Mr.Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler, now Lieutenant-Governor of the State, arose to cross-examine her.
"Madam," he began courteously, "you say you gave the defendant money ?" "I told him to put it into real estate, and he said he would!" replied Mrs.firmly.
"I did not ask you that, Mrs .-- ----," politely interjected Mr.Chanler.
"How much did you give him ?" "I told him to put it into real estate, and he said he would!" repeated the old lady wearily.
"But, madam, you do not answer my question!" exclaimed Chanler.

"How much did you give him ?" "I told him to put it into real--" began the old lady again.
"Yes, yes!" cried the lawyer; "we know that! Answer the question." "estate, and he said he would!" finished the old woman innocently.
"If your Honor please, I will excuse the witness.

And I move that her answers be stricken out!" cried Chanler savagely.
The old lady was assisted from the stand, but as she made her way with difficulty towards the door of the court-room she could be heard repeating stubbornly: "I told him to put it into real estate, and he said he would!" Almost needless to say, Hackett was convicted and sentenced to seven years in State's prison.
To recapitulate, the quickness and positiveness of women make them ordinarily better witnesses than men; they are vastly more difficult to cross-examine; their sex protects them from many of the most effective weapons of the lawyer, with the result that they are the more ready to yield to prevarication; and, even where the possibility of complete and unrestricted cross-examination is afforded, their tendency to inaccurately inferential reasoning, and their elusiveness in dodging from one conclusion to another, render the opportunity of little value.
In general, however, women's testimony differs little in quality from that of men, all testimony being subject to the same three great limitations irrespective of the sex of the witness, and the conclusions set forth above are merely the result of an effort on the part of the writer to comment somewhat upon those small differences which, under close scrutiny, may fairly be said to exist.

These differences are quite as noticeable at the breakfast-table as in the court-room; and are no more patent to the advocate than to the ordinary male animal whose forehead habitually reddens when he hears the unanswerable reason which, in default of all others, explains and glorifies the mental action of his wife, sister or mother: "Just because!" AS COMPLAINANTS AND DEFENDANTS The ratio of women to men indicted and tried for crime is, roughly, about one to ten.

Could adequate statistics be procured, the proportion of female to male complainants in criminal cases would very likely prove to be about the same: In a very substantial proportion, therefore, of all prosecutions for crime a woman is one of the chief actors.