Skimpin went on:
‘Oh, you don’t know her, but you have seen her.’
‘Now have the goodness to tell the gentlemen of the jury what you mean by that, Mr. Winkle.’
‘I mean that I am not intimate with her, but that I have seen her when I went to call on Mr. Pickwick, in Goswell Street.’
‘How often have you seen her, Sir?’
‘How often?’
‘Yes, Mr. Winkle, how often? I’ll repeat the question for you a dozen times, if you require it, Sir.’ And the learned gentlemen, with a firm and steady frown, placed his hands on his hips, and smiled suspiciously to the jury.
On this question there arose the edifying brow-beating, customary on such points. First of all, Mr. Winkle said it was quite impossible for him to say how many times he had seen Mrs. Bardell. Then he was asked if he had seen her twenty times, to which he replied, ‘Certainly,—more than that.’ And then he was asked whether he hadn’t seen her a hundred times—whether he couldn’t swear that he had seen her more than fifty times—whether he didn’t know that he had seen her at least seventy-five times, and so forth; the satisfactory conclusion which was arrived at, at last, being—that he had better take care of himself, and mind what he was about. The witness having been, by these means, reduced to the requisite ebb of nervous perplexity, the examination was concluded.
How excellent is this. Who has not heard the process repeated over and over again from the young fledgeling Counsel to the old “hardbitten” and experienced K.C.?
A young legal tyro might find profit as well as entertainment in carefully studying others of Mr. Skimpin’s adroit methods in cross examination. They are in a manner typical of those in favour with the more experienced members of the profession, allowing, of course, for a little humorous exaggeration. He will note also that Boz shows clearly how effective was the result of the processes. Here are a few useful recipes.
How to make a witness appear as though he wished to withhold the truth. How to highly discredit a witness by an opening question. How to insinuate inaccuracy. How to suggest that the witness is evading. How to deal with a statement of a particular number of instances. How to take advantage of a witness’ glances. How to suggest another imputed meaning to a witness’ statement and confuse him into accepting it.
Another happy and familiar form is Skimpin’s interrogation of Winkle as to his “friends”—
‘Are they here?’
‘Yes they are,’ said Mr. Winkle, looking very earnestly towards the spot where his friends were stationed.
As every one attending courts knows, this is an almost intuitive movement in a witness; he thinks it corroborates him somehow.
But how good Skimpin and how ready—
“‘Pray attend to me, Mr. Winkle, and never mind your friends,’ with another expressive look at the jury; ‘they must tell their stories without any previous consultation with you, if none has yet taken place,’ another expressive look. ‘Now Sir, tell what you saw,’ etc. ‘Come, out with it, sir, we must have it sooner or later.’” The assumption here that the witness would keep back what he knew is adroit and very convincing.