Pope v. Askew

• Citation: 35 Am.Dec. 729,1 Ired. 16,23 N.C. 16
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 30 June 1840
• Parties: SAMUEL B. POPE v. ANDREW J. ASKEW.

1 Ired. 16

23 N.C. 16

35 Am.Dec. 729

SAMUEL B. POPE

v.ANDREW J. ASKEW.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1840.

Testimony as to handwriting, founded on what is properly termed a comparison of hands, seems now to be generally exploded: And the only admissible testimony of handwriting is, that of a witness who has acquired a knowledge of the party's handwriting from having seen him write, or from having had a correspondence with him upon matters of business, or from transactions between the witness and party, such as the former having paid bills of exchange for the latter, for which he has afterwards accounted.

This was an action on the CASE for publishing a libel, trial at Hertford, on the last circuit, before his Honor Judge PEARSON.

To prove that the defendant had written the libellous letter, the plaintiff called a witness by the name of Alexander, who stated to the court, that he had only seen the defendant write on one occasion, when he wrote a contract between himself and the witness; that he had then noticed the manner in which the defendant handled his pen; that on another occasion he had received a note from the defendant, and observed the handwriting; and that he had thus acquired a knowledge of the general character of the defendant's handwriting. The defendant's counsel objected to his being examined in chief, but he was admitted by the court, and testified to the jury that from his general knowledge of the defendant's handwriting, acquired in the manner stated to the court, he believed the letter in question was in the handwriting of the defendant.

The plaintiff then called a Mr. Anderson, who stated to the court that he had never seen the defendant write; that he was about fifty years old, and had been a merchant from the time he came of age, and that he had paid much attention to handwriting in the course of his business, and believed that by the knowledge thus acquired, he could, by a comparison, tell any man's handwriting: that he had once received a letter, addressed to himself, purporting to be written by the defendant; and, in consequence of its abusive character, had taken particular notice of the handwriting. Here he was asked by the defendant's counsel, if he knew that the letter addressed to him was written by the defendant; to which he replied, that he did not, of his own knowledge.--The plaintiff's counsel, by the permission of the court, then called another witness, who swore that the defendant had told him that he had written the letter addressed to Anderson, and sent it by a negro boy. The witness, Anderson, then stated, that from his skill in the knowledge of handwriting, the first time he ever saw the letter in question, which was at the office of the Old Dominion, in Petersburg, Va., he was confident, from his recollection of the character of the handwriting of the letter addressed to him, that that letter, and the letter in question, were written by the same person; and, that by a subsequent comparison of the handwriting of the two letters, his belief was confirmed. This witness was then permitted by the court, although objected to by the defendant, to give evidence to the jury. He stated, that from his knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the letter addressed to him, acquired in the manner stated to the court, he believed that the same person wrote both.

The contract between Alexander and the defendant was then shewn to the witness, and he was asked if, by comparing the contract, the letter addressed to him, and the letter in question, his skill in hand-writing would enable him to say whether they were written by the same, or by different persons; to which he answered that it would: And he was then permitted by the court, the defendant's counsel objecting, to give evidence to the jury. He stated that upon comparing them, his skill enabled him to say, that he believed the same person had written all three.

The defendant then called three witnesses, who deposed that they were acquainted with the defendant's handwriting, from having seen him write; and that they did not believe the letter in question was in his handwriting. One of them stated that the letter to Anderson was not, except the signature, written by the defendant.

The case was then, after full argument on both sides, submitted to the jury, who, after retiring a short time, returned into court, and desired to take out with them the contract, the letter addressed to Anderson, and the letter in question; but this was not permitted by the court. The jury then stated that two of the witnesses had differed in their testimony, as to whether the letter ““J,” and also the letter “P,” were made alike in the contract and the letter addressed to Anderson; and they wished, by inspection, to judge which witness was right. The court thereupon permitted the jury, in its presence, and for this special purpose, to compare the particular letters mentioned in the papers referred to--telling them, at the same time, that they were not permitted to look at the other parts...