APPENDIX. 181 
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 public 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 
