The rule is, that when a witness is produced to give an opinion on a medical question, he is interrogated by the counsel who produces him as to his qualifications. At this point, before he is allowed to give his opinion, it is proper and customary that the counsel upon the other side of the case should be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine as to his competency, and then the court determines whether or not he is a competent witness. If the court pronounces him competent, a hypothetical question is put to him stating the facts of the case, as the counsel interrogating him claims them to be established by the evidence, and the expert is then asked to give his opinion on the question at issue, based upon an assumption that the facts stated are truly stated. Then the opposing counsel has the right to cross-examine, and to ask his views and opinions upon the same question at issue, but assuming as true other and different facts or premises, as he claims them to be established by the evidence. This often involves a test of wit and intelligence, and of forensic acumen, between the counsel and the witness, which serves very little useful purpose, except perhaps to elucidate more strongly than has been here stated the defects of the system which now obtains. It is also not unusual, and in fact is the result of the workings of human nature, that under the manipulations of counsel skilled in cross-examination, skilled in methods of indirection in stating facts, and armed with the powerful weapon of the rule which permits them to insist upon a categorical yes-or-no answer to a question, the jury and the court become confused, the witness loses his temper, or becomes affected more strongly than ever before by bias against his persecutors, as he feels them to be, and the examination ends in a farce. This is not always the case, and the illustration given is an extreme one. Like the citations from judicial criticism of expert testimony which have been given, these matters are only adverted to here as danger signals, a warning to both professions, and with an earnest suggestion of the necessity of reform. EXPERTS, HOW SUMMONED INTO COURT.