notes　for　6；000　each；　the　contention　of　the　prosecution
  was　that　the　dates　of　the　notes　had　been　changed
  by　chemicals；　and　with　the　consent　of　the　defense　a
  reagent　was　applied　to　the　suspected　places　and　the
  original　dates　restored。　The　verdict　of　the　jury　was
  guilty。
  In　the　Holt　Will　case；　tried　in　Washington；　D。　C。；
  in　the　month　of　June；　1896；　great　stress　was　laid　on
  the　fact　of　the　difference　in　the　admixture　of　inks
  found　on　letters　contemporaneous　with　the　date　of
  the　will；　and　it　was　asserted　also　that　the　ink　with
  which　the　will　was　written　was　not　in　existence　at
  the　time　it　was　alleged　to　have　been　made；　June　14；
  1873；　and　probably　not　earlier　than　ten　years　later。
  Furthermore；　that　it　was　a　habit　of　Judge　Holt　up　to
  the　time　of　his　death；　which　habit　was　illustrated　in
  his　writings　and　correspondence　to　〃sand〃　his　writing。
  The　jury　decided　the　will　was　a　forgery。
  Another　famous　case　in　which　the　scientific　testimony
  about　ink　and　pencil　writing　must　have　assisted
  the　court　in　arriving　at　a　conclusion　was　in　the　trial
  of　the　famous　Tighe　will　contest；　tried　before　Hon。
  Frank　T。　Fitzgerald；　one　of　the　present　surrogates　of
  the　county　of　New　York。　The　story　of　this　case　is
  incorporated　in　the　opinion　which　is　cited　in　part：
  〃Hon。　Frank　T。　Fitzgerald；　Surrogate　of　the
  county　of　New　York：
  〃That　Richard　Tighe　died　on　the　6th　day　of
  May；　1896；　at　No。　32　Union　Square；　in　the　city
  and　county　of　New　York；　where　he　had　lived　for
  fifty　years　prior　to　his　death；　and　was　at　the　time
  of　his　death　over　ninety　years。
  〃That　the　testator；　on　or　about　the　27th　day　of
  March；　1884；　in　the　presence　of　the　attesting　witnesses；
  duly　signed　the　instrument　in　writing；　and
  duly　published　and　declared　the　same　to　be　his　last
  will　and　testament；　and　requested　said　witnesses
  to　witness　the　same；　and　pursuant　to　such　request
  said　attesting　witnesses　did　subscribe　said　will　as
  attesting　witnesses。　That　at　the　time　said　Richard
  Tighe　so　signed；　published　and　declared　the　said
  instrument　to　be　his　last　will　and　testament；　the
  said　Richard　Tighe　was　in　all　respects　competent
  to　execute　the　same；　and　was　not　under　any　restraint
  or　undue　influence。　That　the　said　instrument；
  so　signed；　published　and　declared　by
  testator　was　and　consisted　of　the　identical　sheets
  of　paper　and　the　identical　writing　now　appearing
  upon　the　same　as　to　all　except　pencil　writing；　the
  testator　did　not　publish　or　declare　the　marks；　words
  or　figures　written　in　or　upon　said　instrument　in
  pencil　to　be　a　part　of　his　last　will　and　testament；
  and　it　is　not　found　that　such　marks；　words　or　figures
  were　upon　said　instrument　at　the　time　when
  said　instrument　was　so　published　and　declared　to
  be　the　last　will　and　testament　of　the　testator。
  That　the　said　last　will　and　testament　is　written
  consecutively　upon　two　sheets　of　legal　cap　paper。
  〃That　the　said　last　will　and　testament　was　originally
  prepared　with　blank　spaces　left　for　the
  insertion　of　the　numbers　of　shares　intended　to　be
  bequeathed　and　devised　to　the　various　beneficiaries
  named　therein；　and　as　so　prepared　was　in　the
  hand…writing　of　Caroline　S。　Tighe；　the　wife　of　testator；
  and　that　at　some　subsequent　time　and　before
  the　execution　of　the　said　instrument　by　the　said
  Richard　Tighe；　the　blank　spaces　hereinafter　referred
  to　as　filled　in　in　ink；　were　filled　in　by　or　under　the
  direction　of　the　testator。　Upon　said　instrument
  as　offered　for　probate　there　appears　in　the　blanks
  originally　left　thereon；　in　some　instances；　pencil
  writings　superimposed　over　other　pencil　writings；
  which　have　been　either　wholly　or　partially　erased；
  and　in　other　instances　ink　writing　different　from
  the　body　of　the　instrument　in　the　material　employed；
  appearing　over　pencil　writings　wholly　or
  partially　obliterated。　。　。
  〃That　the　said　words　written　in　ink　filling　such
  blanks　as　aforesaid　expressed　the　final　determination
  of　the　testator　with　regard　to　the　beneficiaries
  to　whom　the　same　applied；　and　that　the　words
  and　figures　written　in　pencil　filling　such　blanks　as
  aforesaid　were　written　only　deliberately　and　tentatively
  and　that　as　to　those　words　and　figures　the
  testator　had　not　at　the　time　when　he　executed；
  published　or　declared　said　instrument　to　be　his
  last　will　and　testament　determined　as　to　whom　or
  in　what　proportions　he　would　give　the　several
  shares　of　his　estate　and　property　covered　by　said
  words　and　figures；　but　the　testator　attempted
  and　intended　to　reserve　to　himself　the　power　of
  making　disposition　of　said　shares　thereafter；　and
  intended　the　final　disposition　thereof　to　be　in　ink
  writing。　。　。　。〃
  CHAPTER　XXIV。
  CHEMICO…LEGAL　INK　（CONTINUED）。
  FAMOUS　CASE　OF　CRITTEN　V。　CHEMICAL　NATIONAL
  BANKSTORY　OF　THE　CASE　INCLUDED　IN　THE
  OPINION　OF　THE　COURT　OF　APPEALS　AS　WRITTEN　BY
  JUSTICE　EDGAR　M。　CULLENTHE　PINKERTON　CASE　OF
  〃BECKER〃STORY　OF　HOW　HE　SECURED　20；000
  THROUGH　THE　ALTERATION　OF　A　12　CHECKBECKER'S
  COMMENTS　ABOUT　HIMSELFA　CRITICISM　OF
  BECKER　AND　HIS　WORKNAMES　OF　SOME　CASES
  IN　WHICH　CHEMICAL　EVIDENCE　WAS　PRESENTED　TO
  COURTS　AND　JURIES。
  THE　books　contain　no　clearer　or　more　forcible　exposition
  of　〃Chemico…legal〃　ink；　in　its　relationship　to
  facts　adduced　from　illustrated　scientific　testimony；　than
  is　to　be　found　in　the　final　opinion　written　by　that
  eminent　jurist　Hon。　Edgar　M。　Cullen　on　behalf　of　the
  majority　of　the　Court　of　Appeals　of　the　State　of　New
  York；　in　the　case　of　De　Frees　Critten　v。　The　Chemical
  National　Bank。　It　was　the　author's　privilege　to　be　the
  expert　employed　in　the　lower　court　about　whose　testimony
  Judge　Cullen　remarks　（N。　Y。　Rep。；　171；　p。　223）
  〃The　alteration　of　the　checks　by　Davis　was　established
  beyond　contradiction；〃　and　again；　p。　227；　〃The　skill
  of　the　criminal　has　kept　pace　with　the　advance　in
  honest　arts　and　a　forgery　may　be　made　so　skillfully
  as　to　deceive　not　only　the　bank　but　the　drawer　of　the
  check　as　to　the　genuineness　of　his　own　signature。〃
  The　main　facts　are　included　in　the　portion　of　the
  opinion　cited：
  〃The　plaintiffs　kept　a　large　and　active　account
  with　the　defendant；　and　this　action　is　to　recover　an
  alleged　balance　of　a　deposit　due　to　them　from　the
  bank。　The　plaintiffs　had　in　their　employ　a　clerk
  named　Davis。　It　was　the　duty　of　Davis　to　fill　up
  the　checks　which　it　might　be　necessary　for　the
  plaintiffs　to　give　in　the　course　of　business；　to　make
  corresponding　entries　in　the　stubs　of　the　check　book
  and　present　the　checks　so　prepared　to　Mr。　Critten；
  one　of　the　plaintiffs；　for　signature；　together　with
  the　bills　in　payment　of　which　they　were　drawn。
  After　signing　a　check　Critten　would　place　it　and
  the　bill　in　an　envelope　addressed　to　the　proper
  party；　seal　the　envelope　and　put　it　in　the　mailing
  drawer。　During　the　period　from　September；　1897；
  to　October；　1899；　in　twenty…four　separate　instances
  Davis　abstracted　one　of　the　envelopes　from　the
  mailing　drawer；　opened　it；　obliterated　by　acids　the
  name　of　the　payee　and　the　amount　specified　in　the
  check；　then　made　the　check　payable　to　cash　and
  raised　its　amount；　in　the　majority　of　cases；　by　the
  sum　of　100。　He　would　draw　the　money　on　the
  check　so　altered　from　the　defendant　bank；　pay　the
  bill　for　which　the　check　was　drawn　in　cash　and
  appropriate　the　excess。　On　one　occasion　Davis
  did　not　collect　the　altered　check　from　the　defendant；
  but　deposited　it　to　his　own　credit　in　another
  bank。　When　a　check　was　presented　to　Critten　for
  signature　the　number　of　dollars　for　which　it　was
  drawn　would　be　cut　in　the　check　by　a　punching　instrument。
  When　Davis　altered　a　check　he　would
  punch　a　new　figure　in　front　of　those　already　appearing
  in　the　check。　The　checks　so　altered　by
  Davis　were　charged　to　the　account　of　the　plaintiff　s；
  which　was　balanced　every　two　months　and　the
  vouchers　returned　to　them　from　the　bank。　To
  Davis　himself　the　plaintiffs；　as　a　rule；　intrusted　the
  verification　of　the　bank　balance。　This　work　having
  in　the　absence　of　Davis　been　committed　to　another
  person；　the　forgeries　were　discovered　and　Davis
  was　arrested　and　punished。　It　is　the　amount　of
  these　forged　checks；　over　and　above　the　sums　for
  which　they　were　originally　drawn；　that　this　action
  is　brought　to　recover。　The　defendant　pleaded
  payment　and　charged　negligence　on　plaintiff's　part；
  both　in　the　manner　in　which　the　checks　were
  drawn　and　in　the　failure　to　discover　the　forgeries
  when　the　pass　book　was　balanced　and　the　vouchers
  surrendered。　On　the　trial　the　alteration　of　the
  checks　by　Davis　was　established　beyond　contradiction
  and　the　substantial　issue　litigated　was　that
  of　the　plaintiff's　negligence。　The　referee　rendered
  a　short　decision　in　favor　of　the　plaintiffs　in　which
  he　states　as　the　ground　of　his　decision　that　the
  plaintiffs　were　not　negligent　either　in　signing　the
  checks　as　drawn　by　Davis　or　in　failing　to　discover
  the　forgeries　at　an　earlier　date　than　that　at　which
  the