The Case of the Golddigger’s Purse

16

There were only a few scattered spectators in the courtroom as Judge Summerville ascended the bench, seated himself, and the bailiff called the court to order.

Sally Madison, somewhat subdued, but with her face still giving no clue to her thoughts, sat directly behind Perry Mason, apparently completely detached from the tense, dramatic conflict of the trial itself. Unlike most clients, she didn’t bother to whisper comments to her lawyer, and might as well have been a piece of beautiful furniture so far as taking any active part in her defense was concerned.

Judge Summerville said, “Time and place heretofore fixed for the preliminary hearing of The People versus Sally Madison. Are you ready, gentlemen?”

“Ready for the prosecution,” Ray Medford said.

“Ready for the defense,” Mason announced calmly.

The district attorney’s office was quite apparently trying to sneak up on Mason’s blind side.

So far, Tragg had said nothing about those incriminating fingerprints of Della Street’s on the murder weapon. Ray Medford, one of the shrewdest men on the prosecutor’s staff of trial deputies, was taking no chances with Perry Mason. He knew too much about the lawyer’s ingenuity to overlook a single bet. But, on the other hand, he was very careful to treat the case merely as a routine procedure, one where the judge would bind the defendant over to answer, and the main contest would be made before a jury in the Superior Court.

“Mrs. Jane Faulkner will be my first witness,” Medford said.

Mrs. Faulkner, clothed in black, took the witness stand, related in a low voice how she had returned from “visiting friends” and had found Perry Mason and Sally Madison, the defendant, waiting in front of the house. She had admitted them to the house, explained to them that her husband wasn’t home, then gone to the bathroom and found her husband’s body on the floor.

“Your husband was dead?” Medford asked.

“Yes.”

“You are sure that the body was that of Harrington Faulkner, your husband?”

“Quite certain.”

“I think that’s all,” Medford said, and then added with a disarming aside to Perry Mason, “Just to prove the corpus delicti, Counselor.”

Mason bowed. “You had been with friends, Mrs. Faulkner?”

She met his eyes calmly, steadily. “Yes, I had been with my friend, Adele Fairbanks, during the entire evening.”

“At her apartment?”

“No. We had been to a movie.”

“Adele Fairbanks was the friend to whom you telephoned after you had discovered your husband had been murdered?”

“Yes. I felt that I couldn’t stay in the house alone. I wanted her to be with me.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “That is all.”

John Nelson was next called to the stand. He gave his occupation as a banker, stated that he had known Harrington Faulkner in his lifetime; that on the afternoon of the day on which Faulkner was murdered he had been at the bank when Mr. Faulkner had telephoned, stating that he desired rather a large sum of money in cash; that shortly after the telephone call had been received, Faulkner had shown up, had been admitted to the bank through the side door, and had asked for twenty-five thousand dollars in cash, which he had withdrawn from his checking account. It was, he explained, his individual account, not the account of Faulkner and Carson, Incorporated. The withdrawal had left Mr. Faulkner with less than five thousand dollars to his credit in his personal account.

Nelson had decided it would be a good plan to take the numbers of the bills, inasmuch as Faulkner had asked for twenty thousand dollars in one-thousand dollar bills, for two thousand dollars in one-hundred-dollar bills, and for three thousand dollars in fifty-dollar bills. Nelson testified that he had called one of the assistant tellers, and, together, they had managed to list all of the numbers on the bills while they kept Mr. Faulkner waiting. Then the money had been turned over to Mr. Faulkner and he had placed it in a satchel.

Quite calmly and casually, Medford called for the list of numbers on the bills and that list was received in evidence. Then Medford produced a leather satchel and asked Nelson if he had ever seen it before.

“I have,” Nelson said.

“When?”

“At the time and place I have referred to. That was the satchel which Mr. Faulkner carried with him to the bank.”

“The satchel in which the twenty-five thousand dollars in cash was placed?”

“That’s right.”

“Are you certain that is the identical satchel?”

“Quite certain.”

“You may cross-examine,” Medford said to Mason.

“How do you know it’s the same satchel?” Mason asked.

“I noticed it particularly when I put the money in it.”

“You put the money in it?”

“Yes. Mr. Faulkner raised it to the little shelf in front of the cashier’s window. I unlocked the wicket, swung it back on its hinges and personally placed the twenty-five thousand dollars in the satchel. And at that time, I noticed a peculiar tear in the leather pocket on the inside lining of the satchel. If you’ll notice, Mr. Mason, you’ll see for yourself that that tear is still there. It’s a rather peculiar, jagged, irregular tear.”

“And you identify the satchel from that?” Mason asked.

“I do.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

Sergeant Dorset was the next man on the witness stand. He testified to the conditions he had found at Faulkner’s house when he arrived, the position of the body, the discovery of the satchel under the bed in the bedroom, the place where Faulkner’s coat, shirt and tie had been found tossed carelessly on a chair, the safety razor on the shelf, still uncleaned, with the lather and hairs still adhering to the blade. The lather was partially dry, which, in his opinion, indicated that it had been “some three or four hours” since the razor had been used. The face of the corpse was smooth-shaven.

Medford desired to know whether Sergeant Dorset had seen the defendant there.

“I did, yes, sir.”

“Did you talk with her?”

“I did.”

“Did she accompany you upon any trip?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where did she go?”

“To the residence of one James L. Staunton.”

“That was at your request?”

“It was.”

“Did she make any objection?”

“No, sir.”

“Was there a fingerprint expert present in the Faulkner house?”

“There was.”

“What was his name?”

“Detective Louis C. Corning.”

“Did he examine certain articles for fingerprints under your direction and supervision and in accordance with your instructions?”

“He did.”

“You may take the witness,” Medford said to Perry Mason.

“Just how did Mr. Corning examine the fingerprints?”

“Why, through a magnifying glass, I presume.”

“No. That isn’t what I meant. What method did he use in perpetuating the evidence? Were the fingerprints developed and then photographed?”

“No. We used the lifting method.”

“Just what do you mean by that?”

“We dusted certain objects to develop latent fingerprints, and then placed adhesive over the fingerprints, lifting the entire fingerprints from the object, then covering the adhesive with a transparent substance so that the fingerprints could be perpetuated and examined in detail.”

“Who has the custody of those fingerprints?”

“Mr. Corning.”

“And he has had such custody ever since the night of the murder?”

“To the best of my belief, he has. However, I understand he’s going to be a witness, and you can ask him about that.”

“The method of perpetuating the fingerprints was suggested by you?”

“It was.”

“Don’t you consider that rather a poor method to use?”

“What other method would you have preferred, Mr. Mason?”

“I wouldn’t have preferred any method,” Mason said. “But I have always understood that it was more efficient and better practice to develop the latents and then photograph them in their position on the object, and, if the fingerprints seemed to be important, to bring the object into court.”

“I’m sorry that we can’t accommodate you,” Sergeant Dorset said sarcastically, “but it happens that in this particular case the fingerprints were all over the bathroom of a dwelling house which was in use. We were hardly in a position to dispossess the tenants, and keep all fingerprints intact. We used the lifting method, which I believe is infinitely preferable to the other where the circumstances justify it.”

“What circumstances justify it?” Mason asked.

“Circumstances such as these, where you are dealing with objects that can’t readily be brought into court.”

“Now what means did you use to identify the places from which the fingerprints had been taken?”

“I didn’t use any, personally. That is entirely within the province of Mr. Corning, and you will have to ask him those questions. I believe, however, he prepared envelopes on which the exact location from which each print had been lifted were printed and kept the prints straight by that method.”

“I see. Now, did you have occasion that night to look into the other side of the duplex house — the side which was, I believe, utilized as an office for the real estate corporation of Faulkner and Carson?”

“Not that night, no.”

“You did the next morning?”

“I did.”

“What did you find?”

“An oblong glass tank, which had been apparently used as an aquarium or fish tank, had been drained of water, apparently by means of a section of long, flexible rubber tubing of an inside diameter of approximately one-half inch. The glass tank had then been turned over on its side and the mud and gravel in the bottom of the tank had been dumped out on the floor of the office.”

“Did you make any attempt to get fingerprints from that tank?”

“No, sir. I didn’t take any fingerprints from the glass tank.”

“Did you try to take any?”

“I didn’t personally, no, sir.”

“Did you suggest that anyone else do so?”

“No, sir.”

“As far as you know, none of the police made any attempt to develop fingerprints from that tank?”

“No, sir.”

“May I ask why?”

“For the simple reason that I didn’t consider the overturned tank had any connection whatever with the murder of Harrington Faulkner.”

“It may have?”

“I don’t see how it could have.”

“It is quite conceivable that the same person who murdered Harrington Faulkner might have drained that tank and overturned it?”

“I don’t think so.”

“In other words, because you, yourself, personally, didn’t see how there could have been any connection between the two crimes, you let this evidence be destroyed?”

“I’ll put it this way, Mr. Mason. In my capacity as an officer on the police force, it is necessary for me to make certain decisions. I take the responsibility for those decisions. Obviously, we can’t go around fingerprinting everything. We have to stop somewhere.”

“And this was your stopping place?”

“That’s right.”

“You usually take fingerprints in case of a burglary, don’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Yet you didn’t in connection with this one?”

“It wasn’t a burglary.”

Mason raised his eyebrows.

“Nothing was taken.”

“How do you know?”

“Nothing was missing.”

“How do you know?”

“I know,” Dorset said angrily, “because no one made any complaint that anything was missing.”

“The tank had been installed there by Harrington Faulkner?”

“So I understand.”

“Therefore,” Mason said, “the only person who could have made any complaint was dead.”

“I don’t consider anything was taken.”

“You made an examination of the contents of the tank before it was upset?”

“No.”

“Then, when you say you don’t consider anything was taken, you’re using a telepathic, intuitive...”

“I’m using my judgment,” Dorset all but shouted.

Judge Summerville said placidly, “Is this overturned fish tank important, gentlemen? In other words, does the prosecution or the defense intend to connect it up?”

“The prosecution doesn’t,” Medford said promptly.

“The defense hopes to,” Mason said.

“Well,” Judge Summerville ruled, “I’ll permit a very wide latitude so far as questions are concerned.”

“We are not making any objection,” Medford hastened to assure the judge. “We want to give the defendant every opportunity to establish any facts which may tend to clarify the case.”

“When you entered the bathroom of Faulkner’s house,” Mason asked, “you found some goldfish in the bathtub, Sergeant?”

“I did, yes.”

“Two goldfish?”

“Two goldfish.”

“What was done with them?”

“We took them out of the tub.”

“Then what was done with them?”

“There seemed to be no place where we could keep them, so we simply swept them out with the other goldfish.”

“By the other goldfish, you mean the ones on the floor?”

“That’s right.”

“You didn’t make any attempt to identify the two goldfish that were in the bathtub?”

“I didn’t ask them their names,” Sergeant Dorset said sarcastically.

“That will do,” Judge Summerville rebuked the witness sharply. “The witness will answer counsel’s questions.”

“No, sir. I simply made note of the fact that two live goldfish were in the bathtub and let it go at that.”

“There were goldfish on the floor?”

“Yes.”

“How many?”

“I’m certain I couldn’t say. I think the photograph will show the number.”

“As many as a dozen?”

“I would say somewhere around that number.”

“There was a shaving brush and a razor on the glass shelf above the wash stand?”

“Yes. I have already testified to that.”

“What else was there?”

“There were, I believe, two sixteen ounce bottles of peroxide of hydrogen. One of them was almost empty.”

“Anything else?”

“No, sir.”

“Now, what did you notice on the floor?”

“There were pieces of broken glass.”

“Did you make an examination of those pieces of broken glass to determine if they had any pattern or if they had been originally a part of some glass object?”

“I didn’t personally. I believe at a later date Lieutenant Tragg caused all of those pieces to be assembled and had them fitted together so that they formed a rather large curved goldfish bowl.”

“You say that there was a checkbook on the floor?”

“There was.”

“Near the body of the murdered man?”

“Quite near.”

“Can you describe its appearance?”

Medford said, “Your Honor, I intended to introduce this checkbook in evidence by another witness, but if counsel wants to examine this witness about it, I’ll introduce it right now.”

Medford produced the checkbook, Sergeant Dorset identified it, and it was received in evidence.

“Calling your attention,” Medford said to Judge Summerville, “to the fact that the last check stub in the book — that is the last one from which the corresponding check has been torn away along the perforated line, is a check stub bearing the same date as the day of the murder, with an amount of one thousand dollars written in the upper right-hand corner, and in the body of the stub a portion of a name has been written. The first name is completely written and the last name has been unfinished. Only the first three letters of that name appear. They are ‘G-r-i.’ ”

Judge Summerville examined the check stub with keen interest.

“Very well, this will be received in evidence.”

“Were any of the goldfish on the floor alive when you entered the room?” Mason asked Sergeant Dorset.

“No.”

Mason said, “For your information, Sergeant, I will state that I noticed motion on the part of one of the goldfish when I entered the room — and I was, I believe, in the room some ten or fifteen minutes before the police arrived. I placed that goldfish in the bathtub and apparently it resumed life.”

“That, of course, was something you had no right to do,” Sergeant Dorset said.

“You made no test to ascertain whether there was some life on the part of any of the other goldfish?”

“I didn’t apply a stethoscope to them,” Dorset said sarcastically.

“Now then, you have stated that you asked the defendant to accompany you to the home of James L. Staunton?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“You had some conversation with Mr. Staunton there?”

“Yes.”

“And Mr. Staunton gave you a statement purporting to bear the signature of Harrington Faulkner, the deceased?”

“He did.”

Medford said, “Your Honor, I don’t want to seem technical, but after all, this is a preliminary examination. The purpose of it is to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant murdered Harrington Faulkner. If there is, the Court should bind her over to answer. If there isn’t, the Court should dismiss her. I think that we have plenty of evidence to establish our case without carrying the inquiry far afield. These matters are entirely extraneous. They have nothing whatever to do with the murder.”

“How do you know they have nothing to do with the murder?” Mason asked.

“Well, I will put it this way,” Medford said. “They have nothing to do with our case. We can establish our case by an irrefutable chain of evidence without dragging in all of this extraneous stuff.”

Mason said, “Your Honor, I understand the law and I know the Court does, but I submit to the Court that under the circumstances of this case and in view of the very apparent mystery which surrounds the case, I should be permitted to show all of the surrounding circumstances which I contend played an important part in connection with the murder of Harrington Faulkner. I know that the Court doesn’t want to hold this young woman over for trial if she is in fact innocent, regardless of the fact that it might be possible for the prosecution to establish a technical case. I also know that the Court is anxious to see that the real murderer is apprehended in the event this young woman should actually be innocent. Therefore, I submit to your Honor that it is better at this time, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, to let all of the facts come into the record.”

“We don’t have to put in all of the facts,” Medford said angrily. “We only have to show enough of our hand to convince the Court that there is a reasonable cause to believe this defendant is guilty.”

“That’s just the trouble with the entire situation, your Honor,” Mason retorted. “It is the attitude of the prosecution that it’s playing some sort of a game; that it only needs to introduce a certain amount of evidence; that it can hold back the rest of its evidence as a miser hoards his gold, so that the defendant can be surprised when confronted with that evidence in the Superior Court. Now, that may be the way to secure a large number of convictions and to make a good showing for efficiency on the part of the district attorney’s office, but I submit, your Honor, that it is hardly the way to clear up a rather puzzling and baffling mystery.”

“It isn’t a mystery to the police,” Medford snapped.

“Certainly not. Because, as your Honor has just seen from the attitude of Sergeant Dorset, he collected the evidence which he thought would result in a conviction of this defendant. Any evidence which tended to point to the guilt of some other person was disregarded. The police didn’t think this other crime had any connection with the murder of Harrington Faulkner simply because it didn’t involve this defendant.”

Judge Summerville said, “I know it’s somewhat irregular, but I’d like to hear from counsel just what the general surrounding facts of the case are.”

“I protest that it’s irregular,” Medford said.

“I’m only asking counsel to make a general statement of his position,” Judge Summerville ruled placidly. “I certainly have a right to know what is in counsel’s mind before I rule on an objection the prosecution has made.”

Mason said, “Your Honor, Harrington Faulkner had a pair of rather valuable fish, fish which were vastly more valuable to him personally than they would be on the market, but fish which were, nevertheless, of a rare strain. Harrington Faulkner rented one side of a duplex dwelling from the corporation which owned it. The other side was where the corporation had its office. Faulkner had installed a fish tank in the office and placed these two very valuable fish in that tank. He and Elmer Carson, the other active member of the corporation, quite apparently became mortal enemies. The fish in the tank were suffering from a fish disease that is nearly always fatal. Tom Gridley, whose name has been brought into the case, had a cure for that disease. The decedent tried, by various and sundry means, to get control of the formula by which young Gridley was able to cure the fish. Sometime prior to the murder, Elmer Carson had filed suit and secured a temporary restraining order preventing Harrington Faulkner from moving the fish tank from the real estate office on the ground that it had been so affixed to the building that it had become a fixture. Before the hearing on the temporary restraining order and order to show cause, I understand Harrington Faulkner removed the fish without disturbing the tank, and took those fish to the residence of James Staunton. Now then, your Honor, in view of the peculiar circumstances, and in view of the fact that the defendant in this case was concededly what is known colloquially as the girl friend of Tom Gridley, and active in the store where Tom Gridley worked, a store which Harrington Faulkner subsequently bought in order to get control of Gridley’s formula, I claim that all of these things are an integral part of the case.”

Judge Summerville nodded his head. “So it would seem.”

“Well, I submit that we are entitled to stay within our legal rights,” Medford said angrily. “We didn’t make the law, and I notice that learned counsel for the defense never hesitates to grab at any technicality which will advance his case. We have a law on the statute books. Let’s conform to it.”

“Quite right,” Judge Summerville said. “I was about to make that statement when counsel interposed his comments.”

“I beg the Court’s pardon,” Medford said stiffly.

“I was about to say,” Judge Summerville ruled, “that under the law, the prosecution only needs to put on sufficient evidence to show that a crime has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant is the one who committed that crime. But, I want to go on record at this time as stating that under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the peculiar and rather mysterious incidents which seem to have surrounded it, after the prosecution has rested its case, the Court is going to permit the defendant to call witnesses and ask them any questions the defendant wants which may bring out the facts which counsel for the defense has just outlined to the Court.”

Medford said, “The effect of that, if the Court please, is to accomplish the same result. All of the extraneous facts will be dragged into this case.”

“If they have a bearing on the question before the Court, I want to hear all of the things which you would refer to as extraneous facts.”

“But the point I am making is that the effect is just the same as though they were brought in at this time.”

“Why object to them then?” Judge Summerville asked urbanely.

Mason said, “I was only calling for a document which is in the possession of the police. I can, if I have to, subsequently put Sergeant Dorset on the stand as my witness and ask that the document be produced.”

“But what earthly bearing does that document have on the murder of Harrington Faulkner?” Medford asked.

Mason smiled. “Perhaps a few more questions to Sergeant Dorset will clear up that part of the case.”

“Ask him the questions,” Medford said. “Ask him if the document has any bearing on the case. I defy you to ask him that question, Mr. Mason.”

Mason said, “I prefer to ask my questions in my own way, Counselor.” He turned to the witness and said, “Sergeant, after you discovered the body of Harrington Faulkner, you proceeded to investigate the murder, did you not?”

“I did.”

“You investigated every angle of it?”

“Naturally.”

“And during the course of the evening you questioned the defendant and also me about an interview we had had with James Staunton, and about whether the fish which Mr. Staunton had in his possession were actually the two fish which had been delivered to him by Mr. Faulkner, and which had been taken from the tank which was in the real estate office, didn’t you?”

“I asked questions, yes.”

“And insisted upon answers?”

“I felt that I was entitled to answers.”

“Because you thought that matter might throw some light upon who murdered Harrington Faulkner?”

“I thought so at the time.”

“What has caused you to change your opinion?”

“I don’t know that I have changed it.”

“Then you still think that the circumstances you investigated in connection with James Staunton had some bearing on the murder of Harrington Faulkner?”

“No.”

“Then you have changed your opinion.”

“Well, I’ve changed my opinion because I know now who committed the murder.”

“You know who you think committed the murder.”

“I know who committed the murder, and if you’ll quit throwing legal monkey wrenches in the machinery, we’ll prove it.”

“That will do,” Judge Summerville ruled. “Counsel is questioning the witness for the purpose, I take it, of showing bias.”

“That is right, your Honor.”

“Proceed with your questioning.”

“You demanded that the defendant accompany you out to the residence of James L. Staunton?”

“I did.”

“At that time you had been advised by both Miss Madison and by me of all the facts which we had learned in connection with the possession of the fish by Staunton?”

“I suppose so. You said they were all the facts you had.”

“Exactly. And, at the time those facts seemed sufficiently significant so you went out to verify them?”

“At the time, yes.”

“What has caused you to change your mind?”

“I haven’t changed my mind.”

“You took from the possession of James L. Staunton a written statement signed by Harrington Faulkner?”

“I did.”

Mason said, “I want that statement introduced in evidence.”

“I object,” Medford said. “It is not proper cross-examination. It’s no part of the case. It’s incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

“It’s not proper cross-examination,” Judge Summerville ruled calmly. “The objection will be sustained on that ground.”

“That is all,” Mason said.

Judge Summerville smiled. “And now, Mr. Mason, do you want Sergeant Dorset to remain in court as a witness on the part of the defense?”

“I do.”

Judge Summerville said, “The witness will remain in court, and if the witness has in his possession any paper which he received from James L. Staunton relating to the fish which had belonged to Harrington Faulkner in his lifetime, the witness will have that statement ready to produce when he is called as a witness by the defense.”

“This is going all the way around our elbow to get to our thumb,” Medford said with some feeling.

“Apparently you object to reaching the thumb by any shorter route,” Judge Summerville pointed out. “The Court doesn’t want to be unduly harsh in its ruling so far as the prosecution is concerned, but it has always been the attitude of this Court that if any defendant in a preliminary hearing has any evidence to introduce which will tend to clarify the issues or throw any light upon a crime which has been committed, this Court wants to hear it. And that is going to continue to be the attitude of the Court. Call your next witness.”

Somewhat sullenly, and with poor grace, Medford called the photographer who had taken the photographs showing the position of the body and the surroundings. One by one, those photographs were introduced, and as they were introduced, they were carefully studied by Judge Summerville.

It was eleven-thirty when Medford said to Mason, “You may cross-examine.”

“These photographs were all taken by you on the premises and all show the condition of the premises as they were at the time you arrived on the scene, is that right?”

“That’s right.”

“Now you not only acted as photographer, but you also saw the things you photographed?”

“Naturally.”

“And, therefore, are a witness to the things you saw?”

“Yes, sir. I so consider myself.”

“These photographs, then, may be used to refresh your memory as to what you found at the scene of the crime.”

“Yes, sir.”

“I direct your attention to this photograph,” Mason said, handing the witness one of the photographs, “and ask you if you noticed an agateware container in the bathtub. I believe this photograph shows it.”

“I did, yes, sir. It was a two-quart container and was lying submerged in the bathtub.”

“There were two goldfish in the bathtub?”

“Yes, sir.”

“On the floor were three magazines — I believe they are shown in this photograph?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you notice the dates on those magazines?”

“I did not, no, sir.”

Medford said, “As a matter of fact, your Honor, those magazines were carefully marked for identification and are in the possession of the prosecution, but I certainly hope that counsel is not seriously contending that those magazines have any bearing on the murder of Harrington Faulkner.”

Mason said gravely, “I think, your Honor, those magazines will prove a very interesting and perhaps a vital link in the evidence.”

“Well, we won’t waste time arguing about them. We’ll produce them,” Medford said.

“Do you know which magazine was on top?” Mason asked.

“I’m sure I don’t,” Medford said. “And I don’t know which goldfish was lying with his head facing south and which one was lying with his head facing south-southeast. As far as I am concerned, the police investigated the important angles of the case, and as a result of that investigation, reached a conclusion which is so logical it can’t be questioned. That’s all I know and that’s all I want to know.”

“So it would seem,” Mason said dryly.

Medford flushed.

Judge Summerville said to Mason, “Do you contend that the position of the magazine is significant?”

“Very,” Perry Mason said. “And I think if counsel will produce those magazines, we can examine the photographs with a magnifying glass and tell the relative position of those magazines. We can certainly tell which one was on top. This photograph which I hold in my hand shows that rather plainly.”

“All right,” Medford said, “we’ll produce the magazines.”

“Do you have them in court?”

“No, your Honor, but I can produce them after lunch, if the Court wishes to take its noon recess at this time.”

“Very well,” Judge Summerville ruled. “The Court will take a recess until two o’clock this afternoon.”

Spectators, arising from the court benches, made the usual confused sounds of shuffling steps and low voiced comments. Sally Madison, without a word to Perry Mason, arose from her chair and stood waiting calmly for the officers to escort her from the courtroom.