to be, the more unsatisfactory. Courts may go beyond inspection and
apply chemical on the tests, but such tests cannot be resorted to in
the innumerable cases of checks and orders for money and property
which are passed upon every day in the business world, and either
accepted as genuine or rejected as counterfeit. But the real truth is,
in fully ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that no check or order is
paid merely upon confidence in the genuineness of the signature, and
without knowledge of the party to whom the payment is made, or some
accompanying circumstance or circumstances tending to inspire
confidence in the good faith of the transaction. In that aspect, the
danger of deception as to the genuineness of signatures loses most of
its terrors.

It is one of the recognized rules of court to admit as admissible
testimony, the opinions of experts, whether the whole or any specified
portion of an instrument was, or was not written by the same hand,
with the same ink, and at the same time, which question arises when an
addition to, or alteration of, an instrument is charged. It must be
recollected that at this time It is a very easy matter for experienced
forgers and rascals to so prepare ink that it may appear to the eye to
be of the age required, and it is next to impossible for any expert to
give any information in regard to the age of a certain writing. In
many instances experts have easily detected the kind of ink employed,
and have also successfully shown the falsity of testimony that the
whole of a writing in controversy was executed at the same time, and
with the same ink.

James D. Peacock, a London barrister, who has given considerable time
and study to disputed handwritings, lays great stress upon the ability
of determining the genuineness or falsity of a writing by what he