Hanley v. Gandy

Citations

• 28 Tex. 211

Syllabus

<p>The most satisfactory proof of handwriting, when the person whose signature is in question is not himself competent to testify, is the testimony of a witness who saw the instrument executed and is able to identify it, and next to this is the testimony of witnesses who have seen the person write, or had access to or possession of his writings.</p> <p>This latter mode of proof, though it involves a comparison, is not subject to the objection that it is proof by comparison of hands; that objection applies when the witness has had no previous acquaintance with the handwriting of the person whose signature is in question, but is called upon to state upon a comparison of two signatures, of which one is admitted or proved to be genuine, whether they were both executed by the same person.</p> <p>It appears to be well established in England, that it is not competent to prove handwriting by a comparison of hands; but in this country the authorities are conflicting, and in some of the States such evidence seems to be admissible.</p> <p>This subject is considered in the opinion both upon principle and precedent, and the conclusion is deduced, that the English rule, excluding proof of handwriting by mere comparison, is sustained by the weight of authority, and is best calculated to secure juries from imposition. Held, therefore, that it was error to allow other signatures to be submitted to the jury as evidence by comparison of the genuineness of the signature in question.</p> <p>It is not intimated, however, that exceptions arising from necessity, as in cases of ancient writings, may not be recognized here as in other States, where the English rule has been adopted.</p>