The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-21
Have witnesses Any Rights

I Injured as the public has become to the
spectacle of witnesses subjected to the in
solent badgering OF insolent counsel on
cross-examination. the instance exhibited
in the Surrogates Court on Tuesday SO far
outstrips the tolerated license Of cross
examinations as to shock and disgust this
community Mr.. Scott Lord, the offending
counsel, is an eminent nsomber Of the Utica
Bar who served with credit, if not with
Congress. Mr. Lords standing as
lawyer intensities the surprise
that he should not merely de-
scend to but Guido the insulting feats
in this line of coarse and ill-bred attorneys
This was not to have been expected from
Mr.. Lord. But what renders it more aston
ishing and incomprehensible is the fact
that he exceeded the customary license Of
badgering lawyers upon enc of the most
eminent citizens of New York and most
distinguished physicians who adorn the
medical profession in America or Europe.
Such insolence is quite astounding. The
most brutal Of attorneys are accustomed
to pay some respect to eminent charac-
ters. In Mr.. Lords own town of Utica,
for example, if Governor Seymour should
be called to testify, the most lnsolent petit
logger of the place would shrink from
affrontng the public sentiment of that COM
munity by putting to him such questions Us
ing. The sharp rebuke administered 10
Mr.. Lord by Surrogate Calvin was richly
deserved. All intelligent citizens OF New
York must feel q sense of outrage at the in
suits offered to gentleman who stands so
deservedly high in this community MS DR..
Van Buren,.
We allude to this subject, however, not
so much to protest against Mr.. Lords out
rageous treatment of one of our first physi-
cians and first citizens Us to call atten-
ton TO the fragrant abuses Of which
this is eliminating instance. Why
should our courts of justice permit honest
and reputable witnesses to be subjected to
the kind of ordeal which they encounter
from badgering attorneys? A citizen might
as we'll bs forced to run the gantlet OF an
atrocious SANDER trial as to be subrnnaed
|. as witness in suit in which he has no
interest and delivered over to the brutal
assaults OF cross-examining attorney.
The only rational purpose OF judicial in
quiry is to elicit the truth, and when there
is m evident desire on the part of u witness
to further the ends of justice by telling the
uncolored truth it is IN indecent out.
rage on his private character to attempt
to break the force Of his testi-
mony by coarse assaults and insinua-
tions put to him in tho form of questions.
There are no doubt cases when it is. allow
able to 60 into the private history Of a wit
ness, as, for example, when scoundrel or
criminal is put upon the stand to testify.
But that is no justification for treating re-
spectacle citizens as if they were scoun-
drels or criminals We hold that it is the
clear duty of courts to protect witnesses
against the insults Of cross-examining Mt
torneys unless this kind Of badgering has
some tendency to further the ends of JUS
tice. In jury trial it may sometimes be
made very effective in breaking the tes-
timony of witness, but before a
single judge. like q surrogate. who
sits without q jury, it is a mere
impertinence, besides being an outrage
on the sensibilities Of the witness and
an objectionable affront to his pride of
character. Honest witnesses are entitled to
be treated as honest men, and every Court
should protect them against the torture and
annoyance which it has become the habit of
coarse and ill-bred attorneys to practise.
The extreme to which Mr.. Lord has carried
the abuse makes this fit occasion to remon-
strate against the nuisance and to demand
its abatement by the courts.