State v. Allen

• Decision Date: 30 June 1820
• Citation: 8 N.C. 6
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE v. MILES ALLEN.

8 N.C. 6

THE STATE

v.MILES ALLEN.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JUNE TERM, 1820.

1. A witness who hath never seen a person write, nor received letters from him, and who hath no knowledge of his handwriting but that derived from having received bank notes in the course of business, which purported to be signed by the person as the president of the bank, and were reputed to be genuine, is incompetent to prove his handwriting, or to prove that a bank note, purporting to be signed by him, is counterfeit; at least, unless the ordinary occupation of the witness is such as to render it probable that he has received and passed large sums, so as to become a skillful judge, and unless it appear that he has actually passed them so long ago as to allow time for the return of them, if spurious.

2. The modes of proving handwriting are by the evidence of those: (1) who have seen the person write, which is most certain; (2) who, in the course of correspondence, have received pertinent answers or other letters of such a nature as renders it highly probable that they were written by the person; (3) who have inspected and become acquainted with ancient authentic documents which bear the signature of the person.

3. Adjudged cases have not yet laid down other rules, though new cases may arise that will come within the reason of these.

4. And hence it seems that a witness having no knowledge of the handwriting of a person but that derived from the signatures to the bank notes, who is a banker, and, in that character, has habitually, for several years, received and paid away large sums in such notes, which he believed to be genuine, and were so reputed, is competent to prove that a note, purporting to be a bank note and to be signed by the same person, was not signed by him, and is counterfeit.

5. Although sufficient legal evidence be before the jury to justify the verdict, yet if improper testimony be admitted, after objection, a new trial will be ordered, because it cannot be known on which the jury relied.

The prisoner was indicted in the Superior Court of Ashe for a deceit in fraudulently passing a false and counterfeit banknote purporting to be issued by the Bank of Augusta, in Georgia, and to be signed by Thomas Cumming as president, and E. Early as cashier of that bank. Several witnesses were called by the solicitor on the trial to prove that the note was counterfeit. None of them had seen Cumming or Early write, or had received letters from them, but they all swore that inthe usual course of their business they had received considerable sums of money in notes of the Bank of Augusta, which had the names of Cumming and Early signed to them as president and cashier; that the notes thus received by them were reputed to be genuine, and passed currently as such; that in this way and this only they had acquired a knowledge of the hand-

writing of Cumming and Early; and if the notes received by them were genuine that which was then before the court was counterfeit. Another witness, A. Erwin, proved that he often received, and had seen received in the State Bank at Morganton, large sums in the notes of the Bank of Augusta, which had been paid out again by the bank in the course of business at various times for several years; that the notes thus received were reputed to be good, and that he believed them to be so; and if they were genuine the note in question was undoubtedly counterfeit in his opinion. It was objected on behalf of the prisoner that such evidence ought not to go to the jury because none of the witnesses had become acquainted with the handwriting of Cumming or Early by either seeing them write or in the course of correspondence; but the court suffered the evidence to go to the jury, and instructed them that if they believed the witnesses they were authorized upon that evidence to consider the note as counterfeit. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he moved for a new trial for misdirection, which was refused and sentence passed on him, from which he appealed to this Court.

TAYLOR, C. J. The only methods of proving the handwriting of a person sanctioned by law are:

1. By a witness who saw him sign the very paper in dispute.

2. By one who has seen him write and has therebyfixed a standard in his own mind by which he ascertains the genuineness of any other writing...