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