forty centuries of ink-第47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！



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。　。　。　。〃







CHAPTER　XXIV。



CHEMICO…LEGAL　INK　（CONTINUED）。



FAMOUS　CASE　OF　CRITTEN　V。　CHEMICAL　NATIONAL

BANKSTORY　OF　THE　CASE　INCLUDED　IN　THE

OPINION　OF　THE　COURT　OF　APPEALS　AS　WRITTEN　BY

JUSTICE　EDGAR　M。　CULLENTHE　PINKERTON　CASE　OF

〃BECKER〃STORY　OF　HOW　HE　SECURED　20；000

THROUGH　THE　ALTERATION　OF　A　12　CHECKBECKER'S

COMMENTS　ABOUT　HIMSELFA　CRITICISM　OF

BECKER　AND　HIS　WORKNAMES　OF　SOME　CASES

IN　WHICH　CHEMICAL　EVIDENCE　WAS　PRESENTED　TO

COURTS　AND　JURIES。



THE　books　contain　no　clearer　or　more　forcible　exposition

of　〃Chemico…legal〃　ink；　in　its　relationship　to

facts　adduced　from　illustrated　scientific　testimony；　than

is　to　be　found　in　the　final　opinion　written　by　that

eminent　jurist　Hon。　Edgar　M。　Cullen　on　behalf　of　the

majority　of　the　Court　of　Appeals　of　the　State　of　New

York；　in　the　case　of　De　Frees　Critten　v。　The　Chemical

National　Bank。　It　was　the　author's　privilege　to　be　the

expert　employed　in　the　lower　court　about　whose　testimony

Judge　Cullen　remarks　（N。　Y。　Rep。；　171；　p。　223）

〃The　alteration　of　the　checks　by　Davis　was　established

beyond　contradiction；〃　and　again；　p。　227；　〃The　skill

of　the　criminal　has　kept　pace　with　the　advance　in

honest　arts　and　a　forgery　may　be　made　so　skillfully

as　to　deceive　not　only　the　bank　but　the　drawer　of　the

check　as　to　the　genuineness　of　his　own　signature。〃

The　main　facts　are　included　in　the　portion　of　the

opinion　cited：



〃The　plaintiffs　kept　a　large　and　active　account

with　the　defendant；　and　this　action　is　to　recover　an

alleged　balance　of　a　deposit　due　to　them　from　the

bank。　The　plaintiffs　had　in　their　employ　a　clerk

named　Davis。　It　was　the　duty　of　Davis　to　fill　up

the　checks　which　it　might　be　necessary　for　the

plaintiffs　to　give　in　the　course　of　business；　to　make

corresponding　entries　in　the　stubs　of　the　check　book

and　present　the　checks　so　prepared　to　Mr。　Critten；

one　of　the　plaintiffs；　for　signature；　together　with

the　bills　in　payment　of　which　they　were　drawn。

After　signing　a　check　Critten　would　place　it　and

the　bill　in　an　envelope　addressed　to　the　proper

party；　seal　the　envelope　and　put　it　in　the　mailing

drawer。　During　the　period　from　September；　1897；

to　October；　1899；　in　twenty…four　separate　instances

Davis　abstracted　one　of　the　envelopes　from　the

mailing　drawer；　opened　it；　obliterated　by　acids　the

name　of　the　payee　and　the　amount　specified　in　the

check；　then　made　the　check　payable　to　cash　and

raised　its　amount；　in　the　majority　of　cases；　by　the

sum　of　100。　He　would　draw　the　money　on　the

check　so　altered　from　the　defendant　bank；　pay　the

bill　for　which　the　check　was　drawn　in　cash　and

appropriate　the　excess。　On　one　occasion　Davis

did　not　collect　the　altered　check　from　the　defendant；

but　deposited　it　to　his　own　credit　in　another

bank。　When　a　check　was　presented　to　Critten　for

signature　the　number　of　dollars　for　which　it　was

drawn　would　be　cut　in　the　check　by　a　punching　instrument。

When　Davis　altered　a　check　he　would

punch　a　new　figure　in　front　of　those　already　appearing

in　the　check。　The　checks　so　altered　by

Davis　were　charged　to　the　account　of　the　plaintiff　s；

which　was　balanced　every　two　months　and　the

vouchers　returned　to　them　from　the　bank。　To

Davis　himself　the　plaintiffs；　as　a　rule；　intrusted　the

verification　of　the　bank　balance。　This　work　having

in　the　absence　of　Davis　been　committed　to　another

person；　the　forgeries　were　discovered　and　Davis

was　arrested　and　punished。　It　is　the　amount　of

these　forged　checks；　over　and　above　the　sums　for

which　they　were　originally　drawn；　that　this　action

is　brought　to　recover。　The　defendant　pleaded

payment　and　charged　negligence　on　plaintiff's　part；

both　in　the　manner　in　which　the　checks　were

drawn　and　in　the　failure　to　discover　the　forgeries

when　the　pass　book　was　balanced　and　the　vouchers

surrendered。　On　the　trial　the　alteration　of　the

checks　by　Davis　was　established　beyond　contradiction

and　the　substantial　issue　litigated　was　that

of　the　plaintiff's　negligence。　The　referee　rendered

a　short　decision　in　favor　of　the　plaintiffs　in　which

he　states　as　the　ground　of　his　decision　that　the

plaintiffs　were　not　negligent　either　in　signing　the

checks　as　drawn　by　Davis　or　in　failing　to　discover

the　forgeries　at　an　earlier　date　than　that　at　which

the