ion, which, together with the document, shall then be submitted to the jury.1 In other states the common-law rule is adhered to, and while comparison, both by expert witnesses and by the jury, is permitted, it must be made with writings which are relevant to the case, or, if with other writings, their authenticity must have been admitted either expressly or by conduct sufficient to estop the party.2 In the courts of other states, and in the United States supreme court, no irrelevant writing can be selected as a standard of comparison. Comparison can only be made with some writing properly constituting a part of the evidence or record and the genuineness of which is acknowledged.3 1 Mortimer v. Chambers, 17 N. Y. S. 552; Durnell v. Sowden (Utah), 14 Pac. Rep. 335; State v. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147; Smith v. Caswell, 67 Tex. 567; Clay v. Alderson, 10 id. 49; Boggus v. State, 34 Ga. 375; Hammond v. Wolf (Iowa, 1892), 42 N. W. Rep. 778; Baker v. Mygatt, 14 Iowa, 131; Le Carpentier v. Delery, 4 Mart. (La.) 454; State v. Zimmerman, 47 Kan. 242; Yeomans v. Petty, 40 N. J. Eq. 495; Peck v. Callahan, 95 N. Y. 73; McKay v. Lasher, 42 Hun, 270; Winnie v. Tousley, 36 Hun, 190; State v. Miller, 47 Wis. 530; Smith v. Elmert, 47 Wis. 479; Hall v. Van Vranken, 64 How. Pr. 407; Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 82; Holmes v. Goldsmith, 145 U. S. 150. 2 Hazzard v. Vickory, 78 Ind. 64; Short v. Kinzie, 80 Ind. 500; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419; Rogers v. Tyley (Ill., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 393; Morrison v. Porter, 35 Minn. 425; Springer v. Hall, 83 Mo. 93; Bank v. Robert, 41 Mich. 709; Dietz v. Fourth Nat. Bank (Mich.), 37 N. W. Rep. 220; People v. Parker, 34 N. W. Rep. 720; State v. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147; Yates v. Yates, 76 N. C. 142; Lachance v. Loblein, 15 Mo. App. 460; Rose v. Bank, 91 Mo. 399; Wag oner v. Ruply, 69 Tex. 700; Walker v. State, 14 Tex. App. 609; Chester v. State, 23 Tex. App. 577; State v. De Groff (N. C., 1893), 18 S. E. Rep. 507; Andrews v. Hayden (Ky.), 11 S. W. Rep. 428. If the writing in dispute has been lost, an expert who has seen it may compare it with a relevant writing. Abbott v. Cole man, 22 Kan. 250. Cf. Collins v. Ball, 82 Tex. 259. 3 Snyder v. Berkes (Ala.), 4 S. W. Rep. 225; Bestor v. Roberts, 58 Ala. 331; Clark v. Rhoades, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 206; Wilbur v. Eicholtz, 5 Col. 240; Bank v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247; Miller v. Jones, 32 Ark. 337; Brobston v. Cahill, 64 Ill. 356; Woodard v. Spiller, 1 Dana (Ky.), 180; McCafferty v. Heritage, 5 Houst. (Del.) 220; Miller v. Johnston, 27 Md. 6: Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270; Merritt v. Straw, 33 N. E. Rep. 657; Bank v. Houghton, 41 Mich. 709; Himrod v. Bolton, 44 Ill. App. 516. It has been recently held that handwriting cannot be proved by comparison, in Gibson v. Trowbridge (Ala., 1893), 11 S. Rep. 365; Riggs v. Powell (Ga., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 482; Bevan v. Bank, 31 N. E. Rep. 679; 39 Ill. App. 577. A writing intended to be used as a standard must be proved or admitted to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. The matter is one lying largely in his discretion, and his action should not be reversed unless he has committed some manifest error of law or unless his finding is totally unsupported by the evidence adduced.' Where the standard of comparison is an irrelevant writing and its genuineness is disputed, it must be proved directly by the evidence of witnesses who can testify of their own knowledge that it is genuine.2 In those courts which permit a comparison with irrelevant writings, expert testimony is always admissible. So attorneys at law, business men with extensive correspondence, bank officials, conveyancers, book-keepers, public officials, writing teachers, and other persons who from their position or profession have a peculiar knowledge of the subject, may testify.1 9 8 In many cases, particularly in those states where comparison is not permitted with irrelevant writings, it has been held that the testimony of experts upon handwriting is not ad 1 State v. De Graff (N. C., 1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 507; Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Iowa, 159; Wilson v. Irish, 62 id. 260; Tyler v. Todd, 36 Conn. 218; Thompson v. State (Me.), 13 Atl. Rep. 892; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481; People v. Cline, 44 Mich. 290; Conrad v. Bank, 10 Mart. 700; Hall v. Van Vranken, 64 How. Pr. 407; Depue v. Place, 7 Pa. St. 428; Rowell v. Fuller, 59 Vt. 688. Cf. Carter v. Jackson, 58 N. H. 156; State v. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452. 2 Pavey v. Pavey, 30 Ohio St. 600; Baker v. Haines, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 284. Cf. Bell v. Brewster, 44 Ohio, 690, and Sweigart v. Richard, 8 Barr (Pa.), 436, where comparison is to be made with writings over thirty years old. 3 State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366. 4 Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478; Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 442, 446. $ Lyon v. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55; Du bois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Walker v. State, 14 Tex. App. 609. 6 Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287. 7 State v. De Graff (N. C., 1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 507; State v. Ward, 39 Vt. 225; Vinton v. Peck, supra. Eisfield v. Dill et al., 71 Iowa, 442; State v. De Graff (N. C., 1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 507; State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366. 9 Eisfield v. Dill, 7 Iowa, 442; Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 450; Bacon v. Williams, 13 Gray, 525. 1 Edmonston v. Henry, 45 Mo. App. 346; Com. v. Williams, 105 Mass. 62; Sweetzer v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446, 450; Goldstein v. Black, 50 Cal. 462, 465; Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Iowa, 159; Murphy v. Hagerman, Wright (Ohio), 293, 297; Winch v. Norman, 65 Iowa, 186; Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478; Mallory v. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 112; 51 N. W. Rep. 188. missible and comparison is generally to be made by the court or jury.1 141. To what expert may give evidence.- An expert may testify to the characteristics of the handwriting; as, for example, that it is cramped or crowded, or natural and free as distinguished from stiff, artificial and seemingly copied,3 as to the condition of the paper, whether two writings are by the same person," or as to the slant or other peculiarity of the letters,' as to the size, length and position of signatures; and he may give his opinion upon the question whether writings were or were not written at the same time by the same person and with the same writing materials." An expert may testify to the character of alterations and erasures and may give his opinion as to their date and the means by which they were effected.10 1 Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 257, 264; Kernin v. Hill, 37 Ill. 209; Fee v. Taylor, 83 Ky. 259; Tome v. Railroad Co., 39 Md. 37; Gitchell v. Ryan, 24 Ill. App. 372; In re Rockey's Estate, 155 Pa. St. 453; 26 Atl. Rep. 656; 32 W. N. C. 434; Tucker v. Kellogg (Utah, 1892), 28 Pac. Rep. 870; State v. Zimmerman, 47 Kan. 242. 2 Dubois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355. 3 Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 490; Ludlow v. Warshing, 108 N. Y. 520; Cox v. Dill, 85 Ind. 334; Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 63 Barb. 154; Wither v. Roe, 45 Me. 571. Bank v. Young, 36 Iowa, 44; Sheldon v. Warner, 45 Mich. 638; Reese v. Reese, 90 Pa. St. 89; Ellingwood v. Bragg, 52 N. H. 488; Clark v. Bruce, 12 Hun, 271; Dubois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Fulton v. Hood, 34 Pa. St. 365. An expert may be permitted to use a black-board (Dryer v. Brown, 52 Hun, 391), and as the correctness of his opinion may usually be thus ocularly demonstrated, his evidence is of little weight, it seems, if he neglects to do so. In re Gordon (N. J., 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 268. See § 197. 10 Kruse v. Chester, 66 Cal. 353; 4 Hancock v. O'Rourke, 6 N. Y. S. Dubois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Han 549. 5 Rogers v. Tyler (Ill., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 393. See upon the subject of expert evidence, post, §§ 185-198. 6 Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 154. 7 Taylor v. Crowninshield, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 209, 223. kins v. Grimes, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 257-264; Ballentine v. White, 77 Pa. St. 20-22; Eisfield v. Dill, 71 Iowa, 442; Pate v. People, 8 Ill. 644; Moye v. Hoydun, 30 Miss. 110; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287; Edelin v. Sanders, 8 Md. 118. See as to alteration, S$ 128, 129. If the date stated in the 8 Riordan v. Guggerty, 39 N. W. writing is obscure an expert may Rep. 107. 9 Bank v. Holls, 11 Gray (Mass.), 250; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287; give an opinion as to the real date (Stone v. Hubbard, 7 Cush. 595), or he may testify to the age of the in In a prosecution for homicide, where the identity of the prisoner is in issue, the signature of the accused may be compared with writings proved to have been written by the slayer, or various writings alleged to have been written by him may be compared with each other by an expert or in some cases by the jury.1 § 142. Proof of exhibits in equity. An exhibit, using the word in its general sense, means a document produced and identified for use as evidence. In its restricted sense it signifies writings which are proved in chancery either by the express admissions of the parties in the pleadings, or by failing to deny their existence when alleged, or by viva voce examination of witnesses at the hearing. So also when writings are put in evidence before a referee, before a jury in open court, or before a commissioner or examiner appointed to take testimony in chancery, they should be exhibited to the witness and exam iner or referee to be identified by the witness, after which they should be marked as exhibits by the proper official.3 In modern chancery practice certain classes of documents, among which are included ancient records and deeds, public records, and deeds, bonds, notes, bills of exchange, letters and receipts, may be proved as exhibits at the hearing after answer before the chancellor, by any witness who can testify to their execution, identity or their accuracy as copies of an original. Usually a party who wishes to prove an exhibit on a hearing must obtain an order to that effect, though his adversary has no right to an inspection of the writing prior to the hearing. 6 strument. Eisfield v. Dill, 71 Iowa, 442; Clark v. Bruce, 12 Hun, 171. Contra, Cheney v. Dunlap, 20 Neb. 265. 1 Crist v. State, 21 Ala. 137; Early v. State, 9 Tex. App. 476; Bell v. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 690; 10 N. E. Rep. 679. 1 Abb. Law Dict. 2 Gresley, Eq. Evid., 146. Abb. Law Dict.; Com. Bank v. Bank of State of N. Y., 4 Hill (N. Y.), 516. 4 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 881, 882; Chalk v. Raine, 7 Hare, 393; Gresley, Eq. Evid., 188. 5 Barrow v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 559; Miller v. Avery, 2 Barb. Ch. 582. "Lord v. Colvin, 2 De G., M. & G. 47. CHAPTER XIII. JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS. § 142a. Inspection of public records. [§ 150b. The effect of judicial records both at common law and by statute, the right of the individual to inspect public records in so far as he had personal interest in them has been admitted. In respect to judicial records of courts of a superior jurisdiction, an inspection may in the discretion of the court be compelled by mandamus, though the official having the custody of the papers is a party to the suit in which they are to be used. But where a mandamus is desired to inspect the books of an inferior tribunal or official, it will generally be necessary for the applicant to show affirmatively that he has some personal interest in the 1 Scribner v. Chase, 27 Ill. App. 36. 2 Rex v. Brangen, 1 Leach Cr. Cas. 32; Stone v. Crocker, 24 Pick. 88; Fox v. Jones, 7 B. & C. 732. Cf. |