Answer: Yes. because the landlord has previously seen the signature.
Explanation:
In this situation, the trial court should find this testimony admissible due to the fact that the landlord has previously seen the signature.
Since the landlord intends to testify based on the fact that he saw her sign thesame signature on the lease to his apartment, then this should be admissible by the court as it's an evidence to show that she was the one involved in the fraudulent signing of the check.
Can someone help me with this word search?
1. If your vehicle breaks down while moving, pull off the road as far as
ten feet
the shoulder
the ditch
possible