Shorthand practice

1. Moot Court Practice No. 11
Attorney: Mr. Counsel, what?
Attorney: He was not present at the cutting. I
think this was admitted by him, so that in this
conclusion, as I said based on the evidence at
hand.
Attorney: Exhibit 5.
Attorney: When he said that conclusion, that it
was Mr. R who cut them because according to
the witness the passengers would not be so
foolish as to cut them, which means they were
not present when those tickets were cut. How
can he testify on the point? He is incompetent.
Attorney: He said that is his findings although
he did not mention the name of the petitioner.
And he was a member of the Flying Squad No.3.
Attorney: I know, but my objection he is
testifying on a point of which he is incompetent
to testify.
Attorney: Precisely, I will come to that. It is
here, I am only laying the basis.
Attorney: He has no jurisdiction to conclude or
to observe as far as the facts about the cutting
is concerned.
Court: All right, answer the question.
Attorney: How did you arrive at your findings
that it was Mr. R who tore the tickets based on
your report dated May 21, 1956, and marked as
Exhibit 5.
Witness: Because lately when we also
requested him to issue cash fare slips to those
passengers without, when the cash fare slips
issued to them were reviewed, their serial
numbers had been mutilated or torn off.
Court: In other words, you just presume that
Mr. R who tore those tickets.
Witness: No Sir, because when we asked him to
issue other tickets to the passengers whom we
found be without tickets, their serial numbers
were torn.
Attorney: You said lately, you mean it was not
on the same bus?
Witness: On the same bus.
Court: What happened?
Witness: Before tickets were issued to them
their numbers were also torn off.
Court: Who tore off the numbers of those
tickets?
Witness: It was R again.
Court: How do you know?
Witness: Because when we requested him to
issue the tickets, their numbers were torn off.
Court: But you did not see that it was R who
tore those tickets.
Witness: I did not see R tear the tickets but
when the tickets were handed to the
passengers, the tickets had been torn.
Court: In other words, you presume it was R
who tore the thickets. You have not seen him
personally tear them.
Court: Yes, or No.
Court: All right, proceed. He is admitted it.
Attorney: What could have been the basis of
your presumption to make a finding that it was
R who tore the tickets.
Attorney: Objection. Hypothetical.
Attorney: If he knows.
Court: All right, reform the question.
Attorney: You said you have not seen Mr. R tear
the tickets. Was there any other person, Mr.
Witness, from your experience as a member of
the Flying Squad No.3, who could have torn the
tickets.
Witness: No other person.
Attorney: Was there no other passenger of the
LBL, Mr. Witness, who was the bus at the time.

2. Witness: We also found Traffic Supervisor V
inside the bus.
Attorney: In conjunction with your testimony
based on Exhibit 5 you made mention of Traffic
Supervisor V and the last portion, last
paragraph, of your report marked Exhibit 5, says
“Before the commission of the above
irregularity, Traffic Supervisor V was consenting
and willing witness” What do you mean by that
phrase in your report, Exhibit 5, Mr. P?
Witness: Because, Sir, our…
Court: Put it in the records that the witness
could hardly speak what his counsel was typing
to put in his mouth in answer to the question.
Why can you not answer when you are the
Chief Flying Squad No.3 and your words there
are so clear that you cannot explain your
report?
Witness: But some of the wordings must have
been changed.