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