LEADING QUESTION. A question which puts into the witness' mouth the words to be echoed back, or plainly suggests the an swer which the party wishes to get from him. Selin v. Snyder, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 171; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 247, 21 Am. Dec. 122. In that case the examiner is said to lead him to the answer.
It is not always easy to determine what is or is not a leading question.
Such questions cannot, in general, be put to a witness in his examination In chief; Sheeler v. Speer, 3 Sinn. (Pa.) 130; 1 Stark. Ev. 123; unless he is a hostile witness; Meixsell v. Feezor, 43 Ill. App. 180; Becker v. Koch, 104 N. Y. 394, 10 N. E. 701, 58 Am. Rep. 515. But, in an examination in chief, questions may be put to lead the mind of the witness to the subject of inquiry; and they are allowed when it appears that the witness wishes to conceal the truth or to favor the opposite party, or where from the nature of the case the mind' of the witness cannot be directed to the subject of inquiry without a particular specification of such subject ; 1 Campb. 43; McDonald v. People, 49 Ill. App. 357 ; State v. Keith, 53 Mo. App. 383. The permitting of such questions is within the discretion of the trial court; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gotthelf, 35 web. 351, 53 N. W. 137; King v. R. Co., 75 Hun 17, 26 N. Y. Supp. 973; Proper v. State, 85 Wis. 615, 55 N. W. 1035; St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U. S. 134, 14 Sup. Ct. 1002, 38 L. Ed. 936 ; Carder v. Primm, 52 Mo. App. 102. Where the answers of a witness have taken by surprise the party calling him, the court may permit such party to put leading questions to the witness; St. Clair v. U. S.,
154 U. S. 134, 14 Sup. Ct. 1002, 38 L. Ed. 936.
Less weight is to be given to the testi mony of a friendly witness elicited by lead ing questions put by counsel calling him ; The Cambusdoon, 30 Fed. 704. This is said to be especially true where the witness' knowledge of English is imperfect ; Mercurio v. Lunn, 93 Fed. 592, 35 C. C. A. 467; so of the master of a vessel who is a witness in a collision case; The Jane Gray, 99 Fed. 582. An appellate court, in weighing testimony, usually takes notice of the fact that a wit ness had been led; 9 Ont. App. 451 ; Duvall v. Hambleton & Co., 98 Md. 12, 55 Atl. 431.
In cross-examinations, the examiner has generally the right to put leading questions; Whart. Ev. § 501; but not perhaps when the witness has a bias in his favor; Best, Ev. 805. See WITNESS.
As the allowance of leading questions to a witness is largely In the discretion of the trial judge, the appellate court will reverse for such cause only where it appears that this discretion has been abused; Badder v. Keefer, 91 Mich. 611, 52 N. W. 60; Weber Wagon Co. v. Kehl, 139 Ill. 644, 29 N. E. 714. While it cannot be safely said that in no ease can a court of errors take notice of an exception of the trial court in permitting leading questions, such conduct must appear to be a plain case of the abuse of discretion ; Northern P. R. Co. v. Urlin, 158 U. S. 271, 15 Sup. Ct. 840, 39 L. Ed. 977. A verdict should not be disturbed on appeal for that reason; Woods v. R. Co., 188 Mo. 229, 86 S. W. 1082.