University of South Carolina Libraries
rfAYEsH^ARDON ED. (Continued from Page 2 ) environment, mental and physical causes affeot ono's handwriting in a thousand different ways and produces in its ramifications a. series of de partures from the ideal forms. These departures in their differentiations in the handwriting of the different in dividuals, constitute and make up what is oommonly termed "charac teristics" of one's handwriting. If it were possible to delineate these departures in ohart form, in a oase of questioned writing, it would almost ,/?Hoom unnecessary to bring together V^the known and unknown writing, it wonld almost seem unnecessary to bring together the known and un known writing. The indicated de partures in a ohart of eaoh, when the two charts are brought together, would determine. If they agreed, the writing is by one hand, if not, per contra. Suoh a plan if time per mitted would reduce the comparison of handwritings to almost a mathe matical certainty in its results. In onr oase, however, we do not need to go to snob extremes. We have ample material to supply the information we seek when we have learned the idio syncrasies of the several hand writings-always keeping before us the known faot ; when one is writing without thinking of the writing they write a natural hand ; but when one is thinking of the writing they are drawing from recollections of the ideal, traveling baok towards school master time. The constant diversity indicated in the handwritings of a single individual made at different periods guarantees the truthfulbese of this statement. We are taught conventional forms, No variety is allowed in the small :? letters except in the "e" and "r" whioh cnn be made in two ways. In the making of oapital letters their variety beoomes more extended and hence it is not remarkable to find that oaprice governs them more than in the matter of small letters. Illustrative of some of these estab lished truths, take the "L. V. C." ex hibit testified to as having been writ ten in 1807, and the letter dated Ootober, 1902, both concededly writ ten by the same person. The differ ence in time moans one in five years . nearer to the schoolmaster. Observe in the 1897 one, the small "t" em ployed as a final letter and compare it with a final "t" in the 1902 letter. Dgon not tho earlier one more olosely approaoh the ideal than the latter! Examine the oapital letters in both exhibits and note their oaprioioue variety even in their typification ol the same forms. So much for identi fications by single letters. As handwriting becomes more and more settled, due largely to the edu oation the hand is receiving, so is itt work being affcoted by environmen and physical causes. The hand, no like a machine on a fixed traok, of toi ohanges its course and perform envious things-these are termei ?? "peculiarities," and while they do no * indicate their presence always in th Isame relative position, deserve mud consideration. The other and regula work it accomplishes constitutes th "habit" of the hand and this habit i found to be fairly fixed becomes th most important of all for consider? tion. Included in "habit" ia to b _ found angle, pen-pressure, relatior ?M ship of bottoms of letters to a bas line, use of initial strokes, length c final strokes, orossing of t's, mechar ical layout of writing, spacing bi tween words, proportioning of lettei and many more things unneoessar to mention at this time. Their val" is to be estimated in about the sam order in whioh they have been give and their application oould bo mad more apparent if the exhibits ha . been written in ink instead of les pencil. For the purpose of addressing yoi attention to speoifio things I Inn marked sevoral exhibits in blue pei oil and in red ink numbered tl lines, except the disputed note whi< ~~ remainB "Exhibit A." This I hv attaohed to a oard as it was fallir apart and which oan be remov? without tearing it farther. The in written exhibits I am not using my comparisons other than to mal oertain whioh I have done, that th< verify and confirm the "standard as having been written by the tv persons who are alleged to ha made them. This is true in all them except the ?L. V. C." exhil where the words "Miss Lula" appe in line 2. These two words were in my opinion not. written by the same per? son who wrote the rest of the writing therein contained. Also it is best when possible to oompare penoil writ? ing with pencil writing. Comparing the B and C exhibits without any reference to Exhibit A in the duplication of the way the penoil must have been held to make the forms of small letters is to be recognised the same school of pen manship (Spencerian). In their form and composition the same master. As an instance they make among other letters the oapital "l's" much alike. They use fairly so the same types of letters, but make them differently. Take th? Q exhibits ; your attention is ott rao ted by the abnormal spaoing between most of the words, while in the B specimens such conditions do not obtan (neither do they in exhibit A.) Take the C exhibits ; your atten tion must be attracted by the accen tuation of the initial strokes to first letters where they are constantly used, while in the B exhibits suoh in stances are rare exceptions, most of them when used being light (in ex hibit A they are all light.) PORTION OP LETTER WRITTE? The average angles of the writing j of the B exhibits (in this respect Ex- ! hibit A more nearly conforms to j the B exhibits,) conform to the : angles of staff letter. Further more the angle of tho small "s" in the Gr exhibits run to the perpen dicular or way over to the left of it, while in the B exhibits they retain as they do in exhibit A the angle of the staff letters. In the making of a small "o" in the C exhibits they are nearly all of them thus (C) while in the B ex hibits and which form obtains in the only instances where this letter is used in Exhibit A the word "sick ness" it is made thus (c). I call at tention to the triangular (of "C" ex hibit) mark at its top. Noteworthy illustrations are to be seen in C 1, line 4, word "come," line 7, word "such," line ll, word "comfort;" same line, word "cheer," line 14, quite exaggerated word "oan," line 16, word "come," same line, word "can," line 20, word "can," C 2, line 6, word "cotton," and so on many times. In B 2, line 5, word "cousin," it is more like a small "e" with a dot at top. See line 6, word "pencil," line 7, word "which," same line, word "received," etc. In B 8, line 8, word "cousin," line 5, word "penoil," line 6, word "excused," line 8, word "received," line 12, word "piotures," etc., etc. In the matter of pen pressure surely the B exhibits conform muoh more closely to Exhibit A than do tho C ones. As to base line: the B writings SUPPORT SCOTT'S EMULSION MTVC* SI a bridge to carry thc weakened and starved system along until it can find firm support In ordinary food. Send (or (ree samplo. SCOTT ft BOWNE, ChsmUts, 409 , i j Pearl Street, Nsw York, joe. and Si.oo ? all druggists. maBSBKm?MnmnmMmB?&?mtr hag the ruled line much closer than the O ones and in this respect con forming to the illustrated habit in Exhibit A. True it is that the C writings, in the final "t's" as made illustrate them correctly und incorrectly-the same to bc said is respect to the B writings-but oom pare those im properly made in the C exhibits of which "t" in the word "lost" on line 1 in Cl. The word "that," line 8 in C 2 (none being found in C 8 of that kind), are excellent exemplars ; and. then take any Saal "i" imper feotly made in the B exhibits of whioh kind there are none in B 1 and for reasons already set forth. See B 2, the first time it occurs, line 8, word "ought," repeated many times in said exhibit. Exhibit B 8, line 2, word "Best," repeated dosons of times in same exhibit. Compare the final t's in Exhibit A, word "Hoyt," "but," "let" and "it." There oan be no question as to whioh of the two writings it belongs, viz : to the B ones. Observe the small "b ;" wherever it appears in the C Writings, it is always open to the right of its staff, that is to say it is oorreot in that ? BY HOYT HAYES, SHOWING HIS J respect, while in B writings its final stroke strikes baok to the staff aud hugs it. lu Exhibit A this same habit obtains. For illustration, see C 1, line 12, woroS"book," line 14, word "bow," otc. C 2, line 6, word "but," line 8, word "bet," eto. C 8, linc 4, word "bought," line ll, wo^d "oblige," etc All open at bottom, B 1, line 5, word "put" or "but," line 22, word "blue," Hue 28, word "re member," line 80, word "remem brance." B 2, line 14, word "been," line 18, word "better." B 3, line 5, word "be ;" line 7, word "be," eto. All of these are closed at the bottom. Seo word "but" in Exhibit A, dosed at bottom exemplifies those in B exhibits. The above exemplification assist in identifying Exhibit A with the B exhibits. Comparing the word "Lula" on Exhibit A with the same word in B 2; line 71, and B 3, line 79. Pen pressures, relationship to base line, angta proportioning and composition, aotual forms of letter? except tho final stroke of the small "a" in Ex hibit A all assimilates so closely as to make it certain in connection with the other adduced facts that Exhibit A was written by the hand whioh wrote the B exhibits. Viewing Exhibit A independently for the purpose of discovering, if "ossi" ,, whether or not it presents any evidenoo of simulation or dis guise, I have to say that tere has been no erasures, there has been no touching of letters and is therefore an undisguised piece of writing. I could at still greater length pre sent much more material for your observation, but I think that I have stated sufficient to be able to show you that in formulating the opinion that the said Exhibit A was unques tionably written by the same hand whioh wrote the B exhibits and wbioh, in reading over the testimony, I am informed that the said B ex hibits aro in the handwriting of tho late Mrs. Lula Hayos, that the rea sons for formulating suoh opinion rest on a solid and substantial foundation. The exhibits are herewith re turned. I have the honor to remain, Tour obedient servant, David N. Carvalho. THE WOBK OF D. N. CARVALHO. Friends of Hoyt Hayes wanted letters of Hoyt and Lula Hayes sub mitted to an expert on questioned handwriting to be compared with the note whioh played soon a part in the conviction of Hoyt Hayes. David N. Carvalho was seleoted by Governor Hoy ward as the most emi nent man in the country in thia work. Hoyt and Lula Hayes had attended the same school, were the same age and to an untrained eye their writing was very similar. Mr. Carvalho's most conspicuous work was his testimony on whioh Richard B. Molineux was acquitted. But suits in the courts of the State of South Carolina have been settled on his testimony, and he was kept on the stand 24 hours in a famous will trial in Newberry. Although employed by the district attorney of New York, he has frequently testi fied for the defense, showing that he is entirely unprejudiced. In response to the request of Gov ernor Hey ward, Mr. Carvalho named V CKNO WLEDGED SIGNATURE. a. few of the important oases whioh were decided by hts testimony, and which are hero mentioned. The Fair will case, California ; the Davis will case, Montana ; the Holt will case, District of Columbia ; the Monroe will case, New York oity ; the Rice will case, New York city ; the Dir>on will case, New York oity ; the Tigr - will case, New York oity ; the Gordon will oase, New Jersey ; the Myra Clark ' Gaines will case, New Orleans. Th? estates affected by the decisions in these amounted to $100,000,000. In the late $50,000,000. Mr. Carvalho was the government witness in the Carter and Morton courtmartials. And in the Bedell forgeries, the Baker forgeries, Penn sylvania ; these amounting to $500, 000. In the late contest, deoided, Bonynge vs. Shafforlh, he was em ployed by resolution of Congress, whioh oase involved a contested] Colorado seat in the House of Repre sentatives. Among the oapital oases in whioh he testified may be named as impor tant : The commonwealth of Massa chusetts vs. Trefethen ; the State of New York VB. Mary Agnes Flem ming; State of New York va. Al bert T. Patricke; State of New York vs. Caesar ; State of New York VB. Doughterty ; Stato of New York vs. Molineux. This last oaso was twice tried. At the first trial the prosecution produced 17 exports, of whioh Mr. Carvalho was not one ; the defense introduced no testimony. Molineux was convicted. The main point of his appeal was the intro duction of false standards of hand writing. A new trial was ordered, in whioh Mr. Carvalho testifieu for the defense, and Molineux was ac quitted in ten minutes. He was employed by the State of Delaware against Clark and Gibbons, Will Intersil Many. Every person should know that good health is impossible if the kidneys are deranged. Foley's Kidney Cure will oure kidney and bladder disease in every form, and will build up and strengthen those organs so they will perform their funotions properly. No dangor of Bright's diseaso or diabetes if Foley's Kidney Cure is taken in time. Dr. J. W. Bell. "About a y ?ar ago," v U23 Broadway, Augusta blind, sick headaches and no relief until I tried WINE OF Woman'; CA WRITE US FREELY eoaetder your eas? ?ad gi vo you freo advtoo (In piata ssa* envelope). Don't healtato, vnltetodar. ?A?nmi Laics' Ad visory Dept., The Chattanooga Medi cine Co., Chatranotfca, Tenn. this case being known as the Du pont Powder Mill ??White Cap" case. Case of the State of New York vs. Cody ; this was the case of the at tempt to palm off a daughter olaimed to be that of Jay Gould before his marriage to the mother of Helen Sould. Mrs. Cody was convicted. Nearer home Mr. Carvalho calls utenlion to tho ' city of Charleston, sase of Dupont vs. Dubose, and at Newberry, the oase of the State of South Carolina against Baird. He pas also interested in the forged | Collier will propounded last year in the oity of Atlanta, Ga. He has had occasion to testify be t?re the grand jury in New York] ind other cities more than 1,500 ;imes and in open oourt all over the | dnited States within a few of 900 :imes. ANOTHER EXPERT. Solicitor Boggs, who has stoutly I maintained the guilt of Hayes, also1 submitted the note and other writ- ! ngs of Hoyt and Lula Hayes to a | handwriting expert of his own selec tion, Albert S. Osborne, ??examiner of questioned documents," 134 South avenue, Rochester, N. Y. Mr. Os borne's report confirmed Carvalho'sl opinion and was very pronounced in dedaring that from the exhibits sub mitted the note was unq uestionably I written by Lula Hayes. Admitting the reliability of Osborne-the solici tor's own witness, es it were-his re port is sufficient grounds for a par don, since, it entirely removes the one Strong circumstance of Hoyt if ayes' guilt. Mr. Osborne had ll enlarged pho tographs made of specimens of writ ing by Hoyt and Lula Hayes and the questioned note. It is from these photographs that the accompanying cuts are made. Osborne's report to Mr. Boggs fol lows: Report of the examination of the writings in the oase of the State vs. Hoyt Hayes : " 1 have made a careful study and comparison of the note in question compared with the genuine writings of Hoyt Hayes and Lula Hayes, and have reaohed the conclusion that the note in question was undoubtedly written by Lula Hayes. ??The inquiry presents some difficul ties at the outset, and is of such a character that one inexperienced might be misled, as the standard writings written by schoolmates, and man md wife show numerous similar characteristics, the result of teaching, or consoiousor unconscious imitation. These characteristics should, in such an inquiry of course, be properly in terpreted and given their proper weight, and alone should, of course, not be suffi oient to conneot either writer with the writing in question. ??I have used for comparison mainly the freely written letter of Lula Hayes, dated Ootober 24th, 1902, and the freely written letter of Hoyt Hayes to George Gibson, marked C 2. These two letters show signifi cant characteristics of these writers Buffioient to show that the writing in The old time mothod of purging the system with oatbartios that tear, gripe, grind and break down the walls of the stomach and intestines is superseded by Dade's Little Liver Pills. They oleanse the liver and, instead of woakening, build up and strengthen the whole sys tem, relieve headaohe, biliousness, con stipation, etc. Sold by Dr. J. W. Bell, Walhalla, and W. J. Lunney, Seneoa. 4 eadache /rites Mrs. Mattie Alien, of ; Ga., "I suffered with backaches, and could get ?nm ?nu ul s Relief nmenced to Improve, and i new woman, and wish to t to all sick worran, for 1 ll cure them, aft lt dW me." Pure?r^cjj^^ ile borbs, wrach relieves le pairi?, regulates female Yet ions, tones ?p theorems to a proper state ot health. Try !t for your trouble. Every druddlf 11 v ln$1.00EotQi Sf Us H es. question was written by Lnia Hayes and wae not written by Hoyt Hayes. "The standard letters referred to show certain divergent oharsoteris tios which naturally are of the most significance In euoh an inquiry. One such characteristic is the excessive slant of the small 'y' in the writing of Lula Hayes and the normal slant of this letter and sometimes a ten dency to bend the lower part to the right, as is shown on photograph 8, in the writing of Hoyt Hayes. On numerous other examples of the writing of Hoyt Hayes, he also crosses the loop higher and usually connects it with the following letter. A study of this letter ulone in the two standard writings as oompared with the same letter in the note in question very strongly influences my opinion as to the authorship of the writing in question. .'The writing in question shows the oapital Mi' made in a peouliar manner above the base line with two finishing loops on a line with eaoh other, and with the beginning loop sometimes mado high above the base line. This identioal letter, showing these peou liar individual and unconscious char acteristics, is shown in numerous in stances in the standard writing of Lula Hayes as is illustrated in photo graphs Nos. 10 and ll. "The small (u' in the word Lula is also peouliar, beginning with an up ward left curve. The oapital *H' in tho writing is a peouliar letter di vergent from that of Hoyt Hayes, and identioal with that of Lula Hayes. This is peouliarly signifi cant, as it is the letter written by both writers in their signatures, which is also truo of the small 'y' referred to above. "The small ?b' in the writing in question shows in the word 'but' a closing of tho letter at the right hand side, and this same tendenoy in (Concluded on Page 6 ) (OMPLAlNj BILIOUSNESS, DYSPEPSIA, ||MKrniMT~BIUOU? reveal CONSTIPATION (rt Sold and Recommended by WALHALLA DRUG CO. W. J. LUNNEY, 8ENECA.