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

tell the jury how YOU know it to be a
fact?" .'Why, of course. my wife told
me about it, and therefore 1 know it
must be So" Some witnesses are apt
to obtrude their opinions and sIrmises
into their testimony, or they will not
give direct answer to a question,
though they may be fully competent to
do so. "Were you present" 3 lawyer
might ask. ''when this transaction was
completed?" II believe So" "Are you
sure you were PRESENT. Il think So"
snow, look here; will you answer my
question? were you, or were You not
present? Yes or no." "Well. IA
yes, was present." And there is. so
much of time, words and patience
wasted. because the witness would not,
from habit. answer directly aplain ques-
ton. This most annoying habit pre-
walls among people in the ordinary af-
fairs of life to a disgusting extent.
ing?" q man may ask an acquaintance.
''Eh?" is the reply. "Why do you ask?
Were you there? 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 a virtue, and
where they are apt to lose control of
their temper. Now lawyer should
have enough self-control to never show
temper in the cross examination of 4
witness. for any persistent attempt, I'M
der excitement, tolworry and browbeat 4
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 a few
years ago, in a case where General But
Ter and the late Theodore H. Sweetser
were counsel in suit against a 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 Daily i'd
rertiser. in cross-examining the vener-
able journalist Che was about eighty
years of age at the time, and 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-eNamination. waXed eX-
ceedingly angry, and so piled the old
gentleman with questions that he enlist
ed tie sympathies of the jury in behalf
of the witness, and the result was
disagreement and new
trial. When the new trial was
to come off General Butler was called
to Washington, and it was arranged
81, IL %l.
case alone. but Il 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 let
off easily. General Butler fully agreed.
and said he would dOit 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. Willie the APP
peal was being considered. General But
Ter, in an audible tone. made 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 a tone of voice loud
enough to be heard ali over the court
room. As it was addressed to General But
Ter directly. that gentleman said: why
do YOU speak so to me9 l was not adj
you "Wcll,' reioined Mr..
Hale, ..when YOU said it YOU were look
=
cal a remark under the circumstances
that Judge. jury, lawyers and audience
had a hearty laugh over it. 1t ended
the cross-eNamination. and the jury ar
rived at verdict. 1t is very
difficult for n lawyer to adhere to
any rule for the cross-eXamlnation of
witnesses, SO much usually de, ending
on things which are developed in the
course of the trial. A wide-awake law
Yer will readily detect weak or doubt
full point i'll the testimony of an oppos-
ing witness. A case illustrating this
may be given: Some years ago suit
was tried, wherein there was a strange
conflict of testimony, involving the pres
ence or absence of one of the principals
at 4 time when the act of contract was
to have been made in Boston.
Several witnesses testified positively that
the party In question was in Boston on
the Monday when the contract was
made. and only one witness testified that
he was in New York at the time. The
party in question testified that he had
been to New York Just before that time,
but had returned, and was in Boston on
that Monday. Mr.. Sweetser, who was
counsel on the other side, cross-examined
this man. when did you return. from
New York previous to that MOnday?"
he asked. 90, the Sunday before
that day. "How did you get
to Boston from New York at that
or by rail?" Il came by
on by rail-" MIR. Sweetser did not ask
any more questions, but showed that, as
no trains were run between the two
cities on Sundays at the time sworn to,
the man could not have come to Boston
from New York by rail, and that, there
fore, he had testified falsely. That, of
course. ended the case. The most ac-
cross-eXaminers in the past
as well as the present were of smooth |
speech, kindly voice and insinuating ad- |
dress. Rufus Choate made his greatest
successes at the bar when associated |
with the late Henry f. Durant. who not
only looked after his witnesses and the |
jury. but conducted crOss-eXaminatiOns |
Of opposing witnesses. Mr.. Durant was |
noted tor the successful way in which he |
could slide into the confidence of wit
ness in cross-exemination. The late
Bion Bradbury. of Maine, was another
of this class of cross-examiners.
An Irish witness was once cross exam |
ined by him so effectively that he was