ING. A Mode of deducing evidence of the authenticity of a written instrument, by show ing the likeness of the handwriting to that of another instrument proved to be that of the party whom it is sought to establish as the author of the instrument in question. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. 578.
2. At common law, as a general rule, this manner of obtaining evidence was not allowed. Exceptions existed, however: first, where the writings were of such antiquity that living witnesses could not be procured, but were not old enough to prove themselves, 7 East, 282 ; 14 id. 328 ; Ry. & M. 143 ; 8 Wend. N. Y. 426; second, where other writings admitted to be genuine were already in the case. 1 Crompt. & J. Exch. 47; 1 Mood. & R. 133 ; 5 Ad. & E. 514; 7 Carr. & P. 548, 595; 2 Me. 33.
3. The rule on the subject of admitting documents irrelevant to the matter in issue for the purpose of instituting a comparison of handwriting is not settled uniformly. In England, such documents are not admissible. 5 Ad. & E. 514, 703 ; 11 id. 322 ; 7 Carr. &
P. 548, 595; 8 Mee& & W. Exch. 123 ; 10 Clark & F. Hou. L. 193 ; 2 Mood. & R. 536. This rule is adopted in New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. 9 Cow. 94, 112 ; 1 Dev. N. Y. 343 ; 1 Hawks, No. C. 6; 1 Ired. No. C. 16; 2 R. I. 319; 1 Leigh, Va. 216. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine, any documents are admissible to the jury for the above purpose. 11 Mass. 309; 17 Pick. Mass. 490 ; 21 id. 315 ; 2 Me. 33; 9 Conn. 55. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, they are admissible only for the purpose of turning the scale in doubtful cases. 3 N. IL 47 ; 5 id. 67 ; 3 M'Cord, So. C. 518 ; 2 Nott & M'C. So. C. 401. In Pennsylvania, such documents only are admissible as have been conceded to be genuine, 5 Binn. Penn. 340; 10 Serg. & R. Penn. 110; or concerning which there is no doubt. 6 Whart. Penn. 284. And see 3 Halst. N. J. 87 ; 2 Leigh, Va. 249; 25 Wend. N. Y. 469 ; 3 Humphr. Tenn. 47; 1 i Cush. Mass. 189 ; 19 Ohio, 426.