DESERVED RETALIATION

New Zealand Graphic, Volume VIII, Issue 44, 31 October 1891, Page 544

DESERVED RETALIATION

Over-shrewd lawyers often furnish their adversaries with weapons. Even the cleverest of them have been put down in open court by equally really witnesses. ‘ Did you see this tree that has been mentioned by the roadside ?’ an advocate inquired. ‘ Yes, sir ; I saw it very plainly.’ ‘ It was conspicuous, then ?’ The witness seemed puzzled by the new word. He repeated his former assertion. ‘ What is the difference,’ sneered the lawyer, * between plain and conspicuous ?’ But he was hoist with his own petard. The witness innocently answered : ‘ 1 can see you plainly, sir, amongst the other lawyers, though you are not a bit conspicuous.’ In another instance, a blow directed against the character of a witness forcibly recoiled. * You were in the company of these people ?’ he was asked. ‘ Of two friends, sir.’ ‘ Friends ! Two thieves, I suppose you mean.’ * That may be so,’ was the dry retort; ‘ they are both lawyers. ’ The blow that destroys the effect of an adverse examination is occasionally more the result of accident than of conscious effort. In a trial not long ago, a very simple witness was in the box, and after going through his ordeal was ready to retire. One question remained : ‘ Now, Mr , has not an attempt been made to induce you to tell the court a different story ?’ ‘ A different story to what I have told, sir ?’ ‘ Yes ; is it not so ?’ ‘ Yes, sir.’ ‘ Upon your oath I demand to know who the persons are who have attempted this.’ * Well, sir, you’ve tried as hard as any of ’em,’ was the unexpected answer. It ended the examination.