Handwriting expert evidence allowed only after original agreement is proved; signatures cannot be compared from a photocopy.

A plaintiff may lead rebuttal evidence, including a handwriting expert, where fraud is pleaded and the trial court has allowed rebuttal to meet defence evidence. Comparison of signatures from a photocopy of an agreement is not permissible because, without the original document, there is a risk of superimposition and no reliable finding can be recorded. The plaintiff could therefore examine a handwriting expert only after the original agreement was produced and formally proved; comparison from the photocopy was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could lead rebuttal evidence by examining a handwriting expert, and whether signatures could be compared from a photocopy of the agreement.

Analysis: The issue of fraud in relation to the agreement was on the pleadings and the trial court had permitted rebuttal evidence for the plaintiff to meet the defence evidence. The Court held that no finding had been recorded on comparison of signatures from the photocopy, and that, in the absence of the original agreement, signatures should not be compared from a photocopy because of the possibility of superimposition.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to lead rebuttal evidence and examine a handwriting expert, but only if the original agreement was brought on record and formally proved first; comparison from the photocopy was not permitted.

---