APPENDIX. 



whole profession, will you venture to persist in that state- 

 ment?" etc. Again, the intimidating modes of address — 

 "Do you mean to swear?" "Will you pledge your pro- 

 fessional character ?" etc., intermingled with the admonitions, 

 " Pray be careful," " Be cautious," etc. — of course suggest to 

 the witness that his examiner already regards him as per- 

 jured, and that however truly he may state the facts within 

 his knowledge, he will not be beheved. 



A public writer, in commenting on this subject, says, " But 

 the hardest and most unfair part of the system (of cross- 

 examination) is when witnesses have to bear a loud and 

 insulting tone or gesture without remonstrance or retaliation. 

 A counsel may very plainly imply that a respectable witness 

 is a person of doubtful character, and not to be believed on 

 his oath, or that he is ignorant, and a bungler in his pro- 

 fession ; but if the witness retorts that the barrister's 

 eloquence and sympathies are hired, or if he gives vent to 

 any other words of retahation in his natural indignation, 

 the Court is against him." At the trial of Kelly for the 

 murder of Police Constable Talbot {^Reg. v. Kelly, Dublin 

 Commission Court, November 1871), Mr. Tuffnell, a surgeon 

 of repute, and formerly Professor of Surgery, was summoned 

 as a witness for the prosecution. Having deposed to the 

 nature of the wounds, and that the deceased had died from 

 the effects, he was subjected to the usual ordeal of a cross- 

 examination, but in a somewhat unusual form. Counsel foi; 

 prisoner having begun by addressing him in a loud and 

 offensive tone, he turned to the Chief Baron, and said, " My 

 Lord, I am very excitable, and if this gentleman has a right 

 to roar at me, I consider that I have a right to roar too." 

 The Court expressed a hope that it would not be necessary 

 for him to roar, and intimated, after a short trial of vocal 

 strength between the two opponents, that counsel's manner 

 to the witness was not what it ought to be. Counsel dis- 

 claimed any intention of being offensive, but claimed the 



