The Reminiscences of Sir Henry Hawkins (Baron Brampton) Part 31

The number of people who professed to believe in the Claimant long after he was sent to penal servitude was prodigious, although not one of them could have given a reason for his faith, or pointed to a particle of unimpeachable evidence to support his opinion. It had never been anything other than feeling in the dark for what never existed.

CHAPTER x.x.x.

AN EXPERT IN HANDWRITING--"DO YOU KNOW JOE BROWN?"

I always took great interest in the cla.s.s of expert who professed to identify handwriting. Experts of all cla.s.ses give evidence only as to opinion; nevertheless, those who decide upon handwriting believe in their infallibility. Cross-examination can never shake their confidence. Some will pin their faith even to the crossing of a T, "the perpendicularity, my lord," of a down-stroke, or the "obliquity"

of an upstroke.

Mr. Nethercliffe, one of the greatest in his profession, and a thorough believer in all he said, had been often cross-examined by me, and we understood each other very well. I sometimes indulged in a little chaff at his expense; indeed, I generally had a little "fling"

at him when he was in the box.

It is remarkable that, at the time I speak of, Judges, as a rule, had wonderful confidence in this cla.s.s of expert, and never seemed to think of forming any opinion of their own. A witness swore to certain peculiarities; the Judge looked at them and at once saw them, too often without considering that peculiarities are exactly the things that forgers imitate.

"You find the same peculiarity here, my lord, and the same peculiarity there, my lord; consequently I say it is the same handwriting."

In days long gone by the eminent expert in this science had a great reputation. As I often met him, I knew _his_ peculiarities, and how annoyed he was if the correctness of his opinion was in the least doubted.

He had a son of whom he was deservedly proud, and he and his son, in cases of importance, were often employed on opposite sides to support or deny the genuineness of a questioned handwriting. On one occasion, in the Queen's Bench, a libel was charged against a defendant which he positively denied ever to have written.

I appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Nethercliffe was called as a witness for the plaintiff.

When I rose to cross-examine I handed to the expert six slips of paper, each of which was written in a different kind of handwriting.

Nethercliffe took out his large pair of spectacles--magnifiers--which he always carried, and began to polish them with a great deal of care, saying,--

"I see, Mr. Hawkins, what you are going to try to do--you want to put me in a hole."

"I do, Mr. Nethercliffe; and if you are ready for the hole, tell me--were those six pieces of paper written by one hand at about the same time?"

He examined them carefully, and after a considerable time answered: "No; they were written at different times and by different hands!"

"By different persons, do you say?"

"Yes, certainly!"

"Now, Mr. Nethercliffe, you are in the hole! I wrote them myself this morning at this desk."

He was a good deal disconcerted, not to say very angry, and I then began to ask him about his son.

"You educated your son to your own profession, I believe, Mr.

Nethercliffe?"

"I did, sir; I hope there was no harm in that, Mr. Hawkins."

"Not in the least; it is a lucrative profession. Was he a diligent student?"

"He was."

"And became as good an expert as his father, I hope?"

"Even better, I should say, if possible."

"I think you profess to be infallible, do you not?"

"That is true, Mr. Hawkins, though I say it."

"And your son, who, as you say, is even better than yourself, is he as infallible as you?"

"Certainly, he ought to be. Why not?"

Then I put this question; "Have you and your son been sometimes employed on opposite sides in a case?"

"That is hardly a fair question, Mr. Hawkins."

"Let me give you an instance: In Lady D----'s case, which has recently been tried, did not your son swear one way and you another?"

He did not deny it, whereupon I added: "It seems strange that two infallibles should contradict one another?"

The case was at an end.

One evening, after a good hard day's work, I was sitting in my easy-chair after dinner, comfortably enjoying myself, when a man, who was quite a respectable working man, came in. I had known him for a considerable time.

"What's the matter, Jenkins?" I inquired, seeing he was somewhat troubled.

"Well, Mr. Hawkins, it's a terrible job, this 'ere. I wants you to appear for me."

"Where?" I inquired.

"At Bow Street, Mr. Hawkins."

"Bow Street! What have you been doing, Jenkins?"

"Why, nothing, sir; but it's a put-up job. You knows my James, I dessay. Well, sir, that there boy, my son James, have been brought up, I might say, on the Church Catechism."

"There's not much in that," I said, meaning nothing they could take him to Bow Street for. "Is that the charge against him?"

"No, sir; but from a babby, sir, his poor mother have brought that there boy up to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it's a curious thing, Mr. Hawkins--a very curious thing, sir--that arter all his poor mother's care and James's desire to speak the truth, they've gone and charged that there boy with perjury! 'At all times,' says his mother, 'James, speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;' and this is what it's come to--would anybody believe it, sir? _Could_ anybody believe it? It's enough to make anybody disbelieve in Christianity. And what's more, sir, that there boy was so eager at all times to tell the whole truth that, to make quite sure he told it all, he'd go a little beyond on the other side, sir--he would, indeed."

When he heard my fee was a hundred guineas to appear at the police court, I heard no more of truthful James.

In dealing with a case where there is really no substantial defence, it is sometimes necessary to throw a little ridicule over the proceedings, taking care, first, to see what is the humour of the jury. I remember trying this with great success, and reducing a verdict which might have been considerable to a comparatively trifling amount.