1880.] 



MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 



125 



An instance illustrating this was 

 related to me by Professor Bab- 

 cock. A note was put into his 

 hands for examination, with an en- 

 dorsement upon it, which professed 

 to have been written by one Wil- 

 liam Lill, who was dead. The note 

 was not paid by the party making 

 it, and the owner applied to the 

 estate of Mr. Lill for payment. A 

 large number of the signatures of 

 Mr. Lill were given to Professor 

 Babcock for comparison. He no- 

 ticed an unsteadiness in the lines 

 of these signatures. In the earlier 

 ones this tremor was slight, hardly 

 perceptible to the naked eye, and 

 confined to the upward strokes, 

 while the down strokes were firm 

 and steady. This tremor increased 

 somewhat in the later signatures. 

 From this appearance he concluded 

 that Mr. Lill was an old man who 

 had been growing feeble for a 

 number of years. The endorse- 

 ment upon the note resembled, to 

 the naked eye, the undoubted sig- 

 natures very closely, but on examin- 

 ing it with the microscope it pre- 

 sented some striking points of dif- 

 ference. The up strokes were even 

 and smooth, indicating that the one 

 who wrote it had a steady hand 

 quite different from the hand of 

 the trembling old man who was 

 supposed to have signed it. There 

 was another marked point of dif- 

 ference between the endorsement 

 and the genuine signatures. In the 

 genuine signatures there were three 

 1^'s, each one carefully dotted. These 

 dots were always made by pressing 

 the pen upon the paper and taking 

 it up again without moving it, leav- 

 ing a little fulging of the ink be- 

 low. In the endorsement on the 

 note the dots to the *'s were scratches 

 like commas. Professor Babcock 

 was able, therefore, to testify that 

 the endorsement on the note could 

 not have been written by the same 



persDU who wrote the other signa- 

 ture. 



This case, however, is a some- 

 what exceptional one. The forger 

 was an uimsually bold man. As a 

 rule a young and healthy person 

 writes his own name rapidly, and 

 the lines, whatever may be said as 

 to their beauty, are usually firm, 

 while the forger, who writes slowly 

 and anxiously, strives to imitate his 

 copy, introduces as a consequence 

 a certain tremor into the lines, 

 which, on careful comparison with 

 the genuine signature, at once be- 

 tray the fraud. 



Sometimes, indeed, forgers lay a 

 piece of paper over the signature, 

 and placing it upon a plate of glass 

 opposite a strong light, trace the 

 name. This method, however, while 

 it secures accuracy in the general 

 outlines, makes the tremor much 

 more evident than in the ordina- 

 ry copy. Besides, the shaded por- 

 tions of the lines have to be gone 

 over the second time and are filled 

 in. This leaves a scratched appear- 

 ance to the paper which can always 

 be detected by the microscope. 



It often becomes of importance 

 to know which of two lines was 

 made first. This can easily be 

 known if the lines are made with 

 ink. In writing, the ink is left 

 upon the paper in a mass of appre- 

 ciable thickness, especially when 

 examined with the microscope. 

 I^ow, if a line is drawn with a pen 

 and ink across another line, it is as 

 easy to see the second line lying 

 above the first, as any other solids 

 lying one above another. 



Professor Babcock related an in- 

 teresting case illustrating this point. 

 A man occupying a respectable po- 

 sition in society lost a building by 

 fire. The building was fired by an 

 incendiary who was caught. The 

 incendiary accused the owner with 

 hiring him to fire the building in 



