A novel situation in regard to the use of interpreters was presented in People v. Walker (Cal. App. 1924) 231 Pac. 572. The prosecution called a witness who was brought in in a crippled and weak condition. He was asked questions, but "the witness could give forth no sound, not even a whisper, by means of the organs of Speech." While the record was not clear whether there was any movement of his lips whatever, at least there was none which conveyed to any person but his wife the impression that he attempted to put forth articulate speech in response to the questions. The trial court allowed his wife to be sworn to "interpret" the witness' answers, apparently on the ground that she, as the wife of the witness, could see things which no one else could. On appeal, the court held it error to allow the use of the "interpreter" since the appellant was unable to impeach or ascertain the correctness of the "interpretation". The decision can be supported on the ground, hinted at in the opinion, that no interpreter should be allowed unless it is first shown that there is some communication to be interpreted. There was nothing at the trial .to justify the court in believing that the witness was making any kind of responses to the questions or any effort to convey thought by articulation. There was, therefore, such an abuse of that sound discretion which is vested in the trial court in regard to appointing interpreters, as to warrant the interference of the reviewing court. Brzozowski v. National Box Co. 104 111. A. 338; Kozlowski v. Chicago, 113 111. A. 513.