|
115
we consider that it is not obnoxious to the objection on the other side.
It is sufficient to say, that the experience of the witness qualifies him
to testify to this. Papers which have passed under his notice have
given him an opportunity to know, by a long and familiar acquaint-
ance, the party's hand-writing. This witness, therefore, now seems
to us to be competent to give an opinion, that these are in the hand-
writing of the prisoner; and in the use of the term hand-writing, I do
not mean the general hand-writing, but. whether they were done by
his hand. That is to be proved.
Commonly, this question of hand-writing arises in a case of forgery.
But there are other cases where this evidence is introduced -that is,
where parties are sending threatening letters. There, the question
is, whether they were written by him, although not written in what is
understood to be his usual hand-writing. So far from following that
hand-writing, the object is to depart from it. How much further the
Counsel mean to go, we do not know; but at present we think that
these letters may be put into the hand of the witness, for the purpose
of allowing him to say whether they were or were not written by the
defendant.
Mr. Bemis. State whether the °° Civis" letter was, in your opin-
ion, written by Dr: Webster.
Mr. (could. I think it was. There are some circumstances con-
nected with the determination of this question, which may appear
trifling to a person who has not attended to the subject. But yet, I
consider them important.
When any one undertakes to forge a hand, there are only two ways
in which he can do it.
Judge Merrick. Did I understand the Court, that he could do any-
thing more than give his opinion? or is he to state the grounds and
reasons for that opinion, which will involve the whole point in issue?
The Witness has expressed an opinion that this is the hand-writing of
Dr. Webster ; and he suggests that it is a delicate theory by which
he may be enabled to know this. This is somewhat peculiar, and
different from the ordinary testimony.
Mr. Cliford. If you will allow me, I will make one suggestion
more. I suppose that if the witness is introduced here as an expert,
he stands subject to all the rules which the Court may put upon him,
precisely as Air. Tyler, the manufacturer of twine, stood here yester-
day. Then, any foundation by which he reaches that result is obtained,
I suppose, as in all other cases. The delicacy of the theory, as it is
expressed by the learned Counsel, may be a matter of opinion. It
may be, that this delicate theory will be made by the witness so per-
fectly apparent and transparent, as to satisfy every mind that it is
palpable and clear, from the nature of things ; and I suppose that that
is a matter for the Jury to decide, and not to be pre-determined here.
I trust that he may be allowed by the Court to stand here, and give
the reasons and foundation for his opinion.
Chief Justice Shaw. I do not understand that there is any theory
to advance. This opinion is connected with the hand-writing of Dr.
Webster; and it appears that, according to that opinion, this is his
hand-writing. Now, we think that he could point out to the Jutry
what circumstances constitute the grounds of that opinion.
Mr. Bemis. I suppose that it will be competent for Mr. Gould, by
|
