In what case was the use of photographs as evidence first documented?

Question: In what case was the use of photographs as evidence first documented!?

Further background information about the trial would be very welcome!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Luco et al!. V!. United States, 23 Howard 515 (1859)!.

According to the following article:

http://forensic-evidence!.com/site/EVID/L!.!.!.

A grant of land in California, purporting to have been made to one Jose de la Rosa, dated 4th of December, 1845, and purporting to be signed by Pio Pico as acting governor and countersigned by Jose Maria Covarrubias, secretary, adjudged to be false and forged!.

http://supreme!.justia!.com/us/64/515/

There are more details here:

http://chnm!.gmu!.edu/aq/photos/texts/47te!.!.!.

The case of Luco et al!. v!. The United States, (23 Howard, 515,) seems to our mind conclusive!. An immense land grant was claimed by the appellant; the Government resisted the claim, and alleged a forgery of the signature of Pio Pico, the Governor, to the grant!. The grant was produced in court; witnesses were examined pro and con, as to the signatures and the seal!. From among the Government archives were selected all the signatures of Pio Pico, which occurred during the mouth in which the grant bore date, and upon the same sheet (p!. 530) was photographed the signatures of the grant, the original of which was also before the court!. (P!. 519!.) These photographs went up with the record, and the Supreme Court of the United States, referring to them, said: "We have ourselves been able to compare these signatures, (photograph,) and fully concur (from evidence oculis subjecta fidelibus) that the signature and seal of Pico on this instrument are forgeries!." (Id!., 540!.) Now, with the record disclosing that the original was before the lower court, and not sent up with the record, is it not strange that so august a court would have based their opinion on secondary evidence that the grant was a forgery, and called it evidence "oculis subjecta fidelibus;" and that, too, in the face of the fact that Pico himself had sworn (p!. 541) to his belief that he extended the title!?

And here (the chapter beginning page 345):

http://books!.google!.co!.uk/books!?id=lA44A!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i believe in any case !.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com