Elliott v. Boyles
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 31 Pa. 65 |
| Parties | Elliott versus Boyles. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Hugus and Edie, for plaintiff in error.
Baer and Coffroth, for defendants in error.
It is entirely natural that, in the public trial of causes, the earnestness of counsel should often become unduly intense; and it is not possible to prevent this, without such an attribution and exercise of power as would be entirely inconsistent with that freedom of thought that is necessary to all thorough investigation. The remedy for it is to be found rather in inner than in outer discipline.
Those who are zealously seeking the truth cannot always be watchful to measure their demeanour and expressions, in accordance with the feelings, or even with the rights of others. This zeal, even when inordinate, must be excused, because it is necessary in the search of truth; and generally, it is not possible to condemn it, as misguided or excessive, until its fault has been proved by the discovery of the truth in another direction; and possibly its very excess may have contributed to the discovery. When the presiding judge is respected and prudent, a hint kindly given is generally all that is needed to restrain such ardor, when it does not arise, in any decree, from habitual want of respect for the rights of others and for the order of public business.
Witnesses often suffer very unjustly from this undue earnestness of counsel, and they are entitled to the watchful protection of the court. In the court, they stand as strangers, surrounded with unfamiliar circumstances, giving rise to an embarrassment known only to themselves, and in mere generosity and common humanity, they are entitled to be treated, by those accustomed to such scenes, with great consideration; at least, until it becomes manifest that they are disposed to be disingenuous. The heart of the court and jury, and all disinterested manliness, spontaneously recoils at a harsh and unfair treatment of them, and the cause that adopts such treatment is very apt to suffer by it; it is only where weakness sits in judgment, that it can benefit any cause. Add to this, that a mind rudely assailed, naturally shuts itself against its assailant, and reluctantly communicates the truths that it possesses.
We do not at all feel authorized to say, that these remarks are demanded by anything that took place on the trial of this cause; but they are suggested by the question put by the counsel of the defendant below, and by the view taken of it by the opposite counsel. We do not at all know, who put the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Stoehr
...States, supra, 282 U.S. at page 694, 51 S.Ct. at page 220. As was so cogently observed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65, 66: "Witnesses often suffer very unjustly from this undue earnestness of counsel, and they are entitled to the watchful protection of ......
-
State v. Shockley
...( G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 83 Tex. 628, 19 S.W. 151; State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654, 19 S.W. 35, 32 Am. St. Rep. 686; Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65; Commonwealth v. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512, 16 280; Emery et al. v. State, 101 Wis. 627, 78 N.W. 145; Anthony v. State [Idaho] 55 P. 884; Pe......
-
Butler v. Flo-Ron Vending Co.
...... that a witness may not even be cross-examined as to such former acts of misconduct. (Stout v. Rassel, 2 Yeates, 334; Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65; Commonwealth v. Williams, 209 Pa. 529, 58 A. 922; Commonwealth v. Payne, 205 Pa. 101, 54 A. 489; Marshall v. Carr, 271 Pa. 271, 114 A. 500).......
-
Com. v. Cragle
...v. Ice, 21 Beaver 24, (O. & T. 1959); Marshall v. Carr, 271 Pa. 271, 114 A. 500 (1921); Hoffman v. Kemerer, 44 Pa. 452 (1863); Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65 (1857); Commonwealth v. Joines, 264 Pa.Super. 281, 399 A.2d 776 (1979); Commonwealth v. Ornato, 191 Pa.Super. 581, 159 A.2d 223, aff'd.......