38 .. MFEDERAL REPORTER.
,_ 0fWashi¤n,gton.j ‘ Upon the trial, a policeman who saw the deceased fall ·
`on,th’élSidewalk, andwent to his assistance, after testifyingtolthe acci-
, dent, was allowed to state that he had seen persons stumble over there,
- and*remembered· sending homer in ahack a man who had fallen there,
and that he had seen asmany as five persons fall there. See, also, Oity
of Clumgo v. Powers, 42,--111. 169; Railroad Co. v. Ruby, 38 Ind. 294;
Quinlan v. Utica, 74 N. Y.603; Dougan v. Transportation Co., 56 N. Y. 7 ;
  v. 'Town rj Izlncoln,`32 Vt.591; Dorling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H.
401; Moore v. Burlington, 49 Iowa, 136. ·
2. That the court erred in permitting the exhibition of the plaintiff
and her condition to the jury by Dr. Gaylord. The doctor, who had
not been sworn, exhibited the plaintiff to the jury, and thrust a pin into
the right side of her face, her right arm and leg, and, from the witness’
failing to winoe, the jury were asked to infer that there was acomplete
paralysis of her right side. · Objection was made to this upon the ground
that the doctor was not sworn¢as~ to the instrument he was using, nor
was the plaintiff sworn to behave naturally while she was being experi-
mented upon. It is argued that both the doctor and plaintid might
~ have wholly deceived the court and jury without laying themselves open
to a charge of perjury, and that plaintiff was not even asked to swear .
whether '·‘‘ the instrument hurt her when it was used on the left side, or
T . did not hurt her when used on the right side; in short, that there was
no sworn testimony or evidence in the whole performance, and no prac-
tical way of detecting any trickery which might have been practiced.
We know, however, of no oath which could be administered to the doc-
tor or the witness touching this exhibition. So far as we are aware, the
law recognizes no oaths to be administered upon the witness stand ex-
cept the ordinary oath to tell the truth, or to interpret correctly from one
language to another. The pin by which the experiment was performed
was exhibited to the jury. There was nothing which tended to show
. trickery on the part of the doctor in failing to insert the pin as he was
requested todo, nor was there any cross-examination attempted from
the witness upon this point. Counsel were certainly at liberty to exam-
ine the pin and to ascertain whether in fact it was inserted in the flesh,
i and, having failed to exercise this privilege, it is now too late to raise
the objection that the exhibition was incompetent. It is certainly com-
petent for the plaintiff to appear before the jury, and, if she had lost an
~ arm or a leg by reason of the accident, they could hardly fail to notice
_ s it. By parity of reasoning, it would seem that she was at liberty to ex-
" hibit her wounds if she chose to do so, as is frequently the case where
an ankle has been sprained or broken, a wrist fractured, or any maiming
, ` has occurred. » I know of no objection to her- showing the extent of the
paralysis which had supervened by reason of the accident, and evidence
that her right side was insensible to pain certainly tended to show this
paralyzed condition. In criminal cases it has been doubted whether the
defendant could be compelled to make profert of his person, and thus,
as it were, make evidence against himself. The authorities upon this
subject are collated in 15 Cent. Law J. 2, and are not unequally di-