New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-08-10

/ troversy should be settled by a verdict
/ Of the jury. And settled it has been.
Mr.. F. z. Smiths evidence did not
support his opening. The jury found
there was no fraud, no undue influence.
/ The court pronounced for the will.
and Lady Sackville receives the legacy
I Sir John Scott meant her to receive.
After an eight days trial II took the
! jury eleven minutes to reach that lust
and righteous conclusion. The SCOTS
will have 100000 or so to pay for
their vain attempt to dshonor Lady
/ Sackville.
So fiimsy had been the evidence
against the will that nothing short of
I Lady Sackvilles complete breakdown
as a witness could have destroyed her
! defence. If the Scott family relied on
/ that, they must have hoped that she
would not survive the ordeal Of cross
examinations the modern trial by bat
/ tie; or perhaps the modern rack and
other persuasive methods of the In
! QUESTION as blessed by the Pope are
! a closer illustration. Mr.. F. E. Smith
I has methods of his own with wit
ness. He tried them all on Lady Sack
/ vile. he used language. at times,
such as a man does not ordinarily adj
dress 10 a woman, in court or out Of
IL. When an answer went beyond a
4 question he broke in with, 'Wih you
please keep quet?" When she eX-
pressed an opinion he exclaimed: Il
do not wish any instruction from
you" He often repeated her answers.
giving them a twist which altered their
sense till at last Sir Edward Carson
warned her that he was Intentionally
misrepresenting her; afterward with
drawing the Intentionally" but not
the charge Of Misrepresentation.
1t is considered the duty Of counsel
to ask many questions which may
tend TO discredit witness or his
story Questions about her being in
debt. which she was not, about the
nature of her friendship with Sir John
Scott. which began with a common in
terest in matters Of art and in knole
and ended in the discovery that their
natures were suited % each other.
! These are samples. The line was per-
haps crossed when Mr.. Smith asked;
You have a dreadful temper. have you
| not?" Lady Sackville answered with
a quick gesture: 1T is for all Of you TO
Judge" To a suggestion that her ac-
count Of Mr.. Walter SCOTS making
love 10 her was an invention, she re-
torted: How dare you say that At
times he drove her TO tears; not the
least effective kind OF protection
against Mr.. Smiths weapons. wom-
an sobbing in court is spectacle
which makes an appeal Of us own TO
the jury and TO the public.
The whole encounter between the
witness and her tormentor was, in the
true sense Of that loosely-used and
overworn word, dramatic. Here were
the elements Of both comedy and
tragedy. You beheld leader Of
the bar foiled at his own game.
You beheld in the witness box a
straight, slight patrician figure all In
black, with cleaning eyes. woman
with a great place in the world, hght-
ing for more than her life; defending
herself against cruel calumnies'
against an attack which, since It could
not win. sought 10 blacken. She could
stir laughter. draw sympathies, rouse
deem feelings. at will. Her answers
came sometimes as flashes Of Wit and
] 90 u+cai nd the
steel bit deep.
The truth is. and Mr.. Smith felt it,
he was met at every point When he
came 10 make his closing address he
asked the jury:
In all your experience, did you ever
Gee a lady OF more arresting and dis
eliminating personality? Did you ever
see a lady who showed through every
stage Of the cross-examinaton that
she was more completely mistress OF
herself. or who displayed more extraor-
binary and almost uncanny clever
ness?"
Counsel, OF course. used that as an
argument in favor Of his theory that
she dominated SIR John Scott, but the
admission is not the less significant.
She had been seven hours on the stand
or. as the phrase runs here. in the wit
ness-box. The sentences l have
quoted meant that the counsel
who uttered them. one Of the leaders
os the bar. had been baffied and de-
feated by the woman before him. II
she had gone to pieces her case would
have gone to pieces. .
No doubt, from technical point OF
view she was a dangerous witness
dangerous 10 herself and her cause.
Che would not be content with merely
answering questions, That is what the
ideal witness does. But you DO not
exnect q woman to be ideal You eX-
nact her 10 be herself. Lady sackville
faced her inquisitor not merely Win
,rebrinkine courage, with untroubled
J .elf-copfdence, but with intellectual
resources equal and more than equal
10 the trained and none too scrupulous
odversary SIZE had 10 confront. Sir
rdward Carson, who handled the whole
case with suavity, even with tender
ness. ID with a masterful sKill III
hts ovn. said once, kindly 10 ms cIle'iI