Lawyers And Witnesses

An old houaekeeper knows that iu selecting a carpet it will not do to examine niany in the same day. Theeye retains some of the more brilliant colors so as to mislead the judgment. Luw vers are affected in a similar way by the many specimens of human nature that they carrythe dark color in their mental eye. It is not strange, therefore, that they should severely cross-examine witnesses, or treat them as if tliey were prevaricating. An incident onceoceuned inan Indiana court which explains why lawyers are sornetimea tempted to say witu the Hebrew King, "I said in my haste, all men ars Hars." The principal witness in ja case on trial was a woman. She had sworn so positively to the facts that he opposing counsel saw that their cliont wouldbe defeated, unlesshertestimony could be impeached. She was a stranger, and no one knew whether her character was good or bad. But she liad sworn that at a certain time she was living in Ohio. Upon that point they called a witness to con1 ruiliet her; and thus established the inference that if she was false in one point, she was false in all. The witness the}' called swore that he saw her at a dance in Illinois at the time she testified to being in Ohio. The woman, who was seated some dlstance from the witness-stand, and wore a beautif ul set of false teeth, whispered to the counsel on her side, - "Let me ask him a question?" "Certainly," he answered. Turninir her liflad. she slipped oift her false teeth, stepped up quickly to the witness, looked him full in the face opened wide her mouth, exhibiting two or three rotten fangs, and said - "Did you ever see me bef ore ?" "Xo, I can swear I never did," anawered the amazed witness. You look ed some like the lady I saw, but I see you are not the same woman. She had beautiful teeth." The lawyer learned, subsequently that she was at the ball, as the witness had testified at first.