From a technical point of view, the "leading" nature of the direct examinations, so noticeable in English courts, was especially conspicuous in that this was a murder trial where no departure from the recognized customs would have been permitted. One's ear grows accustomed to questions which put the answer into the mouth of the witness and require merely a monosyllabic assent; and one waits in vain for the objection which, at home, would follow such infractions of the rules of evidence as thunder succeeds lightning. In the Dhingra trial, for instance, the Attorney General did not scruple to ask such questions as the following: _Q_: "Did you happen to look through the doorway and into the vestibule and see the prisoner speaking to Sir Curzon Wyllie and did you see him raise his hand and fire four shots into his face, the pistol almost touching him?" _Q_: "Did you see Sir Curzon Wyllie collapse?" _Q_: "Then, was there an interval of some seconds and then more shots?" (These killed Dr. Lalcaca.) Nor did he hesitate to put such questions to another witness as: _Q_: "Did you hear the noise of four shots and did you then look and see the prisoner and did you see him shoot again?" A police officer was asked: _Q_: "Did you examine the pistol and find one undischarged cartridge only?" _Q_: "Had the other pistol six undischarged cartridges in it?" _Q_: "Did you find two bullets similar to these in the wall?" To such an extent was leading carried in the Dhingra trial that occasionally the answer did not follow the lead, thus: _Q_: "Did you ask him 'What is your name and where do you live?'" _A_: "I can't remember what I asked him." The probable reason for the great latitude in this regard is the fact that apparently nothing in an English trial is a surprise--except to the jury. The court and counsel, knowing practically all the evidence beforehand, are extremely lenient. Not only are leading questions common but also questions asking for conclusions--not for facts from which the jury may draw their own deductions. Thus, in the Dhingra trial, a doctor, who was sent for after the murder, was asked: "Did the prisoner seem calm, quiet and collected?" A plaintiff, perhaps, will be asked: "How came the defendant to write this letter and what was its object? Did he consider himself remiss?" Of course an American lawyer would successfully contend that a letter speaks for itself, while a man's estimate of his own position could only be put in evidence by repeating his admissions in that regard--not by asking his opponent how he regarded himself.