An English magistrate had a craze that when a witness gave a statement in the court, the magistrate would have a mirror placed before him. The witness had to say his point while looking at the mirror.
When in connection with a trial that magistrate also asked Vallabhbhai's witness to give his statement by placing a mirror in front of him, Vallabhbhai told the magistrate that my client would testify in front of this mirror only if this mirror was kept as evidence so that it could be further Later he can also be produced in the sessions court. The magistrate refused to keep the mirror as evidence.
On this Vallabhbhai said that when all the details of the witness will be known to this mirror, then what is the objection to considering it as evidence? On this the magistrate said that even though all the details of the witness will be known to the mirror, but this mirror is not an important part of this case.
Vallabhbhai said that when the mirror is not an important part of the trial proceedings, why should it be placed in the court? There was a long debate between the two on this post. There was a lot of spectacle in the court. In the end the magistrate had to bow down and the mirror was shown the way out of the court.