The Art of Cross-Examination

our attention to the matter of our cross-examination. By our manner toward him we may have in a measure disarmed him, or at least put him off his guard, while his memory and conscience are be

y, except in so far as is necessary to refer to it in order to point out its weak spots? Whatever we do, let us do it with quiet dignity, with absolute fairness to the witness; and let us frame our questions in such simple language that there can be no misunderstanding or confusion. Let us imagine ourselves in the jury box, so that we may see the evidence from their standpoint. We

ve some indirect benefit therefrom. Or he may have some other tangible motive which he can gently be made to disclose. Perhaps the witness is only suffering from that partisanship, so fatal to fair evidence, of which oftentimes the witness himself is not conscious. It may even be that, if the jury only knew the scanty means the witness has had for obtaining a correct and certain knowledge of the very facts to which he has sworn so glibly, aided by the adroit questioning of the opposing counsel, this in itself would go far toward weakening the effect of his testimony. It may appear, on the other hand,

d, and what is perhaps more difficult still-to be able to describe it intelligibly. Many witnesses have seen one part of a transaction and heard about another part, and later on become confused in their own minds,

attorney who is to examine him, he amplifies his story with new details which he leads himself, or is led, to believe are recollections and which he finally swears to as facts. Many people seem to fear that an "I don't know" answer will be attributed to ignoranc

reality and to reduce exaggerations to their proper proportions. It must further be borne in mind that the jury should not merely see the mistake; they should be made to app

ference rather than by direct question, because all witnesses have a dread of self-contradiction. If he sees the connection between your inquiries and his own story, he will draw upon his imagination for explanations, before you get the chance to point out to him the inconsistency between his later statement and his original one. It is often wise to break the effect of a witness's story by putting questions to him that will acquaint the jury at once with the fact that there is another more probable story to be told later on, to disclose to them something of the defence, as it were. Avoid the mistake, so c

admission upon his hearers, instead of reserving it for the summing up, and will attribute it to bad luck that his witness corrects his answer or modifies it in some way, so that the point is lost. He is

nless in the first place he knew what the answer would be, or in the second place he didn't care." This is something on the principle of the lawyer who claimed that the result o

by the urgency of an attorney, although against his own judgment, to ask a question on cross-examination, the answer to which convicted his client. Upon receiving the answer

ncident, illustrative of this point, which occurred in a suit brought to recover the insurance on a large warehouse full of goods that had been burnt to the ground. The insurance companies had been unable to find any stock-book which would show the amount of goods in st

had on hand at the time of the fire on which you claim loss?" (This was the point of the case and the jury were not prepared for the answer which followed.) "I haven't it, sir."-"What, haven't the stock-book? You don't mean you have lost it?" "It wasn't in the safe, sir."-"Wasn't that the proper place f

ore tenaciously. During the cross-examination of Henry Ward Beecher, in the celebrated Tilton-Beecher case, and after Mr. Beecher had denied his alleged intimacy with Mr. Tilton's wife, Judge Fullerton read a passage from one of Mr. Beecher's sermons to the effect that if a person commits a great sin, the exposure of which would cause misery to others, su

anies him from the witness box. In a recent Metropolitan Street Railway case a witness who had been badgered rather persistently on cross-examination, finally straightened himself up in the witness chair and said pertly, "I have not come here asking you to play wi

called as a witness who succeeded only in giving a rather confused account of the transaction. A blustering counsel on the other side, after many attempts to get at the facts upon cross-examination, blurted out, "Pray, sir, do you know the difference between a horse and a cow?" "I acknowledge my ignorance," replied the clergyman; "I hardly do know the difference

luable in cross-examination in personal damage suits where the sole object of counsel is to reduce the amou

Street and Seventh Avenue, and while he was in the act of closing an open window in the front of the car at the request of an old lady passenger, the car

es, a broken leg, nervous prostration, constant pain in his back. And the attempt to alleviate the pain attendant upon all these difficulties was gone int

n the witness chair, and had concluded that, if pleasantly handled, he could be made to testify pretty nearly to the

doctor, would you give to the

at is known as 'tr

t, or disease as you may call it, of making much of ailments

That is r

e you haven't got this di

that I am a

get a very fair statement from you o

"I hope

ready flattered into agreeing with all sug

y all men who have reached the age of sixty-six have troubles of one

at is very commo

noticed that he seemed to hear the questions asked

r. "I

x are not the majority of men gr

es, sir, f

k this man hears remarkably well for his

"I think

on't think you have even the first sympt

d). "I haven't

y boy who has fallen over backward, when skating on the ice, and struck hi

. "Yes

in addition, h?morrhages of the brain. Do you mean to tell us tha

were microscop

one would have to take a

"That is

tand, doctor, that you have not cured

e cured him; t

o set his broken leg or you wouldn't hav

as got a good, str

the required admissions, suddenly changed his whole

easonable charge for your services. It is three years s

Yes, sir,

to plaintiff's counsel.) Will ei

I haven't

hed). "What was

r. "$

e railroad company two and a half times a

change on part of counsel). "You as

rge your patient the ful

(no a

uch have you been paid on

that is, two years ago; and at two dif

chant down town!" (And with something bet

tly in another of the many damage suits brought against the Metropolitan Street

his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder. Upon cross-examination the attorney for the railroad asked the witness a few sympathetic questions about his sufferings, and upon getting on a friendly basis with him asked him "to be good enough to show the jury the extreme limit to which he could raise his arm since the accident." The p

nd urged to the act by an irresistible impulse. The judge, not satisfied with this, first put the witness some questions on other subjects, and then asked, "Do you think the accused would have acted as he did if a policeman had b