.
The forger secures examples of the signature or writing which he
desires to imitate. Then he practices on it, trying to reproduce all
its striking peculiarities. In this way he sometimes arrives at a
resemblance so close as to deceive even his victim. Still there is
always present some internal evidence to prove that the writing is not
the work of the person to whom it is attributed. Likewise it will
reveal the identity of the person who actully wrote it, if specimens
of his natural hand are to be had for comparison.

It is impossible for a man to carry in his mind and to reproduce on
paper all the peculiar characteristics of another man's writing and at
the same time to conceal all his own. At some point there is certain
to come a slip when the habit of years asserts itself and gives the
testimony which may fix the whole production on the forger beyond the
shadow of a doubt.

The little things are the ones that count most in making examination
and determining a forgery for the reason that they are no less
characteristic than the more prominent peculiarities and are more
likely to be overlooked by the person who tries to disguise his hand.
The crossing of _t's_ and the dotting of _i's_ become matters of large
moment in making comparisons of disputed handwritings. There is
probably no matter in conjunction with a man's ordinary writing to
which he gives less thought than the way he makes these crosses and
dots. For that reason they are in the highest degree characteristic.
And it is precisely because of their apparently slight importance that
the person who sets out to imitate another's handwriting or to
disguise his own is likely to be careless about these little marks and
to make slips which will be sufficient to prove his identity.

Imitations of signatures are usually written in a laborious and
painstaking manner. They are, therefore, decidedly unlike a man's
natural signature, which is usually written in an easy fashion. The
imitations show frequent pauses, irregularities in pen pressure and in
the distribution of ink, and contain other evidences of hesitation.
Not infrequently the forger tries to improve on his work by retouching
some of the letters after he has completed a word. Microscopic
examination brings out all of these things and makes them tell-tale
witnesses.

Comparison of handwriting is competent but is not itself conclusive
evidence of forgery. Identification of handwriting is, if possible,
mor