Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/941

Rh superior competitor in sports and games, or an advantage allowed the inferior, in order to equalize the chances of both. The character of the handicap depends upon the nature of the sport. Thus in horse-racing the better horse must carry the heavier weight. In foot races the inferior runners are allowed to start at certain distances in advance of the best (or “scratch”) man, according to their previous records. In distance competitions (weights, fly-casting, jumping, &c.) the inferior contestants add certain distances to their scores. In time contests (yachting, canoe-racing, &c.) the weaker or smaller competitors subtract certain periods of time from that actually made, reckoned by the mile. In stroke contests (e.g. golf) a certain number of strokes are subtracted from or added to the scores, according to the strength of the players. In chess and draughts the stronger competitor may play without one or more pieces. In court games (tennis, lawn-tennis, racquets, &c.) and in billiards certain points, or percentage of points, are accorded the weaker players.

Handicapping was applied to horse-racing as early as 1680, though the word was not used in this connexion much before the middle of the 18th century. A “Post and Handy-Cap Match” is described in Pond’s Racing Calendar for 1754. A reference to something similar in Germany and Scandinavia, called Freimarkt, may be found in Germania, vol. xix.

Competitions in which handicaps are given are called handicap-events or handicaps. There are many systems which depend upon the whim of the individual competitors. Thus a tennis player may offer to play against his inferior with a selzer-bottle instead of a racquet; or a golfer to play with only one club; or a chess-player to make his moves without seeing the board.

The name “handicap” was taken from an ancient English game, to which Pepys, in his Diary under the date of the 18th of September 1660, thus refers: “Here some of us fell to handicap, a sport that I never knew before, which was very good.” This game, which became obsolete in the 19th century, was described as early as the 14th in Piers the Plowman under the name of “New Faire.” It was originally played by three persons, one of whom proposed to “challenge,” or exchange, some piece of property belonging to another for something of his own. The challenge being accepted an umpire was chosen, and all three put up a sum of money as a forfeit. The two players then placed their right hands in a cap, or in their pockets, in which there was loose money, while the umpire proceeded to describe the two objects of exchange, and to declare what sum of money the owner of the inferior article should pay as a bonus to the other. This declaration was made as rapidly as possible and ended with the invitation, “Draw, gentlemen!” Each player then withdrew and held out his hand, which he opened. If both hands contained money the exchange was effected according to the conditions laid down by the umpire, who then took the forfeit money for himself. If neither hand contained money the exchange was declined and the umpire took the forfeit money. If only one player signified his acceptance of the exchange by holding money in his hand, he was entitled to the forfeit-money, though the exchange was not made.

Handicap was also the name of an old game at cards, now obsolete. It resembled the game of Loo, and probably derived its name from the ancient sport described above.

HANDSEL, the O. Eng. term for earnest money; especially in Scotland the first money taken at a market or fair. The termination sel is the modern “sell.” “Hand” indicates, not a bargain by shaking hands, but the actual putting of the money into the hand. Handsels were also presents or earnests of goodwill in the North; thus Handsel Monday, the first Monday in the year, an occasion for universal tipping, is the equivalent of the English Boxing day.

HANDSWORTH. (1) An urban district in the Handsworth parliamentary division of Staffordshire, England, suburban to Birmingham on the north-west. Pop. (1891), 32,756; (1901) 52,921. (See .) (2) An urban district in the Hallamshire parliamentary division of Yorkshire, 4 m. S.E. of Sheffield. Pop. (1901), 13,404. In this neighbourhood are extensive collieries and quarries.

HANDWRITING. Under and, the history of handwriting is dealt with. Questions of handwriting come before legal tribunals mainly in connexion with the law of evidence. In Roman law, the authenticity of documents was proved first by the attesting witnesses; in the second place, if they were dead, by comparison of handwritings. It was necessary, however, that the document to be used for purposes of comparison either should have been executed with the formalities of a public document, or should have its genuineness proved by three attesting witnesses. The determination was apparently, in the latter case, left to experts, who were sworn to give an impartial opinion (Code 4, 21. 20). Proof by comparison of handwritings, with a reference if necessary to three experts as to the handwriting which is to be used for the purposes of comparison, is provided for in the French Code of Civil Procedure (arts. 193 et seq.); and in Quebec (Code Proc. Civ. arts. 392 et seq.) and St Lucia (Code Civ. Proc. arts. 286 et seq.), the French system has been adopted with modifications. Comparison by witnesses of disputed writings with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine is accepted in England and Ireland in all legal proceedings whether criminal or civil, including proceedings before arbitrators (Denman Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, 55. 1, 8); and such writings and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute. It is admitted in Scotland (where the term comparatio literarum is in use) and in most of the American states, subject to the same conditions. In England, prior to the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 (now superseded by the act of 1866), documents irrelevant to the matter in issue were not admissible for the sole purpose of comparison, and this rule has been adopted, and is still adhered to, in some of the states in America. In England, as in the United States, and in most legal systems, the primary and best evidence of handwriting is that of the writer himself. Witnesses who saw him write the writing in question, or who are familiar with his handwriting either from having seen him write or from having corresponded with him, or otherwise, may be called. In cases of disputed handwriting the court will accept the evidence of experts in handwriting, i.e. persons who have an adequate knowledge of handwriting, whether acquired in the way of their business or not, such as solicitors or bank cashiers (R. v. Silverlock, 1894, 2 Q.B. 766). In such cases the witness is required to compare the admitted handwriting of the person whose writing is in question with the disputed document, and to state in detail the similarities or differences as to the formation of words and letters, on which he bases his opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed document. By the use of the magnifying glass, or, as in the Parnell case, by enlarged photographs of the letters alleged to have been written by Mr Parnell, the court and jury are much assisted to appreciate the grounds on which the conclusions of the expert are founded. Evidence of this kind, being based on opinion and theory, needs to be very carefully weighed, and the dangers of implicit reliance on it have been illustrated in many cases (e.g. the Beck case in 1904; and see Seaman v. Netherclift, 1876, 1 C.P.D. 540). Evidence by comparison of handwriting comes in principally either in default, or in corroboration, of the other modes of proof.

Where attestation is necessary to the validity of a document, e.g. wills and bills of sale, the execution must be proved by one or more of the attesting witnesses, unless they are dead or cannot be produced, when it is sufficient to prove the signature of one of them to the attesting clause (28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 7). Signatures to certain public and official documents need not in general be proved (see e.g. Evidence Act, 1845, ss. 1, 2).

See Taylor, Law of Evidence (10th ed., London, 1906); Erskine Principles of the Law of Scotland (20th ed., Edinburgh, 1903); Bouvier, Law Dicty. (Boston and London, 1897); Harris, Identification (Albany, 1892); Hagan, Disputed Handwriting (New York, 1894); also the article.