In Pratt v. Pratt (1903) 141 Cal. 247, a daughter was called by a father to testify in a case involving a dispute between a father and mother. The trial court interrupted the testimony and stated to the father's counsel: "'I don't know anything more revolting than to have a child put on the witness-stand to dispute a parent, father or mother. . . . You can use your own choice. I just simply say to you that there is no depth of infamy to which people can sink more than to put their children on the stand to testify against father or mother. I don't know anything that would condemn your client in my eyes so completely as to put that girl on the stand to testify against the mother. You would have to bolster everything he (defendant) said to make me believe anything after he did that. I have very pronounced views on it. It is shocking when a child is offered on the witness-stand to testify to anything that a mother has said as true or untrue.'" (Id. at p. 250.) Subsequently, the trial court stated to father's counsel: "'You have the liberty to put this girl on and have her testimony. . . I simply want you to understand that it opens the door to prejudice, which every court must have that has a family.'" (Id. at p. 251.) After the trial court made these statements, the father withdrew the witness. (Pratt, supra, 141 Cal. at p. 251.) The Supreme Court held that the trial court's conduct amounted to an "irregularity" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivision 1, justifying a new trial. (Pratt, at p. 252.)