ness,  Dr.  B.  A.  Rodrigues,  was  not  bound  to  answer  the  question
put  by  relator's  counsel,  as  to  whether  a  certain  written  state-
ment, made  by  the  defendant,  and  in  his  own  handwriting,  and
produced  and  proved  at  the  trial,  (and  confirmed  by  another
written  statement  of  defendant,  alike  produced  and  proved,)  in
relation  to  the  partnership  of  the  witness  and  defendant,  as  al-
leged in  the  suggestion,  was  true  orfalsej  and  in  sustaining  the
said  witness  in  his  refusal  to  answer  the  said  question,  the  said
witness  claiming  aloud  the  protection  of  the  Court  against  the
attempt  of  the  relator's  counsel  to  make  him  say  his  nephew  was
guilty  of  falsehood  and  perjury,  or  of  fraud  and  falsehood.7

"  Allowing  the  most  full  latitude  to  the  well-known  zeal  of
the  relator's  counsel  in  behalf  of  his  client,  it  did  appear  to  me
that  the  Court  had  something  to  say  in  the  matter ;  and  that,
without  denying  the  most  liberal  concession  to  the  exercise  of
the  right  of  the  relator  in  cross-examination,  some  questions
might  possibly  be  put,  either  in  matter  or  form,  upon  the  an-
swering of  which,  if  objected  to,  the  Judge  might  interpose  a
veto.
"  Both  as  to  matter  and  form,  I  regarded  the  question  as  un-
necessary and  improper.  The  witness  had  said  over  and  over
again,  that  the  agreement  of  partnership,  stated  in  the  letter  of
the  defendant,  as  having  been  entered  into  or  projected  between
the  witness,  the  defendant,  and  DeLange,  was  wholly  unau-
thorized by  him  ;  without  any  shadow  of  foundation  as  far  as
he  was  concerned :  that  he  never,  in  any  way,  sanctioned  or
became  a  party  to  any  such  supposed  agreement.
