The Criminal Law Journal of India Journal October 15 1907

As to the liability to cross-examination the general rule is that every witness who (being competent to give evidence in the case) is intentionally called and sworn may be cross-examined by the opposite party and that the right to cross-examine is not destroyed by the fact that the party calling such witness changes his mind at the last moment and asks no questions. [...] of his witnesses ; consequently the cross-examiner's privilege extends to the putting of any question though not directly relevant to the issue if the answer to it may be material upon the question of the reliability of the witness's evidence ; thus he is entitled to investigate and prole the sitution'of the witness with respect to the parties and to the subject of the litigation his interest [...] IF however the questions relate only to the identity of the document or the handwriting it would seem that the opponent is not entitled to further inspection than is necessary to enable him to re-examine about the handwriting or to recognise the document if subsequently put in. [...] In all the cases where the question has arisen it was held that the writing or picture must be submitted to the jury to decide whether in fact it was indecent or not ; that the words used in the statute are in themselves descriptive to be taken and understood in the popular sense and that upon such a question the opinion of one person is just as good as that of another. [...] The important feature of the case is that notwithstanding the conceded inisluity found in the writing the defendant by w-hat.appears to me to be a very strained and artificial construction of his act is allowed to escape punishment ; nor is the situation helped very much by the suggetion that the paper is it criminal libel and that the public prosecutor should have indicted the defendant fo