ys the other lawyer. "It is leading and suggestive." Technically he
may be correct, but if the judge has common sense he overrules the
objection.

The proper question would be: "What happened next?" The witness,
however, might remember the paper bag of oranges she was carrying to
her grandchildren and instead of telling about the accident begin to
describe how she dropped them on the floor. Leading questions are
necessary in nearly every case. The reason that they are objectionable
and ruled out is, that the judge and the jury ought to hear not the
lawyer's narrative of the facts, but what the witness actually
remembers.

A witness on the stand appears at his worst. If any one from real life
were suddenly thrust unprepared and unlearned in theatrical art upon a
stage the incongruity of the situation would be appalling. Yet the
witness is thrown into new and strange surroundings. It is a portion
of the reality of life shown vividly against a conventionalized
background. The judge and jury in a vague manner understand this. The
lawyer producing the witness feels this and elicits the testimony in a
soothing manner.

The objects of cross-examination are as follows. The first is to prove
that the story of the witness is not true, and the other is to bring
out something new. The opposing counsel often forgets the purpose of
his cross-examination and by attempting to bully and frighten the
witness, usually either by sarcasm or a doubting manner, accomplishes
very little. Not one cross-examination out of five hundred amounts to
anything. The judge has heard many and he has little hope of their
being of much interest. The jury make so much allowance for the
witness being frightened on the stand and for the fact that she is in
the hands of a clever lawyer, that they are not much impressed even
if she contradicts herself or is proved mistaken. At best it is only a
mistake, not a deliberate lie. The lawyer thinks he owes a moral
obligation to his client and to himself to cross-examine. He is
compelled to go on. There is a musty tradition of the law that a trial
without cross-examination is not a proper trial. It is a legal fetish
and one of the things that is done. The judge expects it, the jury
expect it, the client expects it and the public.

The client pays his money and he ought not to be disappointed. If it
were omitted altogether, the judge and jury might not feel the loss so
bitterly. Perhaps they might prefer it and th