In most cases inspection of a script so used must be allowed to the opposite party, to enable him to procure the refreshment of the witness' memory by every part. And in certain cases such inspection will operate to convert the script into evidence of the party who inspects.

Generally, witnesses must speak to 'facts' known or supposed by them to be within their own knowledge: not to their mere 'belief' or 'opinion, which may have been derived from others, or perhaps may have arisen from dullness of understanding, or from liveliness of imagination. But in certain cases, notably on questions of 'science' or trade, persons having special knowledge, for example, lawyers, engineers, medical practitioners, and others commonly styled 'experts,' are permitted to give their opinions in evidence; and this even where their opinions are founded on the case as proved by other witnesses at the trial.

discredit his own

Compare Secs. 30

The vexed question, how far a party may witness,' was settled by the Legislature in 1854. and 34 of Act II of 1855, and Sec. 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In order to be contradicted, the "adverse" witness must appear to the judge to be not only unfavorable but hostile. Greenough v. Eccles, 5 C. B., N. S., 786.

Cross-examination :-When a witness has been called by one party, and his examination in chief has been closed, the opposite party has a right to cross-examine' him, in order to test his credibility.

Questions may arise as to whether a particular witness has in fact been called.' One called merely for the purpose of producing a document, need not be sworn; and if not sworn, cannot be crossexamined. A witness called and sworn by mistake, and not substantially examined in chief, cannot be cross-examined. Strictly, a witness called intentionally and not by mistake, may be crossexamined, though not a single question has been put to him.

:

In cross-examination, in general, leading questions' may be asked but not questions putting the very words into the witness' mouth, which he is to echo back again. And where the witness showed himself hostile to the party calling him, the privilege of

asking him leading questions will be curtailed. The right of crossexamining is not limited in England to the matters upon which the witness was examined in chief, and extends to the whole case: but it is so limited in America, and perhaps the American practice on this point might advantageously be adopted in the Mofussil, if not in its entirety, in a modified form.

If a witness called and examined in chief by A., and crossexamined by B., is subsequently called and examined by B. as a witness for B., it is thought that A. should be allowed to cross-examine him, as being an opponents witness, as to his opponents case.

:

The general rule which restricts the evidence to the points in issue is not applied so strictly in cross-examination as in direct examination and in some cases great latitude is allowed to the party cross-examining, when from the temper, conduct or antecedents of the witness it may appear to be necessary to throw much light on his evidence. But irrelevant facts may not be elicited from a witness solely for the purpose of impeaching his credit by contradicting him. To impeach his character, he may be questioned about crimes and convictions: but his answers to such questions, and to irrelevant questions generally, may not be contradicted by independent evidence. Questions respecting the motives, interest, and conduct of the witness will often be not irrelevant, and to impeach impartiality he may be asked questions respecting irrelevant facts, and his answers contradicted.

It is a general rule with respect to all questions put to a witness to test his credit that if they relate to relevant facts,' the answers may be contradicted by independent evidence. And so it is with questions which if answered in the affirmative would qualify or contradict some previous part of his testimony. A witness may be questioned as to a former statement made by him relative to the subject matter of the case, and inconsistent with his present testimony, and proof may be given of such former statement, if deemed. See Sec. 155, Act I of 1872.

Some questions a witness is not compellable to answer,' as to which see the Evidence Act, 1872.

The credit of a witness may be impeached not only by means of cross-examination, but also by disproving his statements, and by adducing evidence to show that his 'general reputation for veracity' is bad, and in other ways. On the other hand the party calling a witness so dealt with may re-establish his credit,' by calling witnesses for the purpose, and in other ways.

Re-examination:-After a witness has been cross-examined, the party who called him has a 'right to re-examine him,' and to ask all questions which may be proper to draw forth an explanation' of the meaning of the expressions used by the witness on crossexamination, if they may be in themselves doubtful; and also of the motive, or provocation, which induced the witness to use those expressions; but he has no right to go further, and to introduce matter new in itself, and not suited to the purpose of explaining either the expressions or the motives of the witness.

The judge has a discretionary power, with which the court above is very unwilling to interfere, of 'recalling witnesses' at any stage of the trial, and of putting such legal questions to them as the exigencies of justice require. This will be done sometimes even where the plaintiff has actually closed his case, and finds that he has neglected to prove a material fact.

The beneficial practice of 'confronting witnesses' for the purpose of observing their demeanour, testing their credit, and affording an opportunity of explaining away an apparent discrepancy, has fallen into comparative disuse at Nisi Prius, but prevails largely in the County Courts.

So much for Taylors general rules: with regard to Indian law

Where no positive law exists for the guidance of the judge, he is at liberty to follow his own judgment in conducting the examination of witnesses in such manner as he may think best calculated to conduce to the ends of justice, and without prejudicing the rights and interests of parties in litigation. Pro. S. C., 23rd December, 1861.

It is the duty of the presiding judge to check irrelevant questions being put to a witness under examination. Ibidem.

If the court, when specially prayed to take the evidence of a witness, refuses without good reason to do so, the party calling the witness has ground for complaint. But the court is not bound to examine a witness, merely because he has been summoned and is in attendance. S. M. Ranee Doorga Soonderee v. Ranee Huree Monee, 2 Suth. W. R., 166.

"It has been repeatedly ruled that, unless the object of a party, in summoning a large number of witnesses, clearly appears to be to impede the adjudication of the case, or otherwise obstruct the ends of justice, it is the bounden duty of the Court to receive all the evidence tendered." Per Bayley, J., in Ramdhan Mandal and another v. Rajballab Paramanik and others, 6 B. L. R., App., 10.

When a witness has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, he cannot be recalled as a witness for the defendant, without leave obtained at the end of the first examination. Mackintosh v. Nobin Money Dossee, 2 Ind. Jur. (N. S.), 160.

In a decision disposing of some appeals, reported at 5 M. J., 58, the Calcutta High Court observed :-" Many of the Mofussil judges think that when a party to the suit or a witness is summoned by the court, such party or witness is not to be subjected to crossexamination by the parties to the suit. This we consider a serious mistake, and likely in many instances to lead to a failure of justice. When the court summons a person to give evidence in a case, he is just as liable to be cross-examined as any other witness. His examination is not to be confined to such questions as the court sees fit to put to him, but his knowledge as to the facts he states may be tested, as in the case of any other witness, by questions put by the parties."

In Narasimha v. Krishnammah and others, 1 H. C. R., 456, the second defendant was a witness under examination, and had given evidence opposed to the interests of the first defendant. On the Advocate-General objecting to his cross-examination, the court observed:-"One co-defendant whose interests are separately represented may certainly cross-examine another with a view of discrediting evidence which the latter may have given in the plaintiff's favor."

cases.

182. In cases in which an appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing, in the language of How evidence shall the Court, by or in the presence and under the perbe taken in appealable sonal direction and superintendence of the Judge, not ordinarily in the form of question and answer, but in that of a narrative, and, when completed, shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and of the witness, and also in the presence of the parties or their pleaders, and the Judge shall, if necessary, correct the same and shall sign it.

A distinction is made between cases in which an appeal lies, and cases in which an appeal does not lie. In cases of the former class the evidence must be taken down in writing in extenso, ' in the form of a narrative'; and if this is done by a clerk, a memorandum of the substance of what each witness deposes is to be made simultaneously by the judge. In cases of the latter class it is sufficient for the judge to make such memorandum, and unnecessary to take down the evidence in extenso.

The only difference authorized by the Code in the manner of trying appealable and unappealable suits is in the method of recording the evidence under this section. Pro. S. C. of the 20th October, 1860.

183. If the evidence is taken down under Sec. 182 in a language different from that in which it was given, and the witness does not understand the language in which it is taken down, the evidence as taken down in writing shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given.

When witness may require his deposition to be interpreted.

184. In cases in which the evidence is not taken down in writing by the Memorandum when Judge, he shall be bound, as the examination of each witness proceeds, to make a memorandum of the evidence is not taken substance of what each witness deposes, and such down by Judge. memorandum shall be written and signed by the Judge with his own hand, and shall form part of the record.

185. Where English is not the language of the Court, but all the parties to the suit who appear in person, and the pleaders of When evidence may such as appear by pleaders, do not object to have such be taken in English. evidence as is given in English taken down in English,

the Judge may so take it down with his own hand.

186. The Court may of its own motion or on the application of any party or his pleader take down, or cause to be Any particular ques- taken down, any particular question and answer, or any objection to any question, if there appear any special reason for so doing.

tion and answer may be taken down.

to.

187. If any question put to a witness be objected to by a party or his pleader, and the Court allows the same to be put, the Judge shall take down the question, the answer, the objection and the name of the person making it, together with the decision of the Court thereon.

Questions objected