Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/251

 224

was brought before the mayor he was asked to write the name " Gibson," and that re luctantly, but without threat or promise, he wrote it, and misspelled it " Gipson," as in the forged writing. This was held competent. In Amos' " Great Oyer of Poisoning," p. 1 20, it is said: "We learn from the letter of an eyewitness to the Earl of Somerset's trial, that the Earl was desired to write his name, in order that his handwriting might be compared with that of certain letters; but the Earl contended it was contrary to law to require him to furnish proof by com parison of handwriting for his own condem nation; neither the manuscript nor the printed report of the trial contains the slightest allusion to this circumstance." An expert on a question of handwriting may illustrate his testimony by drawing on a blackboard (McKay v. Lasher, 121 N. Y. 477). Where a witness has testified that the color of ink has been affected by a blottingpad, he may be allowed to illustrate it with such a pad (Tanners & Merch. Bk. v. Young, 36 Iowa, 44). A witness having testified that he wrote certain disputed words, on crossexamination may be required to write in presence of the jury (Huff v. Nims, 11 Neb. 363). Several decisions have been reported while these papers have been publishing. In Michigan it has been held, contrary to the doctrine of the Botsford case in the Federal Supreme Court, that the court, in an action of damages for a bodily injury, may compel the plaintiff to exhibit the injured member to the jury. This is put on the untenable ground that the court may compel the plain tiff to produce the best evidence. The court made no allusion to the recent cases in New York and Indiana, holding in harmony with the .Botsford case. I have parted with the report of this Michigan case, but it is in a very late number of the West Publishing Company's Reporters. In Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dutcher, Texas Supreme Court, 18 S. W. Rep. 586, it was said : " The writer of this opinion very much

doubts the existence of the power of compul sion in such cases, or to enforce the examina tion of the person of an individual without his or her consent, the effect of which would be, where the person to be examined is a female, to authorize the physicians to commit acts which otherwise would amount to an aggra vated assault. The constitutional guaranty may be inconsistent with the exercise of the power, and we do not understand that the Supreme Court has yet determined this question." In Siberry v. State, Indiana, 33 N. E. Rep. 68 1, it was held that where a revolver has been identified as being the one with which the homicide was committed, it is proper to show the revolver to the jury, and to allow a competent witness to testify how it could be discharged. In Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carter, Texas, 20 S. W. Rep. 835, an action of damages for non-delivery of a telegram, the court said : — "The first error assigned is thai the court erred in permitting evidence to be introduced showing the acts and conduct of plaintiff Mrs. M. E. Carter, the daughter of the deceased, Gorsuch. The evidence objected to was that of witnesses who stated the conduct and grief exhibited by Mrs. Carter when she learned that the notice of her father's death had not reached her in time for her and husband to take the morning train in order to be present at the funeral; and when she was in formed that her father was buried without her being present, she expressed her sorrow and grief by crying and moaning, and appeared unable to stand without assistance. The evidence objected to does not appear to be the conduct and acts of Mrs. Carter, accompanied by the grief and sorrow naturally resulting by reason of the death of her father, but appears to be acts and conduct show ing- grief and sorrow, accompanied by the facts that she was deprived of the right and privilege to be present at her father's funeral. The physical effect of this fact upon her that was observed by bystanders is admissible. It is permissible for them to say what effect this fact occasioned, if they ob served it. The evidence was admissible."