as an expert is refused by the
court on the ground of deficient qualification. It is usually held
that any one possessed of anything more than ordinary opportunity for
studying or observing handwriting may give expert testimony, which the
jury may receive for what it is deemed to be worth. Bank officials and
employees are declared by most courts to be competent witnesses. If on
any previous occasion one has given testimony, that fact is usually
accepted as a sufficient qualification, or if he has ever seen the
person write whose writing is in question, he is deemed competent.
With such limited qualification it is no matter of surprise that
expert testimony is sometime made to appear at very great
disadvantage. Incompetent and mercenary witnesses will seek
employment, and since there are always two sides to a case, and on
each side lawyers who spare no efforts for victory, there is a chance
for every kind of witness, as there is for every kind of attorney.

Expert evidence is that given by one especially skilled in the subject
to which it is applicable, concerning information beyond the range of
ordinary observation and intelligence.

Opinion evidence is the conclusions of witnesses concerning certain
propositions, drawn from ascertained or supposed facts, by those who
have had better opportunities than the ordinary individual or witness
to judge of the truth or falsity of such propositions, or who are
familiar with the subject under inquiry, and give their conclusions
from the facts within their own knowledge concerning certain questions
involved.

Let us look at the question as it presents itself to the layman, to
men of science and experience, to microscopists, to bank officials and
others having much to do with writing. An expert in handwriting
occupies a totally anomalous position when called before a court as a
witness. Technically he is both a witness and an advocate, sharing the
responsibilities of both but without the privileges of the latter. He
has to instruct counsel and to prompt him during its course. But in
cross examination he is more open to insult because the court does not
see clearly how he arrives at his conclusions, and suspects whatever
it does not understand. Nearly every person who has had to appear in
court as an expert has been subjected to more or less humiliation by
the judge.

It may be, perhaps, cynically hinted that men who have made the
science of disputed handwriting a study should