1 84 APPENDIX. 



questions are not only allowable in this part of the exami- 

 nation, but, according to good authority, a counsel for the 

 defence can hardly lead too much. The theory of the 

 law is that the witness is unfavourable to the defendant, 

 and has come to bear evidence against him. The more 

 he has shown himself by conduct or conversation a par- 

 tisan in the case, the more severely will he be treated. 

 Anything which he may have said in the hearing of 

 others, or published in journals, or even written in private 

 letters (if the contents transpire), in reference to the 

 case, is now brought to light, although he may have 

 supposed that what he did say was in perfect confidence. 

 It is at this stage of the case that any exaggerations which 

 may have been most favourably received by the counsel for 

 the prosecution, are reduced to their true proportions. Any 

 bias by which the mind of a witness may have been influ- 

 enced, or any imperfection or confusion of memory as to 

 facts, is here brought out. It is in this part of his exami- 

 nation that a witness will be closely questioned as to his 

 qualifications, his age, the time during which he has been 

 engaged in practice, the accuracy of his judgment, his 

 general professional knowledge, and his special experience 

 in reference to the matter in issue, the number of cases he 

 has seen, etc. Straightforward answers should be given to 

 all these questions. No harm can be done to the witness 

 by the answers unless they are given evasively, since it is 

 not to be supposed that a witness wishes to represent himself 

 differently from what he is. If he does make the attempt 

 he will assuredly fail. The most striking distinction between 

 the examination-in-chief and cross-examination is in refer- 

 ence to leading questions. It rests upon the assumption 

 that there is a danger that a witness will say whatever is 

 suggested to him by the one side, and conceal everything 

 that is not extorted from him on the other. It need scarcely 

 be observed that witnesses whose evidence is of httle im- 



