It is impossible for a man to carry in his mind and to reproduce on paper all the peculiar characteristics of another man’s writing and at the same time to conceal all his own.  At some point there is certain to come a slip when the habit of years asserts itself and gives the testimony which may fix the whole production on the forger beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The little things are the ones that count most in making examination and determining a forgery for the reason that they are no less characteristic than the more prominent peculiarities and are more likely to be overlooked by the person who tries to disguise his hand.  The crossing of t’s and the dotting of i’s become matters of large moment in making comparisons of disputed handwritings.  There is probably no matter in conjunction with a man’s ordinary writing to which he gives less thought than the way he makes these crosses and dots.  For that reason they are in the highest degree characteristic.  And it is precisely because of their apparently slight importance that the person who sets out to imitate another’s handwriting or to disguise his own is likely to be careless about these little marks and to make slips which will be sufficient to prove his identity.

Imitations of signatures are usually written in a laborious and painstaking manner.  They are, therefore, decidedly unlike a man’s natural signature, which is usually written in an easy fashion.  The imitations show frequent pauses, irregularities in pen pressure and in the distribution of ink, and contain other evidences of hesitation.  Not infrequently the forger tries to improve on his work by retouching some of the letters after he has completed a word.  Microscopic examination brings out all of these things and makes them tell-tale witnesses.

Comparison of handwriting is competent but is not itself conclusive evidence of forgery.  Identification of handwriting is, if possible, more difficult than identification of the person which so often forms the chief difficulty in criminal trials.  As illness, strange dress, unusual attitude, and the like, cause mistakes in identifying the individual, so a bad pen or rough paper, a shaky hand and many other things change the appearance of a person’s handwriting.

This kind of evidence ought never, therefore, to be regarded as full proof in trials where a handwriting is in dispute.  Generally the best witness in a handwriting case is one who often sees the party write, through whose hands his writing has been continually passing, and whose opinion is not the result of an inspection made on a particular occasion for a special purpose.

CHAPTER IX

GREATEST DANGER TO BANKS