The objection made by Mr. Seezvellt that no A one shall speak as to the hand writing oí the president and cashier of the bank, but one who has seen them write, or has been! in the habit of receiving letters item tht min a course of correspondence, is not a sour d one. These signatures are known to the public, and persons who have been in the habit of distinguishing the genuine from the counterfeit signature, and conversant in dealings for bank bills, are as well qualified to determine of their genuineness, as persons who in piivate correspondence have received letters from the person whose hand-writing is in question. Moreover, it is determined by the skilful whether a bill be genuine, not only by the signature, but also by the face of the bill, and by the exact conformity of the devices which are used for the detection of counterfeits, to those in true bills» We are of opinion that the judgment of persons well acquainted with bank paper, is sufficient evidence to determine wnether the one ia question be genuine or otherwise»
United States v. Holtsclaw, 3 N.C. 379, 2 Hayw. 379 (1806)
Jan. 1806
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 379, 2 Hayw. 379