sacrificed to efficiency of business. The judge who said that he did
not hear the constant objections of the lawyer because he made his
objections sitting down was not so much an adherent of good form as a
protestor against the absurdity of professional objections.

The mooted question is the same and goes back to the one on evidence.
Shall everything be allowed in and a photographic picture of numerous
details be given to the court? If that is the correct idea, a general
knowledge and atmosphere may be derived from all the surrounding
circumstances and then there would be no objections. If the strict
interpretation of the law be followed limiting evidence to only what
is seen and heard, objections are proper and sensible.

The modern tendency is to do away with all restrictions of the past.
There has been too great severity in interpreting the law of proof and
the pendulum is bound to swing far in the opposite direction. A medium
may not easily be reached, and the only test is the common sense of
the average.

On the question of time and whether the abolishing objections and
letting in all evidence would not be shorter, there is much to be
said. It might take less time for the witness to recount the death-bed
scene of his wife's sister's brother-in-law's aunt, than for the court
to hear and pass upon all the objections and arguments as to the
admission of the testimony on the red cow.

As the jury listen to the objections and exceptions they become more
and more impatient. The restraining influence of the surroundings, the
fact that they are impaneled in a box and that they are a part of, the
drama keeps them silent. They cannot break out in revolt at the