"'Now, Mr. Netherclift, you are in the hole! I wrote them myself this morning at this desk.'" The feeling of distrust with which the evidence of the expert in handwriting is often regarded by the legal profession is illustrated by a capital story that was told recently by Sir Edward Carson in a letter to the _Times_. An Irish counsel in a now forgotten case began his cross-examination of a handwriting expert with the curious question--"Where's the dog?" "What dog?" said the bewildered witness. "The dog which the judge at the last assizes said he would not hang upon your evidence." How closely two distinct handwritings may resemble one another was shown in a celebrated case in which handwriting experts were proved to be utterly mistaken. This was the trial of Sir Francis Truscott, a former Lord Mayor of London, at the Old Bailey in 1879. It was asserted that the defendant had sent a post card to a friend named John Kearns, who had at one time served with him upon the City Council, accusing him of a criminal offence and warning him that he was being watched by the police. At the trial evidence was given in the most positive manner by a lady who was acquainted with Sir Francis Truscott to the effect that the moment she had been shown the card she had recognised the writing as his. This opinion was supported by Charles Chabot, an expert in handwriting, who stated in the witness-box that he was certain that the writing on the post card had been done by the same individual who had written certain letters of the defendant which he had examined. The similarities between the two writings were, he asserted, too close not to have been the work of one individual. Evidence of the same character was then given by Netherclift, who swore that from a minute comparison of the libellous post card with letters in the admitted writing of the accused there could be no doubt but that they were written by the same person. The defence was opened by a witness named Smith being put in the box. He stated that he knew both Mr. Kearns and Sir Francis Truscott, and was aware that the friendship between them had ceased. He was then shown the post card and asked whose was the handwriting upon it. "I wrote the post card," he said. "It is my own writing." Answering further questions, this witness stated that he had been abroad when the charge was brought against Sir Francis Truscott, and that as soon as he learned what had happened he had made an affidavit that the writing was his. The father of this witness produced post cards written by his son and stated that the libellous post card was in the handwriting of his son and not in that of Sir Francis. Evidence was also given by another witness who knew both Sir Francis and Mr. Smith, and who had no doubt but that the post card was in the handwriting of the latter. At this stage the jury intimated that they had heard sufficient, and brought in a verdict of "Not guilty."