Both Nuttall and Else were bad spellers, but their mistakes were different. For instance, throughout the will “daughter” was spelt correctly, whereas in the codicil it was “doughter,” and it was proved that Else spelt the word with an “o,” while Nuttall had never done so.
The way in which the “t” was crossed was, however, the most convincing piece of evidence. It was shown that Nuttall’s habit was usually to leave the “t” uncrossed, or when he did cross it to do so completely. On the other hand, Else generally made a half-cross to the “t’s.” In the will written by the testator there were no half-crossings, whereas in the interlineation and the codicils the half-crossed “t’s” predominated. This difference was also brought out in a large number of the letters of the deceased and of Else, which were shown to the jury.
After the verdict had been given against them the plaintiffs attempted, though without success, to obtain yet another trial of the case.
One of the most remarkable trials for forgery that has taken place in this country was the outcome of the famous Whalley will case, which occupied the attention of the courts for three years in the early eighties.
James Whalley, whose fortune was in dispute, died in 1881 leaving £60,000. He had been a reserved man with a touch of eccentricity, and parsimonious habits, and in spite of his wealth had lived for many years in bare lodgings in the house of a railway porter named Thomas, at Leominster.
On several occasions he had expressed his intention of leaving his money to a man named Priestman, who though at the time unaware of the truth, was in fact his natural son; and there was convincing evidence to show that he had made a will on blue paper to that effect.
After his death, however, no such will could be found, whereas Thomas, the railway porter, produced a will on white paper, in which the bulk of the fortune was left to him.
Certain suspicious circumstances led Whalley’s next of kin to challenge the genuineness of the will, and though as yet there was no suggestion of forgery, it was urged that the signature had been obtained by some trick.
After some time a compromise was made, and it was arranged that Thomas should have £17,000 and that the remainder of the money should be divided between Priestman and Whalley’s relatives. The will was proved on this understanding.