dots. For that reason they are in the highest degree characteristic.
And it is precisely because of their apparently slight importance that
the person who sets out to imitate another's handwriting or to
disguise his own is likely to be careless about these little marks and
to make slips which will be sufficient to prove his identity.

Imitations of signatures are usually written in a laborious and
painstaking manner. They are, therefore, decidedly unlike a man's
natural signature, which is usually written in an easy fashion. The
imitations show frequent pauses, irregularities in pen pressure and in
the distribution of ink, and contain other evidences of hesitation.
Not infrequently the forger tries to improve on his work by retouching
some of the letters after he has completed a word. Microscopic
examination brings out all of these things and makes them tell-tale
witnesses.

Comparison of handwriting is competent but is not itself conclusive
evidence of forgery. Identification of handwriting is, if possible,
more difficult than identification of the person which so often forms
the chief difficulty in criminal trials. As illness, strange dress,
unusual attitude, and the like, cause mistakes in identifying the
individual, so a bad pen or rough paper, a shaky hand and many other
things change the appearance of a person's handwriting.

This kind of evidence ought never, therefore, to be regarded as full
proof in trials where a handwriting is in dispute. Generally the best
witness in a handwriting case is one who often sees the party write,
through whose hands his writing has been continually passing, and
whose opinion is not the result of an inspection made on a particular
occasion for a special purpose.