Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/222

 Injudicial Rulings on Questioned Documents BY WEBSTER A. MELCHER OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR

pORTUNATELY for the adminis•T tration of justice, the vast majority of our judges are conscious of the fact that the mere donning of a judicial toga does not endow them with any peculiar knowledge on subjects outside of their own special branches of study, and that experts in other lines are able to en lighten them on such subjects. There fore they treat the skilled assistant with the same fair consideration that any other witness would receive; and the weight to be given to his opinions is determined by his knowledge of the subject, as ascertained through a full, fair, and intelligent examination. This is but an exhibition of judicial conduct on the part of those judges. There are, however, rare exceptions existing here and there of judges who allow their self-esteem and unreasoning prejudice to override their judgment; consequently they are found pursuing an almost opposite course. They resent all such skilled assistance, as a sort of unnecessary imputation against their own learning, and treat such witnesses with contempt and insult wherever pos sible. This is an example of in-judicial conduct on the part of those judges. But among the majority class first mentioned there is occasionally found a judge who, with the best of intentions, on the spur of the moment so far fails to apply the principles of common sense and of accepted law to the matter before him, that he insists on perpetrating a ruling which is contrary to both sets of principles. Such decisions may be appropriately termed in-judicial rulings;

and, as they are generally not appealed from, either through the temerity or ignorance of counsel or the fact that the case is settled, they practically never find their way into the official reports, — which is perhaps a fortunate thing for all concerned. The writer in the course of his experi ence of nearly a generation as a member of the Bar making a specialty of the examination of questioned writings and documents, has encountered a number of such in-judicial rulings made in scattered jurisdictions throughout the United States; and these are here gathered together and presented as "horrible examples," with the object of preventing their repetition. In passing it can be said that some of the most absurd of these rulings came from the mouths of some of the most learned and respected members of the Judiciary; it may be assumed, therefore, that a re view of them will be to the advantage of all, as well as to the Bar at large. Out of consideration for the courts involved, the cases will not be referred to by names; but in every one of them some question had been properly raised, bringing before the court as an issue the genuineness of some writing or docu ment, and the ruling cited was not a mere extrajudicial dictum. 1. Preliminary to Trial. In an action upon a paper alleged to be forged, the plaintiff cannot be re quired to produce it for examination by an expert on behalf of the defense in advance of the trial.