incompetency has been removed, in whole or in part, by statutes in many of the States. Interest in the subject-matter in litigation also disqualified a witness at common law, but this disqualification has ceased to exist by legislative enactment in the several States, except where the other party to the suit is dead or mentally incapacitated. Husband and wife were also at common law disqualified to testify for or against each other in a suit in which the other was interested. This ground of disqualification is also removed or modified in many States.
In addition to the foregoing, there is a ground of disqualification which applies peculiarly to the physician, or, rather, to physicians, clergymen and lawyers. That is, that information obtained in the course of professional communications is privileged and cannot be disclosed on the witness stand. This ground of incompetency as witness is of such importance as to require an extended examination elsewhere in this volume.
The proper time for an objection to the competency of a witness to be made is when the witness is first placed on the stand and before the examination-in-chief is begun. This rule was formerly so strictly applied that an objection to the competency of a witness, made after he was sworn-in-chief, came too late; but it has now been relaxed to such an extent that objections may generally be made whenever facts are disclosed in the examination-in-chief impugning the competency of the witness.
Examination of Witness.
The witness, being competent, is sworn by an officer of the court and examined by the counsel for the party in whose behalf he was called. This examination may, with certain limitations, take either of two forms: The witness may give his testimony in response to questions put to him by the party calling him, or he may give his testimony in narrative form, relating the facts or conditions as he observed them, in response to a general question or request. This latter method is, however, open to some criticism and is, therefore, subject to the discretion of the court.[1]
At any time during the examination, the trial judge may ask
- ↑ Clark v. Field, 42 Mich. 342.
