The Art of Cross-Examination

yet, strange as it may seem, the courts are full of young lawyers-and alas! not only young ones-who seem to feel it their duty to cross-exami

nt of new theories of the case for the other side; and a witness who might have been d

to hazard the risks you will necessarily run by undertaking an elaborate cross-examination. In such cases by far the better course is to keep your seat and ask no questions at all. Much depends also, as will be readily appreciated, upon the age and sex of the witness. In fact, it may be said that the truly great trial lawyer is he who, while knowing perfectly well the established rules of his art, appreciates when they should be broken. If the witness happens to be a woman, and at the close of her testimony-in-chief it seems that she will be more than a match for the cros

silent mode of cross-examination, but made the mistake of speaking his thoughts aloud before he sat down. "There is no use asking you question

utile attempt only strengthens the witness with the jury. It cannot be too often repeated, therefore, that saying nothing

d the management and settlement of his father's estate. The defence was insanity; but the prisoner, though evidently suffering from the early stages of some serio

lawyers of his time in criminal cases. Howe was not a great lawyer, but the kind of witnesses ordina

tion his witness so as to lay before the jury the extent of his experience in mental disorders and his familiarity with all forms of insanity, nor develop before them the doctor's peculiar opportunities for judging correctly of the prisoner's present condition. The wily advocate evidently looked upon District Attorney DeLancey Nicoll and his associates, who were opposed to him, as a lot of ine

examined the prisoner at

," replied D

ion, sane or insane?

said Dr.

f his characteristic gestures. There was a hurried

ions," remarked M

prisoner's symptoms, etc.; when, upon our objection, Chief Justice Van Brunt directed the witness to leave the witness-box, as his testimony was concluded, and ruled

oison had been used carelessly for the destruction of rats. Mr. Baron Parke charged the jury not unfavorably to the prisoner, dwelling pointedly upon the small quantity of arsenic found in the body, and the jury without much hesitation acquitted her. Dr. Taylor, the professor of chemistry and an experienced witness, had proved the presence of arsenic, and, as I imagine, to the great disappointment of my solicitor, who desired a severe cross-examination, I did not ask him a single question. He was sitting on the bench and near the judge, who, after he had summed up and before the verdict was p