A Jew is sworn on the Pentateuch, and he keeps his head covered during the administration of the oath. (1) But a Jew who stated that he professed Christianity, although he had never been baptized, and had never formally renounced the Jewish faith was allowed to be sworn on the New Testament. (2)

A Mahomedan is sworn on the Koran. Placing his right hand' flat upon the book and the other hand to his forehead, he brings the top of his forehead down to the book, which he touches with his head. He then looks, for some time, upon it; and, being asked what effect that ceremony produces, he answers that he is bound by it to speak the truth. (3)

A Parsee swears in a similar manner, except that instead of the Koran, he swears upon the Parsee

prayer book. (4)

Part of the ceremony of swearing a Gentoo (a native of India or Hindostan professing the Brahmin religion) consists in his touching, with his hand the foot of a Brahmin. If the witness, himself, is a priest, he touches the Brahmin's hand. (5)

This, however, does not appear to be the only mode of swearing among the Hindoos; and it seems that, in some parts of India, the natives swear on a portion of the waters of the Ganges. (6)

A Chinese witness on entering the witness box, kneels down, and a china saucer being placed in his hand, he breaks it against the box. The clerk then administers the oath to him (through the interpreter) in these words.-" You shall tell the truth and the whole truth; the saucer is cracked, and, if you do not tell the truth, your soul will be cracked, like the saucer." (7)

It is said that, in the Island of Hong Kong, even since it became an English possession. part of the ceremony of swearing a Chinese

(1) 2 Hale, P. C. 279; Omichund v. Barker, Willes' Rep. 546; Roscoe Ev. 5 Ed. 123.

(2) R. v. Gilham. 1 Esp. 285.

(3) R. v. Morgan, 1 Leach, C. L., 54, Roscoe Ev., 5 Ed. 123.

(4) Kerr's Mag. Acts, 21; Best on Ev., 163.

(5) Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 22.

(6) Best on Ev., 163.

(7) Entrehman's Case, 1 C. & Mar. 248.

witness consists in cutting off the head of a live cock or other fowl. (1)

A witness, who stated that he believed both the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, but that as the latter prohibited and the former countenanced swearing, he wished to be sworn on the former, was permitted to be sworn accordingly. (2) And, where a witness refused to be sworn by laying his right hand on the book, and afterwards kissing it, but desired to be sworn by having the book laid open before him and holding up his right hand, he was sworn accordingly. (3)

Where, on a trial for high treason, a witness refused to be sworn in the usual manner, but put his hands to his buttons, and in reply to a question whether he was sworn stated that he was sworn and was under oath, it was held sufficient. (4)

་་

A Scotch witness has been allowed to be sworn by holding up the hand without touching the book, or kissing it, and the form of oath administered to him was. You swear according to the custom of your country and of the religion you profess that the evidence. etc., etc." (5) Lord George Gordon, before he turned Jew, was sworn in the same manner, upon exhibiting Articles of the peace in the King's Bench. (6)

The following is given as the form of oath of a Scotch Covenanter :—“ I. A. B., do swear, by God himself, as I shall answer to him at the great day of judgment, that the evidence I shail give. touching the matter in question, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." (7)

An Indian, who was not a Christian, and who knew of no ceremony, in use among his tribe, for binding him to speak the truth. was offered as a witness in a murder trial. As he appeared to have a full sense of the obligation to speak the truth, and as he and his

(1) Berncastle's Voyage to China, 39; 2 Best on Ev. 163 (n).

(2) Edmonds v. Rowe, Ry. & Moo. N. P. C. 77.

(3) Dalton v. Colt, 2 Sid. 6.

(4) R. v. Love, 5 How. St. Tr. 113.

(5) R. v. Mildrone, 1 Leach, 319, 412; Mee v. Reid, Peake, N. P. C. 23. (6) Roscoe Ev., 5 Ed. 123.

(7) 1 Leach, 412 (n).

tribe had a belief in a Supreme Being, who created all things, and in a future state of reward and punishment, he was allowed to be sworn in the usual way on the New Testament, and his evidence was held admissible. If, however, his tribe had had in use among them any particular ceremony for binding them to speak the truth, the witness would have had to be sworn according to that ceremony, however strange and fantastical it might be; because everything should be done that can be done to bind the conscience of the witness according to his notions however superstitious they may be. (1)

Evidence of Mute.-A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible. (2)

Evidence of Foreign Witnesses.-A witness who does not speak the language spoken by the justice should be sworn, and give his evidence through the medium of another person duly qualified to interpret him, the interpreter being first sworn faithfully to interpret what the witness may say.

The oath of the interpreter may be as follows :—

You shall truly and faithfully interpret the evidence about to be given, and all other matters and things touching the present information (or charge, or as the case may be), and the Italian (or German, or as the case may be) language into the English (or French) language, and the English (or French) language into the Italian (or German, or, as the case may be) language, according to the best of your skill and ability. So help you, God."

Examination in Chief.-In examination in chief, a witness must not, as a rule, be asked any leading questions, that is, questions in such a form as to suggest the answers desired. (3)

There are, however, several exceptions to this rule. It is not applied, for instance, to that part of the examination which is merely introductory of that which is material. (4) And even

(1). R. v. Pah-mah-gay, 20 U. C. Q. B. 195-198.

(2) Can. Ev. Act, 1893, sec. 6.

(3) 2 Tayl. Ev. 8 Ed., sec. 1404; 1 Stark. Ev. 169. (4) Nicholls v. Dowding, 1 Stark. R. 81.

with regard to material points, leading questions may sometimes be allowed to be put in a direct examination; as, for instance. where the witness by his conduct in the box obviously appears to be hostile to the party producing him, or interested for the other party, or unwilling to give evidence. (1) So, where the object is identification, a witness may be directed to look at a particular person, and say whether he is the man. (2)

A witness will sometimes be allowed to be led where an omission in his testimony is evidently caused by want of recollection, which a suggestion may assist. Thus, when a witness stated that he could not recollect the names of the members of a firm, so as to repeal them without suggestion, this was permitted to be done. (3)

Where a witness is called to establish a contradiction, leading questions may be allowed. For instance, where a witness was called to contradict another respecting the contents of a lost letter, it was held that after exhausting the witness memory as to the contents of the letter, he might be asked if it contained a particular passage recited to him. (4) And, where a witness was called to contradict another who had denied having used certain expressions, counsel was permitted to ask whether the particular words denied were not in fact uttered by the former witness. (5)

Cross-Examination.—In cross-examination, leading questions may in general be asked; but this does not mean that counsel may go the length of putting into the witness' mouth the very words which he is to echo back again; (6) nor does it sanction the putting of a question, assuming that facts have been proved which have not been proved, or that particular answers have been given, contrary to the fact. (7)

The rule should also receive some further qualification where the witness is evidently hostile to the party calling him; for, although

74.

(1) R. v. Chapman, 8 C. & P. 559.

(2) R v. De Berenger, 2 Stark. R. 129 (n); R. v. Watson, 32 How. St. Tr.

(3) Acerro v. Petroni, 1 Stark. R. 100.

(4) Courteen v. Touse, 1 Campb. 43.

(5) Edmonds v. Walter, 3 Stark. R., 8.

(6) R. v. Hardy, 24 How. St. Tr. 659, 755.

(7) Hill v. Coombe, cit. 1 Stark. Ev. 188, n. n.

it appears to have been laid down in one case that leading questions may always be put in cross-examination, whether a witness be willing or not. (1) some restriction should surely be imposed where the witness betrays a vehement desire to serve the cross-examining party. (2)

Re-Examination.—A re-examination should be confined to showing the true color and bearing of the answers elicited by the cross-examination; and, without the permission of the court, new facts and new matter, not tending to explain the witness' answers in cross-examination, should not be allowed to be gone into. (3)

Evidence of Young Child.—Section 25 of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893, provides that in any legal proceeding where a child of tender years is tendered as a witness, and such child does not, in the opinion of the judge, justice, or other presiding officer, understand the nature of an oath, the evidence of such child may be received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the judge, justice, or other presiding officer, as the case may be, such child is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence, and understands the duty of speaking the truth; but that no case shall be decided upon such evidence alone, and that such evidence must be corroborated by some other material evidence:

591.-Evidence to be read to the Accused.-After the examination of the witnesses produced on the part of the prosecution has been completed, and after the depositions have been signed as aforesaid, the justice, unless he discharges the accused person, shall ask him whether he wishes the depositions to be read again, and, unless the accused dispenses therewith, shall read or eause them to be read again. When the depositions have been again read, or the reading dispensed with, the accused shall be addressed by the justice in these words. or to the like effect :

Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not bound to say anything, but

(1) Parkin v, Moon, 7 C. & P. 409.

(2) 2 Tayl. Ev. 8 Ed., sec. 1431.

(3) Prince v. Samo, 7 Ad. & E. 627; Queen's Case, 2 B. & B. 297.