Practical Tests in Evidence.
223
casion, and concluded that he was not sitting, Am. Rep. 463, on a question of the fit of but was walking forward, and the result of a suit of clothes, the defendant put the his change of base (if such it can be called) clothes on in court at the plaintiff's request. Handwriting. — In respect to handwriting was an increased verdict. Reading sealed tetters. — In United States the holdings are practically not harmonious. v. Reid, 42 Fed. Rep. 134, the defendant Thus in Commonwealth v. Allen, 128 Mass. was indicted for an unlawful use of the 46; s. c. 35 Am. Rep. 356, the defendant's mails, by swindling people by offering to writing being in question, it was held proper send replies to their letters addressed to to refuse to allow him to write in court, and their spirit friends, the price of the reply submit it to the jury for comparison. But varying according as the letters were this was permitted in State v. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147, the court observing: — gummed, sewed, or sealed. The defen dant's offer to read the contents of sealed "The objection urged to this is, that it is a com letters in open court was refused. parison of handwriting by the jury, which it is Reading. — In Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kan. alleged is not allowable; and the following authori 478; s. c. 23 Am. L. Reg. (x. s.) 569. it ties are cited : Rowt v. Kile, i Leigh, 216; was held not error to require the defendant Burress' case, 27 Gratt. 946; Clay v. Alderson, to read in court, the defence being that he IQ . Va. 50. It is true, as these cases hold, signed a note without reading, because he that it is not allowable to lay other proved but not was unable to read. This seems rather in admitted specimens of the party's handwriting decisive, because the defendant might still before the jury for the purpose of permitting them to judge by a comparison thereof with the signa pretend that he could not read. Fit of clothes. — At the Liverpool County ture in question, whether the said signature is not Court there was a dispute with a dressmaker genuine. But here no such thing was permitted. about the fit of a certain bodice. The plain The jury was not asked to compare different signa tiff, who refused to take it, alleged it was tures of Leonard with his name signed to the too short and too much padded. The dress alleged forged receipt. The witnesses were only maker stated that bodices were now cut short asked to write an ' L ' as they thought Leonard wrote it, so that the jury could the better under on the hips, and that as to the padding it stand the testimony. If a jury do not have a clear was necessary, on account of the lady being idea of the location of a place where an act is deficient in the place where the padding was alleged to have been done, no one doubts the placed. The plaintiff did not desire to have right of a party to have .a witness describe the her figure improved by the dressmaker; she place, and by a word-painting of it and its sur was quite satisfied with it as it was. The roundings make its location clear to the minds of question of misfit or fit appeared to be in the jury. What objection then can there be to capable of decision', till at length the dress the permitting of the witness to make in the pres maker demanded that it should be put on. ence of the jury a diagram of the place, to enable The plaintiff at length consented to do so, the jury the better to understand the witness? and adjourned for that purpose. On her There can then be no valid objection to the per return the judge and court proceeded to criti mitting of the witnesses in their attempt to describe cise the fit. The judge at last made a sug how Ebenezer Leonard wrote the letter ' L,' to gestion — such a suggestion, just like a man! illustrate their meaning by writing the letter them selves, so that the jury could see whether or not — that surely the fault of the bodice being it was in fact different from the alleged simulated too short might be remedied by bringing the ' L.'" dress higher up; but then his honor appears to have forgotten all about the ankles. The In Sprouse г. Commonwealth, 81 Va. 378, matter was, however, at last settled. So in on a trial for forgery of Gibson's name, Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass. 136; s. c. 18 evidence was allowed that when the prisoner
