HANDWRITING. Under PALAEOGRAPHY and WRITING, the history of handwriting is dealt with. Questions of handwrit ing come before legal tribunals mainly in connection with the law of evidence. Proof by comparison of handwritings, with a reference if necessary to three experts as to the handwriting which is to be used for the purposes of comparison, is provided for in the French Code of Civil Procedure (arts. 193 et seq.) ; and in Quebec (Code Proc. Civ. arts. 392 et seq.) and St. Lucia (Code Civ. Proc. arts. 286 et seq.), the French system has been adopted with modifications. Comparison by witnesses of disputed writ ings with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine is accepted in England and Ireland in all legal pro ceedings whether criminal or civil, including proceedings before arbitrators (Denman Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, 55, I, 8) ; and such writings and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuine ness or otherwise of the writing in dispute. It is admitted in Scotland (where the term comparatio literarum is in use) and in most of the American States, subject to the same conditions. In England, as in the United States, and in most legal systems, the primary and best evidence of handwriting is that of the writer himself. Witnesses who saw him write the writing in question, or who are familiar with his handwriting either from having seen him write or from having corresponded with him, or otherwise, may be called. In cases of disputed handwriting the court will accept the evidence of experts in handwriting; i.e., persons who have an adequate knowledge of handwriting, whether acquired in the way of their business or not, such as solicitors or bank cashiers (R. v. Silverlock, 1894, 2 Q.B. 766). In such cases the witness is required to compare the admitted handwriting of the person whose writing is in question with the disputed document, and to state in detail the similarities or differences as to the for mation of words and letters, on which he bases his opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed document. By the use of the magnifying glass, or, as in the Parnell case, by en larged photographs of the letters alleged to have been written by Parnell, the court and jury are much assisted to appreciate the grounds on which the conclusions of the expert are founded. Evidence of this kind, being based on opinion and theory, needs to be very carefully weighed, and the dangers of implicit reliance on it have been illustrated in many cases (e.g., the Beck case in 1904; and see Seaman v. Netherclift, 1876, I C.P.D. 540). Evi dence by comparison of handwriting comes in principally either in default, or in corroboration, of the other modes of proof. It has been held in England that in a criminal case where a question of handwriting is raised, the jury should have the assistance of expert evidence (R. v. Rickard, 1918, 26 Cox C.C. 318).
See also as to attestation of documents, BILL OF SALE; EvI