Chemico-legal ink evidence as before stated has been employed in the trials of causes for many years; but it was not until the year 1889 that a precedent was established for the chemical examination of a suspected document preceding any trial. The honor of this departure from the ordinary modes of procedure belongs to the Hon. Rastus S. Ransom, who was surrogate of the county of New York at the time. The matter in controversy was an alleged will executed in triplicate by one Thomas J. Monroe. Charges were made that the three wills were spurious, as they were facsimiles of each other. It was for the main purpose of determining the methods of their make-up that Judge Ransom rendered the opinion and made the order for its chemical examination which is cited in full: Estate of Thomas J. Monroe.--"This is an application by the special guardian and contestant in this proceeding, which is now pending before the assistant, for leave to photograph the various papers which have been filed as the will of the deceased, and to compel the filing of two parts of one of said wills, which was executed in triplicate; likewise that the last paper be subjected to chemical tests for the purpose of disclosing the nature of the composition of the ink and the process or processes to which it has been subjected. "Upon the oral argument the surrogate decided the applications first stated in favor of the petitioner, reserving only the question of his power to direct or permit the chemical tests. The special guardian on the oral argument stated that he was unable, to find any authority for the application. "Consultation of the various sources of authority upon the subject of expert testimony and the various tests for the purpose of establishing or disproving handwriting has not resulted in the discovery of any authority for granting the application. It is apparent, however, from some of the cases that such an examination must have been permitted; for instance, in Fulton v. Hood (34th Penn. State Reports, 365), expert testimony was received in corroboration of positive evidence to prove that the whole of an instrument was written by the same hand, with the same ink, and at the same time. It is inconceivable how testimony of any value could be given as to the character of ink with which an instrument was written, unless it had been subjected to a chemical test. The writer of a valuable article in the eighteenth volume of the American Law Register, page 281 (R. U. Piper, an eminent expert of Chicago, Ill.), in commenting upon the rule as stated in the case of Fulton v. Hood (supra), very properly says: " 'Microscopical and chemical tests may be competent to settle the question, but these should not be received as evidence, I think, unless the expert is able to show to the court and the jury the actual results of his examination, and also to explain his methods, so that they can be fully understood.'