184 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 stave 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 ean 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 little im- 
