forty centuries of ink-第44节

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！



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　admitt