When there is presented before a court of law a document, of which it is important to know whether a part or the whole of the body, or the signature, or all, is actually in the handwriting of some person whose writing or signature in other exhibits is admitted to be genuine, the counsel on each side usually seeks the aid of one or more handwriting experts.

Usually a teacher of writing is called, but more often the cashier or paying teller of a bank is preferred.  There seems to be a good reason for choosing a bank cashier or a paying teller, for the man upon whose immediate judgment as to genuineness of signatures, reinforced by a large and varied knowledge of human nature and quick observation of any suspicious circumstances depends the safety of a bank, has certainly gained much experience and is not apt to be easily deceived in the kind of cases coming daily before him.  How much the average cashier and paying-teller depends upon the trifling circumstances attending the presentation of a check, the appearance of the person presenting it, the probability of the drawer inserting such a sum, etc., becomes apparent when one has heard a number of these useful officers testify in cases where they are deprived of all these surroundings, and required to decide whether a certain writing is by the same hand which produced another writing, both being unfamiliar to them.

In this case they are obliged to create a familiarity with the signatures of a man whose character and peculiarities they have never known.

They miss the aid of some feature, such as a dash, a blot, or the distortion of a letter, which would recall to them the character of the writer.  Most of the best experts of this class confess that they cannot tell on what their judgment is based.  They simply think that the writing is not by the same hand as that admitted to be genuine.  “No,” they will tell you, “it is not merely superficial resemblance.  I don’t know what it is, but I feel sure,” etc.  These witnesses are more frequently right than the more pretentious professional expert.  The former trust to the instantaneous impressions which they receive when papers are handed to them; the latter too often give their attention to the merely superficial features of chirography without getting beyond the more obvious resemblances and differences which are frequently the least important.

While the expert in handwriting should confine himself to the concrete examinations of the paper, ink, seals, etc., and leave to the counsel the task of reasoning on the purport of the words added, and all other matters not allied to the materials left as the result of the forgery, yet it would be unreasonable to neglect altogether these means of corroborating a previously formed suspicion, or directing a course of inquiry.

That expert would be more or less than human who could shut his eyes to the importance of the fact that certain words containing evidence in the manner of their formation or their position that raised doubts as to their genuineness by their import gave to the person who might have written them benefits which he would not have derived in their absence.