|
TRIAL OF JOHN W. WEBSTER. 12'7
proof, which it was proposed to adduce, to show that. the letters just
shown to Marshal Tukey, were written by the prisoner: and it being
now twenty minutes to seven o'clock, P. M., the Court adjourned to
nine, A. M., to-morrow, (Wednesday,) morning.
EIGHTH DAY.-Wednesday, March 27th.
The Court did not come in, this morning, till nearly ten o'clock.
Nathaniel D. Gould, sworn,-examined by Mr. Bemis. I am a resi-
dent of this city; have been so, for many years. I know the prisoner,
and have known him for a long time, by sight; but I have had no per-
sonal acquaintance with him.
I have never seen him write, but have seen, what I suppose to be,
his handwriting. I am familiar with his signature. I have seen it
appended to the diplomas, given by the Medical College, for twenty
years, in connection with those of the other medical professors. I have
had occasion to take notice of it, there, from having been employed as a
penman, to fill out those diplomas for the College.
I have paid particular attention to the subject of Penmanship, having
practiced it in every way, and instructed in it,-for some fifty years.
I have also published; on the subject.
Mr. Bemis, to the Witness.-Please look at the three letters, before
you, [the same produced by Mr. Tukey,] and state, if you can, in whose
handwriting they are; or, by whom, in your opinion, they were writ-
ten ?
Mr. Sohier.-We object to this proof. No proper foundation has yet
been laid by the Government, for the statement of the witness's opinion.
The witness has never seen the prisoner write, nor heard him admit
any writing, to be his.
Chief Justice.-He has had occasion, officially, to know his hand-
writing, for many years.
Mr. Sohier.-This kind of evidence, if admissible at all, belongs to
a class of evidence exceedingly liable to error; and we do not intend
to take the responsibility of permitting it to be introduced without
interposing an objection. We suppose that it is offered, on the ground
of the decision in the case of Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490. We do
not mean to object to the authority of that decision, but trust that the
Court will not go beyond it.
That case, as we understand it, sustains three propositions. First
that genuine handwriting may be laid before the jury, for the purpose of
comparison with that alleged to be by the same person. Secondly, that
an expert may determine, and testify, from knowledge gained by com-
paring such specimens whether the handwriting, in question, is genuine
or not; and Thirdly, that an expert may be permitted to give an opinion,
whether the imitation of another's handwriting, is in a disguised, or
simulated hand.
This case does not come under either of these propositions. The
Government do not now propose to prove, that, these letters are in the
handwriting of the prisoner; but that, though he wrote them, they are
not in his (ordinary) handwriting; and they call an expert, with a
view, doubtless, of instituting a comparison between the writings now
in the case, or which may hereafter be put in, in order to enable him
to form an opinion upon that point.
Attorney General.-I think that the learned counsel misapprehends
the ground upon which we offer this evidence. We do propose, strictly,
|
