Definition
A Latin evidentiary phrase meaning "by comparison of writings" or "by comparison of handwriting." The full form of the phrase is *ex comparatione scriptorum* (sometimes rendered *ex comparatione scripti* in abbreviated usage). It describes a method of proving the authenticity or authorship of a document by comparing the handwriting in dispute against other specimens of handwriting known to be genuine. As an evidentiary principle, it authorizes a factfinder — or an expert witness — to draw conclusions about the origin of a document based on systematic comparison with authenticated exemplars.
The phrase captures both a procedural mechanism (the act of comparison) and a basis of proof (the conclusions that may be drawn from that comparison). In historical practice, courts debated whether lay witnesses, expert witnesses, or the jury itself could perform the comparison and draw inferences from it.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with pre-twentieth-century sources will encounter this phrase most often in cases involving disputed wills, forged instruments, land title disputes, and questioned business records — all contexts where document authenticity was litigated before modern forensic document examination existed as a formal discipline.
The phrase appears inconsistently in historical sources. Some digests index it under evidence, others under forgery, and others under pleading and proof. Researchers should search under all three heads when working in older reporters and digests.
An important research trap: the evidentiary rules governing handwriting comparison changed substantially over time. Early common law was hostile to handwriting comparison as a method of proof, and many courts required a witness to have personal familiarity with the writer's hand before testifying — comparison against exemplars alone was often inadmissible. This restriction was progressively relaxed by statute in England (the Evidence Act 1854 being a key turning point) and by evolving common law in American jurisdictions. A source citing *ex comparatione scriptorum* as a valid method of proof may be reflecting a jurisdiction that had already liberalized its rules, while another source treating it skeptically may reflect older restrictions. The phrase does not carry a single, stable evidentiary weight across time and jurisdiction.
Rapalje & Lawrence's entry also places this phrase in sequence with *ex diuturnitate temporis omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta* — the maxim that from lapse of time all things are presumed to have been done properly — suggesting that the original source (likely a digest or collection of Latin maxims) grouped these as related evidentiary presumptions. This pairing is editorially suggestive: in practice, proof of a document's authenticity through handwriting comparison often operated alongside or in competition with presumptions of regularity arising from age. Researchers working on ancient documents disputes should consider both principles together.
The phrase is rarely indexed as a standalone term in modern evidence treatises, having been absorbed into broader discussions of authentication, expert testimony, and demonstrative evidence. Searching modern sources under "handwriting comparison," "authentication of documents," or "questioned documents" will retrieve the functional equivalent.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence render the phrase as "by comparison of writings, i.e. handwritings," correctly identifying the scope of the term as limited to handwriting rather than documents in a broader textual sense. The entry is brief and primarily definitional, providing the Latin gloss without elaborating on the evidentiary doctrine it represents or its contested status in courts of the period.
The entry's brevity is characteristic of how Rapalje & Lawrence treat Latin maxims generally — they function as a glossary of Latin phrases rather than a doctrinal guide, and researchers should not treat the absence of qualification as an endorsement of the method's universal admissibility. The substantive evidentiary law must be located elsewhere.
No other source dictionaries in the current Law Mind corpus provide independent coverage of this phrase. Researchers needing fuller doctrinal treatment should consult primary evidence treatises of the period, particularly Greenleaf on Evidence and Taylor on Evidence, both of which address handwriting proof in detail.
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions varied considerably in their willingness to admit handwriting comparison based on exemplars alone. Many states followed an older common law rule requiring personal acquaintance with the writer's hand; others adopted the more permissive English statutory model. Modern rules — including Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(3) — expressly permit comparison with authenticated exemplars, effectively codifying the principle underlying *ex comparatione scriptorum*.