these divergencies stand out tenfold more plainly.

Many cases of forgery hinge on this point, the forger having copied
another person's signature by tracing one in his possession, but such
attempts are always more easy to detect than those in which the forger
carefully imitates another's hand. The latter is the usual procedure.
The forger secures examples of the signature or writing which he
desires to imitate. Then he practices on it, trying to reproduce all
its striking peculiarities. In this way he sometimes arrives at a
resemblance so close as to deceive even his victim. Still there is
always present some internal evidence to prove that the writing is not
the work of the person to whom it is attributed. Likewise it will
reveal the identity of the person who actully wrote it, if specimens
of his natural hand are to be had for comparison.

It is impossible for a man to carry in his mind and to reproduce on
paper all the peculiar characteristics of another man's writing and at
the same time to conceal all his own. At some point there is certain
to come a slip when the habit of years asserts itself and gives the
testimony which may fix the whole production on the forger beyond the
shadow of a doubt.

The little things are the ones that count most in making examination
and determining a forgery for the reason that they are no less
characteristic than the more prominent peculiarities and are more
likely to be overlooked by the person who tries to disguise his hand.
The crossing of _t's_ and the dotting of _i's_ become matters of large
moment in making comparisons of disputed handwritings. There is
probably no matter in conjunction with a man's ordinary writing to
which he gives less thought than the way he makes these crosses and