Yollop: "Yes. He ate them, all right."

Counsel: "Wouldn't you, as an intelligent man, assume that a pound
of chocolates might have the effect of restoring to a half-starved
man a portion of his waning strength,--at least a sufficient amount
to encourage him to put up some kind of a fight against you?"

The State: "We object. The question calls for a conclusion on the
part of the witness, who does not even pretend to be an expert or an
authority on pathological--"

Counsel: "But he DOES pretend to be an intelligent man, doesn't he?
I submit, your honor, that the question is proper and I--"

The Court: "Objection sustained. The witness may state that the
defendant ate a box of chocolate creams. He cannot give an opinion
as to the effect the chocolates may or may not have had on him."

Counsel: "Exception."

Mr. Yollop was on the stand for half an hour longer. Counsel for the
defense was driving home to the jury the impression that Smilk was a
poor, half-starved wretch who had gone back to thieving after a
valiant but hopeless attempt to find work in order to support his
wife and children. He announced, in arguing an objection made by the
State, that it was his intention to prove by the man's wife that
Smilk was a good husband and was willing to work his fingers off for
his family, but that he had been ill and unable to find steady
employment.