A woman will inevitably couple with a categorical answer to a question, if in truth she can be induced to give one at all, a statement of damaging character to her opponent.  For example: 

“Do you know the defendant?”

“Yes, to my cost!”

Or

“How old are you?”

“Twenty-three,—­old enough to have known better than to trust him.”

Forced to make an admission which would seem to hurt her position, the explanation, instead of being left for the re-direct examination of her own counsel, is instantly added to her answer then and there.

“Do you admit that you were on Forty-second Street at midnight?”

“Yes.  But it was in response to a message sent by the defendant through his cousin.”

What is commonly known as “silent cross-examination” is generally the most effective.  The jury realize the difficulties of the situation for the lawyer, and are not unlikely to sympathize with him, unless he makes bold to attack the witness, when they quickly chance their attitude.

One question, and that as to the witness’s means of livelihood, is often sufficient.

“How do you support yourself?”

“I am a lady of leisure!” replies the witness (arrayed in flamboyant colors) snappishly.

“That will do, thank you,” remarks the lawyer with a smile.  “You may step down.”

The writer remembers being nicely hoisted by his own petard on a similar occasion: 

“What do you do for a living?” he asked.

The witness, a rather deceptively arrayed woman, turned upon him with a glance of contempt: 

“I am a respectable married woman, with seven children,” she retorted.  “I do nothing for a living except cook, wash, scrub, make beds, clean windows, mend my children’s clothes, mind the baby, teach the four oldest their lessons, take care of my husband, and try to get enough sleep to be up by five in the morning.  I guess if some lawyers worked as hard as I do they would have sense enough not to ask impertinent questions.”

An amusing incident is recorded of how a feminine witness turned the laugh upon Mr. Francis L. Wellman, the noted cross-examiner.  In his book he takes the opportunity to advise his lawyer readers to “avoid the mistake, so common among the inexperienced, of making much of trifling discrepancies.  It has been aptly said,” he continues, “that `juries have no respect for small triumphs over a witness’s self-possession or memory!’ Allow the loquacious witness to talk on; he will be sure to involve himself in difficulties from which he can never extricate himself.  Some witnesses prove altogether too much; encourage them and lead them by degrees into exaggerations that will conflict with the common-sense of the jury.”