forty centuries of ink- 第40部分

prejudiced　by　any　alteration　or　manipulation　of　the

instrument。　I　do　not　think；　however；　that　this

objection　is　sound。　Take　an　extreme　case；　of　permitting

a　sufficient　amount　of　the　ink　（which　the

affidavit　of　the　expert　shows　to　be　but　infinitesimal）

for　the　purpose　of　chemical　examination；

the　form　of　the　letter　would　remain　upon　the　paper；

if　not；　the　form　and　appearance　of　the　entire　signature

might；　as　a　preliminary　precaution；　be　preserved

by　photography。　The　portion　of　the　signature

remaining　would　afford　ample　material　for

future　experiments　and　investigations　in　subsequent

proceedings　wherein　it　might　be　deemed　advisable

to　take　that　course。



〃Because　the　subject　matter　of　the　controversy

may　be　litigated　hereafter　should　not　deprive　parties

in　the　proceeding　of　any　rights　which　they

would　otherwise　have。　They　certainly　are　entitled

to　all　rights　in　this　proceeding　that　the　parties　to

any　future　proceedings　would　have。　Besides；　all

the　parties　whose　presence　would　be　necessary　to

an　adjudication　in；　for　example；　an　ejectment　proceeding；

are　（or　their　privies　are）　parties　here。　It

certainly　cannot　be　that　the　law；　seeking　the　truth；

will　not　avail　itself　of　this　scientific　method　of

ascertaining　the　genuineness　of　the　instrument　because

of　some　problematical　effect　upon　the　rights

or　opportunities　of　parties　to　future　litigations

respecting　the　same　instrument。　The　possibilities　of

litigation　over　a　will　are　almost　infinite；　and　if　such

a　rule　should　obtain　this　important　channel　of

investigation　would　be　closed。　Suppose　the　same

objection　were　raised　to　the　first　action　of　ejectment

which　might　be　brought；　it　might　then　with

the　same　force　be　urged　that　parties　to　some　future

ejectment　suit　would　be　prejudiced　by　a　chemical

test　of　the　ink　used　in　the　will；　and　so　on　ad　infinitum。



〃By　not　availing　itself　of　this　method　of　ascertaining

the　truth　as　to　the　character　of　the　ink；　the

Court　deprives　itself　of　a　species　of　evidence　which

amounts　to　practical　demonstration。



〃I　can　see　no　reason　why　the　application　should

not　be　granted。〃



The　order　in　part　reads：



〃It　is　ordered　and　directed　that　Charles　H。

Beckett；　the　special　guardian　aforesaid；　be　and　he

hereby　is　allowed　permission　to　photograph　the

aforesaid　paper　writings　described　in　said　order　to

show　cause；　viz。；　one　of　the　two　parts　of　a　triplicate

Will　of　Thomas　J。　Monroe；　deceased；　dated

February　10th；　1873；　which　were　filed　in　the　office

of　the　Surrogate　of　the　City　and　County　of　New

York　on　or　about　the　9th　day　of　May；　1889；　and

also　the　contested　Will　herein　dated　March　27th

and　June　1st；　1888；　and　to　have　the　said　paper

writing；　bearing　date　March　22d　and　June　1st；

1888；　subjected　to　such　chemical　test　or　tests　as

shall　disclose　the　nature　of　the　composition　of　the

ink　and；　if　possible；　the　process　or　processes　to

which　it　has　been　subjected；　if　any。




〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that

such　chemical　test　be　applied　to　the　ink　or　writing

fluid　on　said　alleged　Will　to　the　following　specified

portion；　or　any　part　of　such　portions；　viz。〃



Specifications　in　minute　detail　follow；　calling　attention

to　the　words　and　spaces　which　are　permitted　to

be　chemically　tested；　and　then　continues：



〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that　the

said　paper　writings　shall　be　photographed　before

any　chemical　tests　are　applied　thereto。



〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that

such　photographing　and　chemical　tests　be　performed

by　David　N。　Carvalho；　Esq。；　a　proper　and

suitable　person；　at　the　places　above　indicated

respectively；　between　the　10th　and　the　20th　days　of

June；　1889；　inclusive；　in　the　presence　of　the　parties

in　interest　or　their　attorneys；　upon　at　least　two

days'　notice　to　all　parties　herein　or　their　attorneys。



〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that　in

the　event　of　destruction　or　breaking　of　the　negatives

after　such　paper　writings　have　been　photographed；

the　said　special　guardian；　upon　similar

notice；　shall　have　leave　to　re…photograph　the　said

paper　writings；　at　the　same　place　and　by　the　said

David　N。　Carvalho；　between　the　10th　and　20th

days　of　June；　1889；　inclusive。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　〃（Signed）　　　　　　　　　　　　RASTUS　S。　RANSOM；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　〃Surrogate。〃



On　the　19th　of　June；　1889；　pursuant　to　the　order　of

the　court；　the　alleged　will　referred　to　was　first　photographed；

and　later　in　that　day　such　places　as　had

been　designated　in　the　order　were　chemically　treated；

as　part　of　a　series　of　experiments。　The　results　obtained

briefly　summarized　were　as；　follows：　The　instrument

which　purported　to　be　a　holographic　will　of

Thomas　J。　Monroe　the　experiments　showed　conclusively

to　be　not　the　case；　as　neither　pen　nor　ink　in

the　body　writing　portion　or　in　the　decedent's　signature

had　ever　touched　the　paper；　the　date　and　names

of　the　witnesses　thereon　were　written；　however；　with

pen　and　ink。　Furthermore；　the　experiments　demonstrated

beyond　question　that　exclusive　of　its　date　and

names　of　witnesses；　that　it　was　what　is　commonly

known　as　a　transfer　taken　from　a　gelatine　pad　（hektograph）；

a　method　of　duplicating　popularly　in　vogue

at　that　time。　The　deduced　facts　in　the　matter　being

that　Thomas　J。　Monroe　had　written　his　will　in　an

aniline　purple　ink；　to　which　he　had　appended　his　name；

leaving　blank　spaces　to　be　filled　in　for　the　date；　names

of　witnesses；　etc。；　and　had　transferred　the　same　to　a

hektograph；　from　which　he　had　taken　a　number　of

duplicate　facsimile　copies；　and　at　some　other　time　had

filled　in　the　blank　spaces　by　ordinary　methods　and　to

which；　at　his　request；　the　names　of　the　witnesses　had

been　written　with　a　pen　and　ink。　In　the　trial　which

followed　the　surrogate　declined　to　sustain　the　allegation

of　the　proponents　that　the　alleged　signature　was

the　original　writing　of　Thomas　J。　Monroe；　or　indeed

of　any　person。　The　will　was　not　admitted　to　probate。



Experiments；　both　in　open　court　or　during　its　sessions

in　the　testing　of　ink　and　paper；　microscopically

and　chemically；　are　of　frequent　occurrence；　and　many

contests　involving　enormous　interests　have　been　more

or　less　decided　as　the　result　of　them。



The　contest　of　the　alleged　will　of　George　P。　Gordon；

tried　before　the　late　Chancellor　McGill　of　New

Jersey　in　1891；　illustrates　in　a　remarkable　degree　just

how　certain　are　the　results　of　investigations　of　this

character。　The　chancellor's　decision；　after　listening

to　testimony　for　many　weeks；　was　in　effect　to　declare

the　will　a　forgery；　largely　because　of　the　fact　that　the

premise　on　which　it　rested　was　a　so…called　draft；　from

which　it　was　sworn　it　had　been　copied。　The　ink　on

this　draft　it　was　proved　could　not　have　had　an　existence。

until　many　years　after　the　date　of　the　forged　will。



The　decedent；　who　died　in　1878；　was　the　inventor

of　a　famous　printing　press；　and　left　a　large　fortune。



A　will　offered　for　probate　soon　after　the　death　of

Gordon　was　not　probated；　owing　to　the　discovery　that

the　witnesses　had　not　signed　it　in　each　other's　presence。

The　principal　beneficiaries；　however；　under

that　will；　the　widow　and　daughter　of　Gordon；　agreed

to　a　division　of　the　estate　which　was　satisfactory　to

the　other　heirs　at　law；　and　the　matter　apparently　was

settled。



But　a　retired　lawyer　named　Henry　C。　Adams　began

in　1879；　a　year　after　Gordon's　death；　to　endeavor　to

obtain　the　assistance　of　some　heirs　at　law　in　an　enterprise

which　was　finally　ended　only　when　Chancellor

McGill's　decision　was　rendered。



In　1868　Adams　lived　with　his　father　and　brothers

on　a　farm；　near　Rahway；　N。　J。；　adjoining　the　Gordon

place。　The　two　men　became　well　acquainted　through

their　common　interest　in　music。　Adams　called　upon

A。　Sidney　Doane；　a　nephew　of　Gordon；　and　told　him

that　Gordon　had　made　a　will　in　1868　which　might　be

found　or　if　lost；　established　by　means　of　a　draft　of　it

which　he　（Adams）　had　retained。　Mr。　Doane　refused

to　act　upon　this　proposition。　Then　Adams　presented

the　matter　to　Guthbert　O。　Gordon；　a　brother　to

George　P。　Gordon。　He　declined　to　consider　the　proposed

search　for　a　new　will。　Adams　then　wrote　to

Guthbert　Gordon；　Jr。；　cautioning　him　to　say　nothing

to　any　one；　but　to　come　and　see　him。　Guthbert　Gordon；

Jr。；　declined　to　accept　Adams's　invitation　for　a

secret　conference。　Adams　did　not　write　or　communicate

with　the　widow　or　daughter　of　George　P。　Gordon；

or　with　any　of　the　officials　or　other　persons　who　dealt

with　the　estate。　Finding　that　the　heirs　at　law　were

satisfied　with　the　arrangement　of　the　estate　under

Gordon's　daughter's　management；　he　gave　up　his　efforts

at　that　time。



In　1890　Mary　Agnes　Gordon；　the　daughter；　died　in

Paris；　and　remittances　from　her　ceasing　and　her　will

not　being　satisfactory　to　those　who　had　been　receiving

them　from　her；　another　contest　was　begun。　This

caused　a　renewal　of　Adams's　activity。　In　1890　he

wrote　to　Messrs。　Black　&　King；　a　firm　of　lawyers　who

represented　the　contestants　of　Mary　Agnes　Gordon's

will。　Adams's　letter　to　the　law　firm　contained　this

expression：



〃If　one　of　you　will　come　over　here　on　Sunday

morning；　bringing　no　brass　band；　fife　or　drums；　I

will　tell　you　something　worth　knowing。〃



Mr。　King　visited　Adams；　who　was　then　living　at

Orange；　N。　J。；　and　was　told　by　him　that　Mr。　Gordon

had　executed　a　will　in　1868　which　he　（Adams）　had

drawn　at　Gordon's　instance；　and　that　he　had　retained

a　corrected　draft　from　which　the　will　itself　had　been

copied。　He　also　told　King　that　the　original　will　after

its　execution　had　been　left　with　his　father；　and　that

it　must　be　at　his　father's　homestead　near　Rahway；

where　he　would　try　to　find　it。　A　few　days　later　he

wrote　to　Black　&　King　that　the　will　had　been　found；

and　the　next　day　went　with　the　lawyers　to　Rahway

and　identified　the　package　found　by　his　brother　Edward

Adams；　who