Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/494

 Witness-Box Wit. that were covered with his trade marks. "Really, witness," observed his lordship, "when you have to appear before this court, it is your bounden duty to be more clean and decent in your appearance." "Upon my life," replied the bricklayer, " if your lordship comes to that, I'm thinking I'm every bit as well- dressed as your lord ship." " How do you mean?" Lord Ellenborough demanded angrily. " Why, faith! you come here in your working clothes, and I come in mine." Witticisms are a favorite resource of the prevaricating witness, but they usually prove to be no laughing matter to the person in whose interests they are perpetrated. The experienced cross-examiner does nothing to discourage the impertinence of such a wit ness, because he knows that it leaves upon the minds of the jury a strong impression that the witness is trying to keep something back from the court. Perhaps no better in stance can be given of this flippant style of testimony than the following account of a dialogue which took place between a female witness and a well-known member of the bar at an Old Bailey trial, at which Mr. Jus tice Grantham was the presiding judge : "What are you?" the cross-examining counsel asked. The witness was silent. "What are you?" he repeated. "A wom an," she slowly replied. " What is your occupation?" "I do my housework." "And after that — when you have done your housework — what do you do?" " I go into the park." " And that is how you occupy your time?" " No," answered the witness, amid one of many bursts of laugh ter. " It is no laughing matter," said the

459

counsel sternly. " I should be sorry," re plied- the woman, " to laugh at you." " How do you live? Do you do needlework?" "Sometimes I do." " Is that your answer?" "Yes." " How do you support yourself?" "How do I support myself?" repeated the witness, " Yes," said the counsel. " Do you mean," inquired the witness, " How do I live?" " Yes, yes," interrupted Mr. Jus tice Grantham. The witness answered slowly and dramatically, " I eat and I drink." This is the kind of " humor " which creates much amusement in the court, but it is terribly mischievous to the cause which the witness has come to support, and gives, therefore, no trouble whatever to the counsel whom it is supposed to baffle. A far more difficult person to manage is the witness who thinks it funny to pretend to a greater stupidity than he actually pos sesses. " Did you sec the defendant throw the stone?" a witness was asked in an as sault case at the York Assizes. " I saw a stone, and I'm pretty sure the defendant threw it, was the reply. " Was it a large stone?" "I should say it was a largish stone." " What was its size?" " I should say it was a sizeable stone." " Can't you say exactly how big it was?" "I should say it was a stone of some bigness." " Can't you give the jury some idea of how big it was? " " Why, as near as I can recollect, it was something of a stone." " Can't you compare it to some other object?" asked the persistent advocate. " Why, if I was to compare it," answered the witness, " I should say it was as large as a lump o' chalk." Such stupidity is too grotesque to be gen uine.