1880.] 



MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. 



51 



day, asserted that its original date 

 was several days earlier than that, 

 though he did not iix it upon any 

 one particular day. Another per- 

 son who was admitted to have 

 written the date, who had enjoyed 

 unlimited opportunities for chang- 

 ing it if he desired, and was largely 

 interested in its bearing a date not 

 earlier than its ostensible one, 

 asserted that that was its original 

 and only date. At first sight, and 

 still more after much patient study, 

 it seemed hopeless to expect a 

 solution of the case through the 

 microscope or by any other means. 

 The tracks of crime, if present, 

 were never more carefully covered. 

 The disputed figures were bold and 

 strongly characterized. They show- 

 ed no attempt to make them look 

 like the rest of the writing, and there- 

 fore suffered nothing from failure to 

 accomplish it ; and their well- 

 marked character was satisfactorily 

 accounted for. The surface of the 

 paper was microscopically perfect, 

 and had not been tampered with 

 for purposes of erasure. Nowhere 

 did a line crop out into view like 

 those of the rest of the writing; 

 and if any such existed beneath the 

 visible figures it was doubtless pale 

 and thin and little likely to be per- 

 ceptible, even to the microscope, 

 through the heavy coating of thick 

 and muddy ink which covered and 

 concealed it. At last by one 

 peculiar illumination, light being 

 diffused rather faintly over the top 

 of the paper and at the same time 

 condensed strongly upon the lower 

 surface, there came into view an 

 appearance which was lost by the 

 least change of illumination, but 

 could be restored again by careful 

 arrangement of the light. Blended 

 with each of the three disputed 

 figures, though not equally distinct 

 in all, was a very peculiar wedge- 

 shaped or triangular figure, broad 



and flat at the top and sharp, at the 

 bottom, and exactly such in size 

 and position as would accord well 

 with the rest of the writing and 

 with the other figure 1 in the body 

 of the note ; but the latter 1 was broad 

 and square at the bottom, and thus 

 strikingly unlike the wedge-shaped 

 figures. Comparison of a large 

 numbers of papers known to have 

 been written by the same author 

 showed that the unusually, triangu- 

 lar 1, was his characteristic style, 

 and that the unaltered and not 

 triangular 1 in the note, known to 

 be his writing, was not his usual 

 habit but a rare and, as it proved 

 in this case, a puzzling eccentricity. 

 It was evident that the date had been 

 first written 11, and that the 16 

 had been subsequently written over 

 it ; and that the 1 of the year, 

 though the right figure, had been 

 similarly enlarged to make it look 

 like the rest. 



Still newer but scarcely less im- 

 portant than this is the study of 

 powder marks, which call for in- 

 vestigation with the microscope less 

 frequently, it is true, but are likely 

 to be connected with results of the 

 highest interest. Fixing the re- 

 sponsibility for a fatal crime, 

 involving capital consequences, 

 may turn critically upon such ques- 

 tions as the time of firing a certain 

 shot, the position from which it 

 was fired, the kind of powder used 

 or the nature of the weapon em- 

 ployed, all of which questions 

 under certain favorable but not 

 improbable circumstances may be 

 positively answered by our instru- 

 ment. It is well known that 

 modern gunpowder is not a powder 

 at all, but consists of hard and well- 

 formed grains, often of considerable 

 size, which by burning gradually 

 and comparatively slowly from 

 their surface only, graduallv crowd 

 the ball into increasing velocity as 



