Witness-Box IVit. Pendennis appear again, but only, for the most part, in the capacity of chorus. Altogether it will be seen that Thackeray's early connection with the law tinged his literary work to a considerable extent. For the lawyer pure and simple, with his some
457
what narrow outlook and complete absorption in his profession, Thackeray, it is to be feared, had but scant admiration. Most of his barrister heroes, therefore, are Bohemians and men about town first, and lawyers after wards. — The Law Times.
WITNESS-BOX WIT. A GREAT outcry was raised some seven years ago, says the " Irish Law Times," against the methods of the bar in the crossexamination of witnesses. It followed what was known as the great pearl case, in which the present lord chief justice, then the foremost advocate at the bar, was alleged to have treated a certain witness with great unfairness by adopting a line of cross-ex amination that insinuated that the jewel had been stolen by him. The only result of this long discussion upon the ethics of cross-ex amination was the vague conclusion that, although some members of the bar were occasionally tempted to make reckless con jecture the basis of cross-examination, every barrister of repute observed the famous dic tum of Sir Alexander Cockburn, that an English advocate should maintain his client's cause " with the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin." The conclusion that an advocate ought not to seek to damage the testimony of a witness by mak ing him the subject of reckless insinuations was rather too obvious to be of much value; but the discussion was not altogether in vain, since it enabled the late Sir Frank Lockwood to tell a story that deserves to be remem bered. His contribution to the discussion, which proceeded at length in the columns of the " Times," was a tiny epistle beside the elaborate letter sent by the late lord chief justice, but it was certainly not less valuable. "I have read with interest," he wrote.
"the various letters on the subject of crossexamination. It appears to me that, in the general condemnation of counsel, your con tributors have lost sight of one side of the question, namely, the grave difficulty in which counsel is often put by the — I fear I must use a word which savors of harshness — impertinence of witnesses. Let me illustrate what I mean by a personal experience. I was engaged in conducting the defense of a person charged with cattle stealing. For obvious reasons I do not give the name. A witness deposed to seeing the ' beasts,' as he called them, in the custody of the ac cused. On cross-examination, I ascertained that he was some distance from the animals, and so asked, ' How could you tell they were beasts?' Answer: 'Because 1 could see 'em.' Question : ' How far off can you tell a beast?' Answer: ' Just about as far off as I am from you.' Now, surely, sir, counsel should have some protection from outrages such as this. I distinctly remember that upon the occasion quoted I received sym pathy from neither the bench nor the pub lic — nor, indeed, the bar." The wit that shines from the witness-box has usually a strong flavor of impertinence. A witness in a recent police court case, who contradicted the evidence of a policeman, was asked whether he was prepared to de scribe the constable as a liar. " No," he answered, " I won't exactly say the constable is a liar, but I don't mind sayin' he's 'andled the truth most carelessly." This answer
