Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/166

 A Legal View of the Schley Inquiry. duce certain evidence for convenience, and convenience was yielded to. While a witness was on the stand the ap plicant's counsel was permitted to put in a paper as to computed speed. There are many apparently little points

135

or not they will venture to seem over par ticular by mentioning such things. For in stance : An interpreter was sworn to interpret the testimony of one witness, and, in repeating the testimony, instead of speaking in the first

LIEUTENANT WARD. which in one way or another are guarded, or should be raised in the course of a wellconducted trial, in order to ensure accuracy or to prevent misunderstanding. They can be disposed of without loss of time, and with out argument, when both counsel and judge are experienced, and such disposition is a gain in clearness for all parties. But when the court is not familiar with the practice or the rules, counsel have to consider whether

person, as the witness did, he framed the answers in the third person, as " he says," etc. The translation may have been per fect, but this is a method which is not so good as rendering the answer as the witness gives it. In using the third person, the in terpreter is apt to explain instead of giving what is directly characteristic of the witness. Such a method of interpreting tends to make the testimony less certainly that of the wit