129
s before the actual time of the accident--the operation was completed." That the plaintiff had suffered an injury he did not attempt to deny. As a fellow-motorist, he had Mr. Bladder's whole-hearted sympathy. His annoyance was justified, but he could not expect Mr. Bladder to pay the penalty for somebody else's misdeeds. He had no doubt that the witnesses honestly believed that they had correctly memorized the letters and figures upon the number-plate. It was his duty to satisfy the Court that they were mistaken....
As he sat down, I realized that it was not going to be a walk-over.
Mr. Douglas Bladder made a masterly witness. I have rarely seen a more accomplished liar. His regret was infinite. With horrified hands he deplored what he referred to as "the shocking affair." He thundered unsought denunciation of "the dastardly conduct of some fugitive cur." As a motorist, he "so well understood our feelings." But--at length and with a wealth of detail he described how he and his chauffeur had spent the twenty-second of May. With the exception of an hour for lunch, they had worked on the car in the garage from ten o'clock until five. "It seemed a shame," concluded the witness, "to waste such a beautiful day, but I had earmarked the twenty-second for the job, so we went through with it."
A most dangerous thing in the hands of any witness, detail is seldom employed by the dishonest. It is not difficult safely to embroider a lie, but it apparently requires more thought, patience, and rehearsal than ninety-nine rogues out of a hundred are prepared to spend. It soon became unpleasantly clear that Mr. Bladder was the hundredth knave, and that in return for his labour he had a story to tell which was as excellent an imitation of the truth as you might reasonably expect to hear in six whole months of Sundays.
I began to feel extremely uneasy.
To make matters worse, he came through his cross-examination untouched. For every question put to him he had a good natural answer, and, when he step