23 L.Ed. 346
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
This was a suit to recover the sum of $5,780 on account of cotton seized by the United States.
The court below found that the petitioner, a British subject, owned and was possessed of 26 2/3 bales of cotton stored in a warehouse in St. Joseph's, in the State of Louisiana.
That on the twelfth day of December, 1863, it was seized by the United States, by the boats of their marine brigade under the command of Colonel Ellet, and taken from the possession of the petitioner and sold by the United States, and the net proceeds thereof, amounting to the sum of $5,780, paid into the treasury.
That after said seizure, and while the said cotton was in a boat of the marine brigade, the said petitioner sold the said cotton, as appears by his certificate or paper-writing.
That the original of said certificate or paper-writing was proved in court by a comparison, made by the judges of the court, of the handwriting and signature of said paper-writing with the handwriting and signature of the petitioner in another paper-writing in evidence for other purposes in the cause.
The certificate referred to is as follows:——
'I certify that the cotton taken by the gunboat 'Switzerland,' twenty-six bales, on the 12th December, was my property, and I sold the same and received payment in full, and that the same is registered at the British consul's office, New Orleans; and, as an act of justice, it should be returned.
'ST. JOSEPH'S, LA., 17th December, 1863.'
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and the petition dismissed.
Mr. Joseph Casey for the appellant.
1. The court erred in admitting proof of the execution of the paper in question by comparison of handwriting. This court has ruled that such proof is inadmissible where the witness had no prior knowledge of the handwriting. Strother v. Lucas, 6 Pet. 763; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 321.
In Pennsylvania, comparison is only admitted in corroboration of other testimony. McCorkle v. Binns, 3 Binn. 349; Bank v. Whitehill, 10 S. & R. 110; Bank v. Haldeman, 1 Penn. 161; Baker v. Haines, 6 Whart. 266; Depue v. Place, 7 Barr, 428.
The same rule prevails in New York. People v. Spooner, 1 Denio, 343; Titford v. Knott, 2 Johns. 211; Jackson v. Phillips, 9 Cow. 94; Wilson v. Kirtland, 5 Hill, 182.
In Maryland, the doctrine that it is not competent to prove by comparison is too firmly established to be disturbed. Smith v. Walton, 8 Gill, 77; same in Kentucky, 7 B. Mon. 269; same in Alabama, 2 Ala. 703; same in Rhode Island, 2 R. I. 319; 1 Greenl. Ev., sect. 576 et seq.
2. If the evidence of comparison be admissible at all, it must be by experts; and it does not appear in any way that these judges, or any of them, are such experts.
3. The party against whom such evidence is admitted is precluded from testing or gainsaying in any way the accuracy or extent of the knowledge by which the instrument is decided to be his.
This is a fatal error, we think, for which this judgment should be reversed.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith for the appellee.
The execution of the paper was properly proved.
Comparison of hands has always been considered a legitimate mode of determining the authenticity of a signature. 6 Court of Claims, 429, 432; Henderson v. Hackney, 16 Ga. 521; McCorkle v. Binns, 5 Binn. 340; Lyon v. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55; Adams v. Field, 21 Vt. 256; Homer v. Wallis, 11 Mass. 309; Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490; Richardson v. Newcomb, 21 id. 315; Griffith v. Williams, 1 Cromp. & Jerv. 47; Solita v. Yarrow, 1 Moody & Rob. 133.
In Chandler v. Le Barron, 45 Me. 534, the plaintiff was allowed to put in a signature that he had required his opponent's witness to write in the presence of the jury, in order that a comparison of it with the signature in controversy might be instituted by the jury, without the intervention of experts.
In very many cases (e. g. Hicks v. Person, 19 Ohio, 426) perhaps in nearly all where the point has been made—experts have been allowed to compare signatures, and give their opinion thereon to the jury.
The papers upon which these opinions were formed then go to the jury, and from them they determine whether the expert came to a correct or to an erroneous conclusion. Is it not absurd to say that the jury cannot examine the papers as independent testimony, yet can decide, upon an inspection of them, that testimony which has been given for their guide in this matter was unreliable, and the witness mistaken?
Every day, capital causes are determined by comparisons; and where, as in many States, views are ordered, comparisons are made by the jury. They see that the shoe fits an impression, or are told that it did; that a hat fits a certain head; that a child, in features and appearance, resembles or does not resemble the putative father (Finnegan v. Dugan, 14 Allen, 197); though testimony to such likeness (Eddy v. Gray, 4 id. 435) or unlikeness (Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50) is not admitted. All this is simply recognizing the existence of a natural law of similitude in the matters inquired of, and allowing the jury to determine whether or not such similarity is found in the cause upon trial.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.