Once in a while, it is true, the learned Judge sought a further explanation about some matter put in evidence but beyond that he does not appear to have interfered. Counsel in his factum refers several times to Yuill v. Yuill, 114 L.J.P. 1, [1945] 1 All E.R. 183, as authority for the argument that the learned Judge interfered unduly against the defendants in the proceedings. In that case however the report shows that the trial Judge largely took over the examination of the witnesses and thus invaded the province of counsel. There is nothing like that disclosed here. And even so, in that case it was (at p. 185) held that, though inconvenient, no trace could be found of any tendency on the part of the Judge “to take sides or to press a witness in any way which could be considered undesirable.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.