THE ENGINEEK AS WITNESS 41 



course of his experience ; the cross-examiner will have been 

 coached up by his own expert. Part of the duty of the expert 

 in Court is to listen to the evidence and prompt counsel as to 

 the questions which should be put in cross-examination. The 

 importance of adequately performing this duty cannot be over- 

 rated, especially when the expert is to give evidence on the 

 part of a defendant. An expert called on behalf of the plaintiff 

 may put forward a new theory for which the defendant is 

 wholly unprepared, and with which he and his witnesses 

 entirely disagree. That expert must, therefore, be cross- 

 examined with regard to it, and the views of the opposing 

 witnesses have to be specifically put to him. Further, as he 

 sits in Court and hears what is given in evidence on the part 

 of the plaintiff, an expert may think of something which is 

 not in his proof. It will not, therefore, be known to his own 

 counsel. He should at once bring it forward in order that the 

 view of the plaintiff's witnesses may be taken upon it in cross- 

 examination. The reason for this will be apparent when it is 

 remembered that the judge has to decide which expert is to be 

 believed. If the plaintiff's expert says " A. " and the defen- 

 dant's says " B.," it is essential that the first shall be asked 

 why he prefers " A." to " B." 



7. Hints on prompting counsel. To descend to a very 

 minor detail. The expert should, if possible, avoid inter- 

 rupting counsel by speaking to him when cross-examining. 

 He should bring to Court with him a note-book from which 

 the pages can be easily torn, and write his point clearly on a 

 small piece of paper. When counsel has to have his eye on 

 the judge, and both ears straining to hear the answers to his 

 questions, it is almost impossible for him to catch the drift of 

 a whispered utterance. 



8. Hints on giving evidence. In giving evidence himself 

 the expert should refrain from disputing every point unless he 

 is compelled to do so. It may not be necessary for him to 

 disagree with the experts who have been called on the other 

 side on all points ; and the graceful concession of a point often 

 creates the most favourable impression on the mind of the 

 judge. 



Expert testimony has from time to time been the subject of 

 criticism in Courts of justice, on the ground that the witness 



