St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1885-09-05

facts IN his possession winch cdn Ouly NO
testified to by witnesses whom he cross
examines, but who are not willing to
testify, or who evade the question by
articles of various kinds, he has hard
task on his hands. Very often his per-
sistence in plying witness with ques-
tons is misconstrued by those who can
not see what he is driving at, and begin
to think he is brow-begting the witness
for no other purpose than to display his
own sssu1artness. But no lawyer OF
ability will condescend to such a course
for mere buncombe. He usually has
an object in view which may or may
not be apparent, but which it might
not be prudent for him to reveal. lie
is thrs forced to continue his cross
examination in order to gain his point
and the court usually allows him full lat
itude, because by his persistence he may
obtain testimony that is vital to his
case. The judicious practitioner never
cross-examines, however, unless he feels
that he will thereby certainly not weak
en-, and may possibly strengthen, his
case. One great difficulty with wit
nesses is to get them to separate mat
tiers of fact from matters of opinion or
of belief. Ask witness on cross-exam-
nation if certain statement in his di-
rect testimony was thing OF which ne
had personal knowledge. "Ot course
it isl he will answer. "Will you please
tell the jury how you know it to be q
fact?'' ''Why, of course, my wife told
me about it, and therefore know it
| must be so.'' Some witnesses are apt
toobsrude their opinions and surmises
into Eheir testimony, or they will not
give a direct answer to a question,
though they may be fully competent to
do so. ''Were you present, lawyer
might ask, ''when this transaction was
completed?" 81 believe So" care you
sure YOU were present." II think SO. )"
"Now, look here; will you answer my
question? were you, or were you not
present? Yes or NO. s'Well, "a
yes, was present. And there is SO
mach of time, words and patience
wasted, because the witness would not,
from habit, answer directly aplain cues
ton. This most annoying habit pre-
walls among people in the ordinary af-
fairs of life to q disgusting extent.
Didn't I see your at Parker's last even
ing?" man may ask an acquaintance.
''Ehp'' is the reply. ''Why do you askg
Were you thereP / didn't see you. !" The
last sentence answers the query in way.
In court, however, or in cases when wit
nesses are examined at public hearings,
| there are times when even the patience
of lawyers ceases to be virtue, and
where they are apt to lose control OF
their temper. Now q lawyer should
have enough self-control to never show
| temper in the cross examination of a
witness, for any persistent attempt, I'M
der excitement, toRworrY and browbeat
witness is apt to aleniate the sympathies
OF the jury from the lawyer attempting
it, and, consequently, from his cause.
An illustration of this was given few
| years ago, in a case where General But
| Ter and the late Theodore FL. Sweetser
were counsel in suit against Somer-
vile brick company. Among the wit
nesses called by the defendant company
was the late Nathan Hale, editor and
| proprietor at the time Of the DdfEy Id
Ceriiser. In cross-examining the vener-
able journalist Che was about eighty
years of age at the time, aud in consid-
Grafton of his age, was allowed to sit
down while being examined), the wit
ness persisted in interlarding his testi-
monY with his own opinions and sur
misses, until General Butler, who con-
Quoted the cross-examination, Waxed ex-
ceedingly angry, and so piled the old
| gentleman with questions that he enlist
ed the sympathies of the jury in. behalf
of the witness, and the result was
a disagreement and q new
trial. When the new trial was
to come off General Butler was called
/ to Washington, and it was arranged
that Mr.. Sweetser should conduct the
| case alone, but circumstance occurred
that delayed the Generals departure
until the evening, and he came into
/ court in time to conduct the cross-ex-
animation Mr.. Hale was on the wit
ness stand, and to the suggestion of his
associate that the old gentleman be lei
off easily, Central Butler fully agreed
| and said he would do it. But it appears
that he had not asked many questions
before he struck upon the same snag
that swamped his case before, and lost
his temper again. This time he became
SO aggressive that the court was appeal.
ed to to protect the witness. While the ap
peal was being considered, General But
fer, in an audible tone, made q comment
upon the witness which was not alto
gether complimentary to him. 1t was
| heard by Mr.. Hale, who made quick
and sharp retort in tone of voice louc
enough to be heard all over the court
room. As it was addressed to General But
Ter directly, that gentleman said: why
do you speak SO to me? I was not ad
dressing you" '.Well," rejoined Mr.
Hale, 'swhen you said it you were look
ing straight at me- This was so conf