ature is produced by placing the paper over the genuine
autograph, holding it to the light, generally on a sheet of glass, and
tracing it with a fine point. Such forgeries are often more easily
detected than the copied signature, for the reason that signs of the
tracing process can generally be found by careful examination. The fine,
hard point used to trace the autograph leaves a smooth hollow, which can
be seen through the glass on examining the back of the cheque or
document. If the paper be held in a line with the eye in a strong light,
the ridge will be more clearly perceived. The difference between a mark
made by a hard point and a pen can be tested by experiment. The hard
point must of necessity be pressed with a degree of force to make the
desired impression on the paper, and the result is a smooth hollow. But
if a pen be pressed hard, it produces two parallel lines, and, instead
of a hollow, a ridge is formed between the parallels. Of course, it will
be so slight as to be hardly perceptible, except through a strong glass,
but it will be there nevertheless, and knowing what to look for, the
expert will generally have no difficulty in satisfying himself whether
the forgery has been traced or copied, a very valuable piece of evidence
when once settled, for it is within the bounds of probability that the
genuine signature from which the tracing was made may be discovered. It
is possible, and has often occurred, that the writer of the original may
have some recollection of having written to the suspected person, or in
many ways a clue may be suggested. There is a well-known case of a
forgery being brought home to the perpetrator through the accuracy of
the tracing. It is a fact easily proved, that no man can write a word
twice, so exactly, that if the two are overlaid they fit. If two such
signatures be produced, it is safe to assume that one has been traced or
otherwise mechanically produced. In the case mentioned a signature on a
cheque was pronounced a forgery by the person supposed to have signed
it. In examining specimens of the genuine autograph, the experts came
upon one which, when placed upon that on the cheque, proved a perfect
replica, down to the most minute detail, showing beyond question that it
had been used to trace the forgery from. It was further proved that the
original had been in the possession of the supposed forger, and the jury
were asked to decide whether it was probable that a man could reprod