascertained or supposed facts, by those who have had better opportunities than the ordinary individual or witness to judge of the truth or falsity of such propositions, or who are familiar with the subject under inquiry, and give their conclusions from the facts within their own knowledge concerning certain questions involved.
Let us look at the question as it presents itself to the layman, to men of science and experience, to microscopists, to bank officials and others having much to do with writing. An expert in handwriting occupies a totally anomalous position when called before a court as a witness. Technically he is both a witness and an advocate, sharing the responsibilities of both but without the privileges of the latter. He has to instruct counsel and to prompt him during its course. But in cross examination he is more open to insult because the court does not see clearly how he arrives at his conclusions, and suspects whatever it does not understand. Nearly every person who has had to appear in court as an expert has been subjected to more or less humiliation by the judge.
It may be, perhaps, cynically hinted that men who have made the science of disputed handwriting a study should be willing to bear all kinds of arrogance for the public good. In the first place, many thoroughly competent experts in any department of science distinctly and peremptorily refuse to be mixed up in any affair which may expose them to cross examination. Many experts will investigate a matter, give a report of their conclusions, but absolutely refuse to appear in court.
Another not very edifying spectacle is that of paid handwriting experts standing in court and contradicting each other, or pretending to contradict in the interests of their respective clients, is not exactly right. These men would change places and reverse positions and arguments if necessary. Men of the world are tempted to say that ”Science can lay but little claim to certainty in demonstrating the truth or falsity of handwriting and the whole procedure is more a ma.s.s of doubtful speculations than a body of demonstrable truths.” But it must be remembered that a professional expert must be paid for his services, and always tell the truth as it appears to him.
It is clearly seen that our present method of dealing with experts regarding disputed handwriting is found to be on all sides not just exactly satisfactory. Oftentimes the public is skeptical and many honest and thorough experts are scandalized. The bench and bar share this feeling but unfortunately are disposed to blame the individual rather than the system.
There is no question but what this unanimity of dissatisfaction will vanish as soon as a remedy is seriously proposed. To that, however, we must come unless we are willing to dispense with expert evidence altogether.
It is contended by many that an expert should be the adviser of the court, not acting in the interest of either party in a lawsuit. Above all things an expert ought to be exempt from cross-examination. His evidence, or rather his conclusions, should be given in writing and accepted just as the decisions of the bench on points of law.
Opinions of eminent judges have differed widely respecting the reliance to be placed upon testimony founded upon expert comparisons of handwriting, but it should be remembered that those opinions have been no more varied than has been the character and qualifications of the experts by whose testimony they have been called forth.
It is too true that very frequently persons have been allowed to give testimony as experts who were utterly without experience in any calling that tends to bestow the proper qualifications for giving expert testimony.
The constant professional observation of handwriting in any line of financial or commercial business tends to confer expert skill. It should be said here, however, that the average bank cas.h.i.+er or teller bases his opinions and his identifications generally upon the pictorial effect without recourse to those minuter and more delicate points upon which the skilled expert rightly places the greatest reliance. Such testimony can not be compared for accuracy or value with that of the scientific investigator of handwriting. It follows, then, that one who is endowed with more than ordinary acuteness of observation, and has had an experience so varied and extensive as to cover most of these lines, is likely to be best fitted for critical and reliable expert work.