## Facts

- The University of Illinois and other obligees sued Solomon Spalding in assumpsit to recover debt on a bond, alleging Spalding was a surety.
- Spalding asserted that, after the bond was signed, a surety’s name was erased and another substituted, and that the erased name was not in his handwriting.
- To dispute authorship of the erased writing, Spalding offered stock certificates bearing his signature as handwriting standards for jury comparison.
- Spalding and the issuing corporation’s treasurer testified that the certificates and signatures were authentic.
- Plaintiffs objected that the certificates were not otherwise part of the case and were not admitted genuine by plaintiffs.
- The trial court admitted the certificates for comparison; plaintiffs took evidentiary exceptions to the state supreme court.

## Issues

1. Whether writings not otherwise relevant to the case, and not admitted genuine by the opposing party, may be admitted solely as handwriting comparison standards when their genuineness is proved by other evidence.
2. Whether the trial judge may admit such standards upon a preliminary finding that the exemplars are authentic.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court overruled the plaintiffs’ exceptions and upheld the trial court’s admission of the stock certificates.
- The court held that non-case-related writings may be used as comparison standards if the trial judge is satisfied, based on evidence, that they are genuine.
- Because testimony established the certificates’ authenticity, they were properly admitted for the jury’s comparison with the disputed writing on the bond.

## Legal Principles

- Handwriting standards not otherwise involved in the case and not admitted genuine are inadmissible for comparison unless their authenticity is first established to the satisfaction of the court.
- Authentication of comparison standards is a preliminary admissibility question for the trial judge; once satisfied, the jury may compare the genuine exemplars with the disputed writing.
- Handwriting comparison is competent evidence; reliability is protected through judicial screening of exemplar genuineness and adversarial testing (cross-examination and counterproof).

## Conclusion

The court approved a liberal rule permitting the use of extrinsic handwriting exemplars solely for comparison, provided the proponent first proves their genuineness to the trial judge’s satisfaction, after which the jury may use them to assess authorship of disputed writing on the instrument in suit.


University of Illinois v. Spalding, 71 N.H. 163, 51 A. 731 (N.H. 1901)