Wilson v. VanLeer

Citations

• 127 Pa. 371
• 17 A. 1097
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1124

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(ffl) A witness, called to prove the signature of an alleged testator to a testamentary paper, testified that he had seen the testator write his name twice to letters thirty-two years, and once as an indorsement upon a check twenty-three years, prior to the time when he was called to testify.</p> <p>1. There being no subsequent evidence raising any question as to the truth of the facts so stated, the competency of the witness to express his opinion as to the signature was a matter clearly for the court, and it was not error to refuse to allow the jury to review the ruling of the court thereon.</p> <p>2. The ruling that the witness was competent to testify concerning the handwriting, was within the line of the authorities, but, considering the untrustworthiness of opinions on handwriting in general, such evidence ought to he guarded with caution.</p> <p>8. The limit within which the witness must have seen the writing done, must depend upon his intelligence, his habits of observation, and the apparent strength and confidence of his memory, which must be passed' upon in the first instance by the trial judge.</p> <p>4. In an argument to the jury, counsel may refer to the almanac to show that a certain day of the month given in the testimony of a witness, was or was not a certain day of the week, though the almanac was not proved and put in evidence, judicial notice being taken of the fact, without evidence.</p>