the witness any questions which he considers necessary to elicit the whole truth, although questions asked by the judge may not assume a character which in the mouth of the counsel would be objectionable.
Where the witness is testifying, not as an expert, but as a witness to facts within his knowledge, he must confine his testimony to such facts, and not give opinions or inferences based upon such facts. The extent to which opinions are proper by an expert witness will receive attention under the proper head.
During the course of examination of the witness, the judge may, upon application of counsel, order all ordinary witnesses, except the one who is testifying and the parties themselves, to retire from the room, and the refusal of a witness to obey such an order of the judge will render him punishable for contempt of court. It has been attempted to apply this rule of exclusion to expert witnesses; but, as the value of the opinion of the expert is dependent upon the testimony given in court, and, as the reason for keeping him ignorant of the facts testified to by the other witnesses does not exist, the rule of exclusion is applied only to the extent of requiring him to withdraw while the other experts are delivering their opinions.
Where the testimony of the witness is given in response to questions, the law ordinarily requires that counsel shall so frame his questions as not to suggest the desired answer, in which case the question is said to be leading. This rule is, however, subject to many exceptions.
Cross-examination.
The witness having been sworn and having given evidence in behalf of one party, the other party is entitled to cross-examine him.
The scope of this cross-examination is a matter upon which the courts of different States differ. It was a rule in the English courts that a witness, having been sworn and examined by one party, became subject to cross-examination by the other party upon all matters relative to the case; this rule is also accepted by the courts
