The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-09-04

was growing old. he feared his powers
would not enable him to do it success
fully. Being pressed by his cross-ex-
aminer to give an exhibition of his skill,
with the evident intent Of showing
that he was Boosting of what
he could not accomplish. he finally
consented to trial, and came
out of it with flying colOrs. never
making q mistake in detecting the
counterfeit from the genuine signature
in many trials. Sometimes witness is
so hard to manage that the Judge, to re-
lieve the examining counsel, takes him
in hand. But counsel are sometimes
extremely sensitive in regard TO judicial
interference with an examination. A
case was once tried before Judge Storey
in which the late Jeremiah Mason was
counsel for the defense. The Judge,
probably to expedite matters. asked a
question of the witness. Mr.. Mason
was at once upon his feet. ''1f." said
he, '.yOur honor asks that question IN
behalf of the prosecution. we object; if
for the defense, we do not want it." The
late Judge Shepley, Of Maine. was at
one time trying case where an Indian
witness was claimed by the opposing
counsel, to be incompetent because of
his unbelief in a future existence. After
the opposing counsel, who was cross
examining him, had tried for some time
in vain to obtain from the Indian some
thing that would bear out his claim,
the Judge said: LET ME try him sir;
may be able to get an intelligent an
swer from him." To the Indian he
said: paul, when you die, do
you think You will live again."
go long. Judge Shepley. You know
as well rs Indian that when Paul dies,
him dead. How can he live again?"
As result of this commOn-sense answer,
Paul was declared an incompetent wit
ness. Among the witnesses that it will
not do to crOss-examine with severity is
the female witness. If a rigorous poll
CIV is necessary, it must be skillfully con-
cealed beneath the suave, gentle and
even respectful demeanOr on the part OF
the attorney. Expert wilnesses-espe-
cially in the matter of handwriting
not looked upon with favor by the legal
profession, though they are employed
when it is found that their services may
be useful in case; but lawyers gener-
ally dislike the work of cross-eXamin-
ing them. The handwriting experts are.
in the opinion of the profession, gener-
ally great humbugs, and sometimes get
nicely caught, A story is told of lead
ing lawyer who, some years ago, had to
cross-eXamine an expert in handwriting.
and who, in order to test the reliability
of the witness. obtained, without his
knowledge, the signature which he (the
witness) had a few minutes before testi.
fled was a genuine one. This he hand.
ed the witness, and asked his opinion OF
it. when the latter unhesitatingly declar-
ed it to be forgery. He evidently cal
culated that the counsel had given him
false signature to test him, and, act.
ing on this suspicion, was caught.
The croSs-eXamination of the wit
nesses is one of our judicial system,
which has arisen from the necessity OF
allowing lawyers 4 good deal of latitude
in order to enable them to get at facts
which might otherwise remain con-
cealed, but which, if known. might have
an important bearing in securing the
ends of justice. In all cases where per-
sistent questioning and cross-eXamina-
ton of unwilling or stubborn witnesses
are carried on to what might seem to be
IN unnecessary extent, it is not best to
blame the lawyer who conducts the ex-
until his purpose-which
may be one fortified by a knowledge of
facts which it NAV be necessary to give
the court and public a proof of by the
testimony obtained in such 4 ways
fully known or developed by the results
of such or analogous means.-Boston
Herald