## Facts

- Buckingham Corporation sued Ewing Liquors Company for breaching a written agreement.
- The case was tried to the court (a bench trial).
- Buckingham offered the signed agreement into evidence.
- The agreement bore the signature of William Gallagan, a vice president of Buckingham.
- Buckingham called an employee, Herbik, who testified he did not see Gallagan sign the agreement.
- Herbik testified that, through routine business dealings, he had become familiar with Gallagan’s handwriting and could recognize Gallagan’s signature on the agreement.
- Herbik also testified that Gallagan later told Herbik that he had signed the agreement.
- Ewing did not object at trial to Herbik’s testimony about what Gallagan said, even though the statement was hearsay.
- The trial court ruled in Buckingham’s favor.
- On appeal, Ewing argued the agreement should not have been admitted because Buckingham failed to authenticate Gallagan’s signature.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly admitted the written agreement when Buckingham authenticated the signature through lay testimony from an employee familiar with the signer’s handwriting, along with additional testimony (including hearsay admitted without objection) indicating the signer signed the document.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment for Buckingham.
- The court rejected Ewing’s argument that the agreement was inadmissible for lack of authentication of Gallagan’s signature.

## Legal Principles

- A document may be authenticated through testimony of a nonexpert witness who is familiar with the alleged signer’s handwriting and can identify the signature based on that familiarity.
- Familiarity with handwriting may be acquired through ordinary business contacts and dealings, not only through observing the person write.
- Hearsay evidence admitted without objection is part of the record and may be considered by the trier of fact; a party generally cannot raise that hearsay problem for the first time on appeal as a basis to exclude the evidence.
- Once a sufficient foundation for authenticity is shown, the document is admissible, and challenges typically go to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.

## Conclusion

Because Buckingham presented competent evidence identifying Gallagan’s signature and Ewing failed to object to additional testimony supporting authenticity, the appellate court upheld the admission of the agreement and affirmed the judgment for Buckingham.


Buckingham Corp. v. Ewing Liquors Co., 305 N.E.2d 278 (1973)