APPENDIX. 



from the same learned judge in a case which was before him 

 in 1857; it was addressed to a learned Serjeant, now de- 

 ceased, and was to this effect: — A question had been put 

 throwing on the witness an imputation for which there was 

 really no foundation. The learned judge then said : " The 

 freedom of question allowed to the bar was a pubhc nuisance, 

 and the barrister who made such an imputation ought to be 

 prosecuted. If a question had relation to the truth, he was 

 most anxious it should be put ; but to cast haphazard impu- 

 tations at the suggestion of a person (an attorney) who might 

 have no scruples as to what he did, was a degree of mischief 

 that made him wish that a party should be prosecuted. He 

 begged leave to say that in his experience he had seen 

 counsel so abuse their privilege, that he had cordially wished 

 a power could be instituted that they might be prosecuted 

 for a misdemeanour." It is the general practice to say that 

 the obnoxious questions are in the instructions, but a barrister 

 can always exercise a power of putting or not putting a 

 question which may be found there. By putting it he clearly 

 adopts it, and frequently to the great damage of his own 

 case. This is at present the only check upon the practice, 

 for learned judges seldom interfere unless directly appealed 

 to by the witness. 



Privilege. 



Some medical men have claimed a privilege not to answer 

 certain questions which are put to them. No man is bound 

 to reply to any question if the answer would tend in any way 

 to incriminate himself — for no man is compelled to be a 

 witness against himself. With this exception all questions 

 must be answered, provided they are relevant to the case, 

 and their relevancy is a matter for the consideration of the 

 learned judge who presides. 



Sometimes a witness makes a frivolous objection and 

 refuses to answer an ordinary question, thus bringing only 



