The usual practice in cases, where some of the defendants support the plaintiffs case and others oppose it, is to order that those who support the plaintiffs case should cross-examine plaintiffs witnesses first if they desire to do so, and to call their evidence and address the Court before the defendants who oppose the plaintiffs case do so. Any other practice would be inconvenient and might work an injustice to those defendants who oppose the plaintiffs case. In the first place, alter the opposing defendants have cross-examined the plaintiffs witnesses, the other defendants who support the plaintiffs case would be entitled to cross-examine and by leading questions possible elicit evidence from, the witnesses which had not been elicited in examination-in-chief and about which the opposing defendants had no opportunity of cross-examining. It is true that if any new matter should be introduced, the opposing defendants might be allowed an opportunity subsequently of cross-examining about it but this would be a cumbrous process and would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. It is also manifestly unjust that a witness should be allowed to give oral evidence against a party who appears
