The San Francisco call., 1897-03-04

Judge interposed, and stating that he could
see no possible materiality or relevancy to the
question, instructed the witness that she need
not answer. There was in this no error. In
deed, IL is the duty OF a court, and one not
often enough performed 10 expedite business
by curtailing cross-examinations upon imma-
terial and irrelevant matters. We cannot per-
ceive the slightest pertlnency to the 1rqulry.
No question OF right or title to property was
even collaterally or remotely involved, and
had the witness answered, the subject being
ton, the defense would have been bound by
her statement, without right to impeach IL,
even had it been false. &c. C. p, Sec. 2408)
d. Mrs. Crossett declared that TO the best of
her recollection the young lady whom she
saw with defendant wore broad-brimmed
hat, light, with large bows and feathers in
front. She did not recognize the hat exhibited
to her, which had been proved to be the one
worn by the dead girl. She was then asked:
fCan you tell whether it was a hat similar to
that this young lady wore? Objection was
she could not recognize it. The court permitted
the question, saying: II think they have
rig ght to ask whether there is any similarity,
and, IL so, what similarity there is between
the hat shown to her aud the hat she saw the
young lady wear" The manifest soundness of
tn the ruling renders comment unnecessary.
The same witness was Interrogated on cross
examination as follows:
'Q.-Have you seen him (Durrant) at all
since last September, 1894?
"A.--Yes, sir.
''Mr. Barnes-I object 10 the question.
'tThe Court-That would not be proper The
lady is telling what she has seen. do not
think when lady saws Il have seen him since
Septem ber' that counsel has right to say
You imagine you did II disconcerts
TIE witness and throws very serious doubt
right to cross-examine this witness and all
other witnesses, but do not concede that this
is proper way tc do 1t.
: Mr.. Deuprey-We will have to take an ex-
ceprion.
THE Court-You have your exception, Ger.
tainly. to every ruling of the court, but say
that this and ell witnesses in this court are to
be treated fairly.
"Mr. Deuprey-I did, sir, treat this witness
fairly.
'sThe Court-The court does not believe you
have.
"Mr. Deuprey-I take an exception to the
courts remarks"
Upon this ruling and these remarks error is
aflrmed. It is the right of a witness TO be
protected from irrelevant, improper or Insult
Ing quest 'ons and from harsn and insulting
demeanor; to be detained only so long as the
interests of justice require it; TO be examined
only as to matters legal and pertinent TO the
issue &c. c.. p, Sec. 2066l The protection
winch the Code thus affords to witnesses could
be more often xtended by Judges with sal
utary effect upon judicial proceedings: The
witness. lady, had testified courteously and
positively that she had seen defendant since
the date named. The interjection OF counsel
was not legimate ecross-examination and jusi-
fed the interpostion of the court.
f. Blanche Lamonts sister Maud was living
with her at the time of her disa ppearancs.
She was shown a picture of Blanche taken
about three years before the date of her testi-
mony and was asked whether or not the pho
tograph was fair representation of her sister
as she was upon April 3. Over objection and
exception she was permitted to answer. 1t is
general rule without contradiction that
where the photograph is shown TO be a faith
full representation of what it purports 10 repro.
duce it is admis sible as an appropriate aid 10
the jury in spplying the evidence, and this is
equally true whether the photograph be of
persons. things or places. (Rice. Grim. Ev., p
544; Thompson Oh Trials, section S69) The
fact that the photograph was taken two or
more years before the date of the girls disap-
pearance did not justify its exclusion after
the testimony of the sister that it fairly repre-