182 APPENDIX. 
ridicule upon himself. A skilled expert, at’ an important 
trial, was asked his age. Instead of answering so simple 
a question at once, he angrily appealed to the judge to know 
whether he was bound to give an answer on a matter which, 
as he said, could have nothing to do with the case. The 
judge informed him that unless he had some very strong 
reasons for concealing it, he had better state it. Ata trial 
for murder by poison, when, in the course of a cross-exami- 
nation, counsel for the prisoner asked the medical witness 
what remedy or antidote he had employed when he was first 
called to attend the deceased. He appealed to the judge to 
know whether he was bound to answer such a question as 
that. Judge: “Yes, unless you have reason to believe that 
your antidote killed the deceased. In that case you are 
not bound to answer it.” The question was immediately 
answered. 
As there is no special privilege granted to members of the 
profession, a witness must remember that there are xo medical 
secrets. 
In Wright v. Wilkin (June 1865), a suit involving the 
validity of the will of a lady, the only question before the 
Vice-Chancellor (Kindersley) was as to the costs, occasioned 
by the refusal of a medical witness to answer a question in 
reference to the disease of which the testatrix had died. 
The witness had attended the testatrix, and on being asked, 
of what disease she djed, he refused to answer, on the ground 
of professional privilege and also that the question was 
irrelevant. The Vice-Chancellor said that he could not 
possibly see the relevancy of the question, and further, of 
what use it was to examine witnesses at all in the cause. 
No reason was given for so doing. The question of costs 
would, frimd facie, have been left till the hearing but that 
it was a dangerous precedent ‘to allow a witness to decline 
answering oh such grounds. His Honour was clearly of 
opinion that the witness could not claim professional con- 
