The Case of the Nervous Accomplice

Chapter 10

Hamilton Burger, the massive District Attorney of the county, arose as Judge Hoyt called, “Case of the People of the State of California versus Sybil Harlan.”

“Your Honor,” Burger said, “this is a preliminary hearing. The object of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether a crime has been committed, and if so, whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant guilty of that crime.

“In ordinary cases, preliminary hearings proceed in an orderly manner to a speedy conclusion. But in cases where Mr. Perry Mason is the attorney on the other side, we seem destined to have legal pyrotechnics, spectacular cross-examinations, dramatic assertions, and a whole series of procedures which, in the opinion of the prosecutor’s office, have absolutely no place in a preliminary hearing. I have, therefore, decided that I will conduct this preliminary hearing in person for the purpose of eliminating all of these extraneous dramatics.”

Judge Hoyt glanced sternly at Perry Mason. “The Court has no desire to deprive the defendant of any of her rights. But the Court does recognize the fact that in some instances preliminary hearings have been skilfully and very adroitly manipulated so that they have been taken far beyond the scope which the Court feels the framers of the law had in mind. Do you wish to make any statement, Mr. Mason?”

“None whatever,” Mason said, his face a mask of cherubic innocence. “I take it the Court is not insinuating that counsel for the defence is to be deprived of the right of cross-examination.”

“Certainly not,” Judge Hoyt snapped. “But the cross-examination will be conducted decorously and within the strict technical limits of the law.”

“Thank you, Your Honor,” Mason said, as though the judge had conferred a great favor upon him.

“Proceed,” Judge Hoyt snapped at the district attorney, obviously irritated at Mason’s attitude, yet unable to find anything which would furnish a ground for rebuke.

“I will call Dr. Jules Oberon,” Hamilton Burger said.

Dr. Oberon took the stand and qualified himself as a physician, surgeon, a deputy coroner, and an expert in the field of pathology. He stated that he had performed the autopsy on the body of George C. Lutts.

“What did you find as the cause of death?”

“A thirty-eight calibre revolver bullet, which had penetrated the chest and partially severed the left common carotid artery.”

“That was the cause of death?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where was the bullet?”

“I found it in the body when I performed the autopsy.”

Dr. Oberon took a small phial from his pocket, said, “This is a sealed phial. I, personally, placed the bullet in it along with a slip of paper containing my signature, and then sealed the glass stopper in place. I removed the bullet only to let the ballistic expert examine it, then replaced it and resealed it.”

“Did the victim die instantly?”

“I think he may possibly have staggered a few steps.”

“Assuming, Doctor, that the body was found lying head downward on the stairs, would you state that from the nature of this wound, the victim could have started for the stairs before death overtook him?”

“Yes, he could have taken a few steps to the head of the stairs and then fallen down the stairs.”

“What was the course of the bullet?”

“Upward. The man was facing his murderer and the assailant must have been holding the gun at about the level of his hip.”

“Do you have an opinion as to the time of death?”

“Yes, sir. Mr. Lutts died between four-twenty and four-forty.”

“How do you determine the time of death?”

“By temperature of the body and by the state of the food in the stomach.”

“Do you know, of your own knowledge, when the food was ingested?”

“Only by hearsay.”

“Then I won’t ask you about that now,” Burger said. “You may cross-examine.”

Judge Hoyt said, “Now, Mr. Mason, I wish to give the defendant every possible right, but I would like to caution you at this time that the Court will brook no extraneous questions. Cross-examination must be confined to the questions asked on direct examination.”

“No questions,” Mason said.

Judge Hoyt frowned.

“Call Herbert Doxey,” Hamilton Burger said.

Doxey came forward, took the witness stand, testified to his relationship to George Lutts, to the fact that he had seen the decedent on the day of the murder, that his last contact with the decedent had been when they left the office of the corporation and had driven to a restaurant, where the decedent had eaten a bowl of vegetable soup, a hamburger with onions, a cup of coffee and a piece of pumpkin pie.

“What time was that?”

“That was at three-twenty.”

“And then what happened?”

“Mr. Lutts said he had some business to attend to, and I went home.”

“You’re certain as to the time?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What makes you certain?”

“I noticed the time.”

“Where?”

“In the restaurant.”

“In what way?”

“I looked at my wristwatch and compared the time with an electric clock on the wall.”

“Was your wristwatch accurate?”

“Within one minute, yes.”

“What was the time?”

“Three-eighteen, and the waitress was just bringing our orders.”

“Sometime after that you went with Mr. Perry Mason to the house where a certain real estate development is taking place, a house shown on the map I now hand you?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“And what did you find?”

“I found Mr. Lutts’ automobile parked in front of the place.”

“And what did you do?”

“I tried the door of the house.”

“Was it locked or unlocked?”

“It was unlocked.”

“And what did you do then?”

“I walked up the first flight of stairs; then I crossed the landing and had started up the second flight of stairs when I saw the body of Mr. Lutts lying there.”

“How was the body lying?”

“On the stairs.”

“In what position?”

“Partially on his back, partially on the right side, the head was downward as though he had—”

“Never mind your conclusions. Just give us the facts.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Was the body that of George C. Lutts, your father-in-law?”

“Yes, sir, it was.”

“Did you subsequently see that body at the autopsy room in the coroner’s office?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it was the same body?”

“Yes, sir.”

“That of George C. Lutts?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time was it when you made the discovery of the body?”

“About eight-fifteen, daylight saving time. I don’t know the exact time.”

“You may inquire,” Burger said to Mason.

“No questions,” Mason said.

Judge Hoyt looked thoughtfully at Perry Mason.

“I desire to recall Dr. Oberon for one question,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Return to the stand, Dr. Oberon,” the judge directed.

Dr. Oberon resumed his position on the witness stand.

“You have heard the testimony of Mr. Doxey as to the time at which a meal was ingested?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Assuming that the meal such as he described was ingested at 3.30 p.m., how long was it after the ingestion of that meal before the decedent met his death?”

“I would say from fifty minutes to an hour and ten minutes.”

“You feel that you can place the time within twenty minutes?”

“I do, yes, sir.”

“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.

“No questions.”

“I’ll call Sidney Dayton to the stand,” Burger said.

Sidney Dayton, a police expert, took the stand, qualified himself as an expert, and turned to Hamilton Burger.

“Can you,” Hamilton Burger asked, “tell by any scientific means the distance at which a gun was held when a shot was fired into the body of a man?”

“Yes.”

“How?”

“By powder tattooing on the skin or by the dispersion of powder particles in the clothing.”

“Will you please explain what you mean by the latter.”

“When a shell is fired, there are certain particles of powder which are consumed entirely, and so turned into a gas. There are other particles which are not entirely consumed. These particles are spewed from the muzzle of the weapon. They naturally follow a pattern of expansion. By determining the number of particles and the pattern of their expansion or dispersion, it is possible to tell the distance at which the weapon was held from the body.”

“Can you describe, generally, the method by which that is done? I just want to have it very generally.”

“The clothing containing the powder chemicals is placed on an ordinary ironing board. A sheet of a special type of photographic paper is placed under the clothing. A blotter containing a chemical is placed over the clothing where it is thought the powder particles are deposited. A hot iron is placed upon that moistened blotter. The iron vaporizes chemicals in the blotter, which in turn cause a chemical reaction with the powder particles, which in turn cause a series of dots on the photographic paper, representing a dispersion of the powder particles.”

“Did you make such a test on the clothing of George C. Lutts?”

“I did.”

“Did you reach any conclusion as to the distance at which the weapon was held?”

“I did.”

“What conclusion did you reach?”

“I feel that the person who discharged the bullet into the body of George Lutts was standing at eighteen to twenty inches from the victim at the time the bullet was fired.”

“Did you examine the hands of the decedent to see if there were any powder stains on them?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“Did you find any?”

“No, sir.”

“If the decedent had been grabbing for the gun, if he had been putting up his hands in front of the gun trying to ward off the bullet, you’d have found powder stains.”

“Very definitely. When I say that the weapon was about eighteen to twenty inches from the decedent, I mean the distance from the muzzle of the weapon to the chest of the decedent was not more than that.”

“At that distance he could then have reached for the gun?”

“He could have, if the bullet hadn’t reached him first, which, in this case, it evidently did.”

“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.

“No questions,” Mason announced tersely.

Judge Hoyt started to say something, then changed his mind.

“Call Alexander Redfield,” Hamilton Burger said.

Alexander Redfield glanced at Perry Mason with a half-smile. He had been cross-examined by Mason many times and knew only too well the skilful manner in which Mason could confuse an uncertain witness or one who was misrepresenting the facts. His manner showed that he intended to be very, very cautious in giving his testimony.

He qualified himself as an expert in ballistics, stated that he had been called to the scene of the crime after the body had been removed.

“At what time?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“It was the next morning.”

“What time the next morning?”

“After daylight.”

“What was your purpose in going out there?”

“To try and find the murder weapon.”

“Did you search the premises?”

“No, I understand the premises had been searched by police the night before. I confined myself to searching the grounds.”

“And did you find a weapon?”

“I did.”

“How soon after arriving?”

“Within five minutes.”

“Wasn’t that rather fortuitous?”

“I knew by experience about how far it would be possible to fling an ordinary weapon of ordinary weight under those circumstances, so I went out to the place where I thought such a weapon might have landed. Sure enough, I found a track in the moist soil, indicating that something had struck, bounced, then slid under some loose, moist soil. I probed in this soil and found the revolver.”

“What sort of a revolver?”

“A Smith and Wesson revolver with a five-inch barrel, thirty-eight calibre, number S910684.”

“What did you do with that gun?”

“I took it to my laboratory, I tested it for fingerprints, and found none. I examined the cartridges that were in it.”

“How many cartridges were in it?”

“Six. There were three loaded cartridges and three empty cartridge cases in the cylinder.”

“What did you find about the empty cartridge cases?”

“Two of them were Peters, thirty-eight specials. One of them was a U.M.C.”

“Did you weigh the bullets that were in the undischarged cartridges in the weapon?”

“I did.”

“What did you find?”

“I found that they were Peters cartridges containing lead bullets of one hundred and fifty-eight grains each.”

“Now, did you check the fatal bullet to determine the weapon from which it had been fired?”

“I did.”

“In what way?”

“My first test was to measure the lands and grooves and get the pitch in order to determine the type of weapon from which it had been fired.”

“Did you make such determination?”

“Yes.”

“What was it?”

“The bullet had been fired from a Smith and Wesson thirty-eight calibre revolver.”

“Did you subsequently make tests to determine whether or not the fatal bullet had been fired from the revolver which you had found in the place that you described?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What did those tests disclose?”

“That the fatal bullet had been fired from that revolver.”

“Do you have that revolver with you?”

“I do.”

Hamilton Burger said, “I move that the fatal bullet now be introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit C and that the revolver be introduced as People’s Exhibit D.”

“Any objection from the defence?”

“No, Your Honor,” Mason said.

“And what about the shells that you found in the chamber of the gun?”

“I photographed those cartridges in place, so that the position of the cartridges could be determined. I made scratches upon the cartridges, numbering them one, two, three, four, five and six, and I made scratches upon the cylinder of the gun so that the position in which the respective cartridges had been found could be determined.”

“You have those photographs?”

“I do.”

“What do they show?”

“They show the cylinder of the gun. The cartridge chamber marked six is the one that was at the top of the cylinder, that is, the one that contained the U.M.C. cartridge. That would have been the last cartridge fired.”

“And what did you do with the shells themselves?”

“I have placed those in receptacles, each one of them numbered according to the places in the cylinder from which they were removed.”

“I ask that all of those and the photographs may be received in evidence as appropriate exhibit numbers,” Hamilton Burger said.

“No objection,” Mason said.

“That’s all,” Burger said.

“No cross-examination,” Mason said.

Judge Hoyt cleared his throat. “Mr. Mason.”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“The Court is not unfamiliar with the fact that sometimes attorneys try to take advantage of the Court.”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“I am not accusing you of doing that.”

“Thank you, Your Honor.”

“I am aware, however, that a desperate and resourceful attorney might seek to refrain from cross-examining witnesses and then raise the claim that the attorney had been intimidated by the remarks of the prosecutor and the remarks of the Court. I therefore charge you, Mr. Mason, that not only is the Court not trying to restrain you from any proper cross-examination of witnesses, but I believe it is your duty as the attorney representing the defendant to cross-examine witnesses who are called against her.”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“Now then, in view of that statement do you wish to recall any of these witnesses for cross-examination?”

“No, Your Honor.”

Judge Hoyt said, “Let the record show that the Court has again given the defence an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the attorney for the defence refuses to make such cross-examination.”

“So stipulated,” Mason said cheerfully.

Hamilton Burger glowered at him.

“Harold Ogelsby take the stand,” Hamilton Burger said.

Ogelsby came forward, was sworn, identified himself as being a police detective.

“Did you have occasion to interrogate the defendant on the morning of the fourth of this month?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“That was the day after the body of George C. Lutts had been discovered?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ask her to make any statements?”

“I advised her of her rights. I told her that if she made any statements, they might be used against her. I told her that if she could make any explanation as to why she had been out in the vicinity at the time, that is, any explanation which would be reasonably satisfying, we would release her.”

“And did she make any statement?”

“No.”

“Just a minute,” Judge Hoyt said. “Do you wish to object to that, Mr. Mason?”

“No, Your Honor.”

“Well, the Court interposes an objection for you,” Judge Hoyt said. “There is no obligation on the part of a defendant to make a statement. I note that this is not a case where the defendant has specifically been accused of crime and fails to deny it. This is a case where the defendant was called on to make a statement, and she remained silent. The Court will strike the answer from the record. The Court will object to it on behalf of the defendant.”

“Very well, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said. “The point was merely preliminary.”

“Then get to the point you’re trying to make,” Judge Hoyt snapped, his nerves badly frayed.

“Yes, Your Honor.” Hamilton Burger was smiling now, suave and triumphant, all but ready to close his case, visualizing newspaper comments that, while Perry Mason had on occasion transformed the court of a committing magistrate into a three-ring circus, his pyrotechnics had signally failed to materialize when Hamilton Burger himself had taken over all phases of a preliminary hearing.

“Now then,” Hamilton Burger said, “did you have occasion to search the purse of the defendant?”

“I asked her if she would let me look in it.”

“Did she raise any objection?”

“No.”

“Did you look in it?”

“Yes.”

“Now, I am not going to ask you about all of the things that you found, many of which may be irrelevant, but I am going to ask you if in that purse you found a piece of paper?”

“I did.”

“And what was the nature of that paper?”

“It was a receipt from the Red Line Cab Company, receipt for cab seven-sixty-one, trip nine-eight-four, in an amount of two dollars and ninety-five cents.”

“You say that was cab seven-sixty-one?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You have that receipt here?”

“I do.”

“You found it in the defendant’s purse?”

“Yes.”

“I ask that it be introduced in evidence,” Hamilton Burger said, “and if the Court please, I will connect it up.”

“No objection,” Mason said cheerfully. “Stipulate that it may be received in evidence.”

“Cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.

“No questions,” Mason said.

Judge Hoyt again started to say something, then checked himself.

“Call Jerome C. Keddie to the stand,” Hamilton Burger said.

Jerome Keddie came forward, was sworn, gave his name, address and occupation as that of a taxi driver for the Red Line Cab Company.

“On the third of this month, were you operating a taxicab for the Red Line Cab Company?”

“I was.”

“What was the number of that cab?”

“Number seven-sixty-one.”

“Where were you operating that cab at about four-forty-five on the afternoon of the day?”

“I had deposited a fare at the country club at just about four-thirty. I was running back empty toward the city.”

“Did you follow a course which would take you near the point shown on this map, People’s Exhibit A?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“What, if anything, happened as you approached the intersection of this roadway?”

“Well, when I came to the intersection I saw a very good-looking woman, dressed in a white skirt and white shoes and a sort of sport jacket with red trim, hurrying out of this road that—”

“Just a moment. Indicating on this map by the words ‘this road,’ what do you mean?”

The witness walked over to the map and indicated the road.

“Let the record show that the witness is indicating the road, in fact, the only road, leading from the property where the body was discovered to the main highway,” Hamilton Burger said. “Now then, just resume your position on the stand, Mr. Keddie, and tell me what happened.”

“This woman seemed very agitated and upset, very nervous. She flagged me down, and, of course, I was anxious to get a fare, so I pulled the car to a stop — I’d slowed down as soon as I saw her. I thought maybe she’d be looking for a cab. Well, she sure was. She was sure nervous and upset. She couldn’t tell me at first the way she wanted to go. She told me just to drive on toward town. I could see she was thinking.

“Well, then she told me that she wanted to go to the Union Station. Well, I knew that was a blind because—”

“That will do,” Judge Hoyt snapped. “If it is incumbent upon the Court to protect the rights of the defendant, the Court will endeavor to do so. The witness will give none of his conclusions. Simply state the facts.”

“Yes,” Hamilton Burger said virtuously, “just state the facts.”

“Well,” Keddie said, “she told me she wanted to go to the Union Station, and I took her there.”

“Did you have any other conversation?”

“I asked her if she might be in trouble of some sort or other, if there was anything I could do to help.”

“What did she say?”

“She said she was all right.”

“Did you notice her particularly?”

“I sure did.”

“Who was that woman?”

“The defendant.”

“Point to her, please.”

The witness pointed to Sybil Harlan.

“Let the record show the witness is pointing directly at the defendant, Sybil Harlan,” Hamilton Burger said.

“So stipulated,” Mason said affably.

Judge Hoyt frowned at him.

“Then what did you do?” Burger asked.

“Well, I took her to the Union Station and drove away.”

“How much was the fare, do you remember?”

“I remember exactly. The fare was two dollars and ninety-five cents. She gave me three dollars and a half, which made a fifty-five cent tip.”

“Did you watch to see where she went?”

“She walked into the station, then turned toward the cab stand out at the back. I knew she was going to—”

“Never mind your conclusions,” Judge Hoyt said. “The Court doesn’t want to have to warn you again, Mr. Keddie.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Call me ‘Your Honor.’”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“Go ahead,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Well, that was all.”

“Now, just a moment,” Hamilton Burger said. “Your taxicab, in common with all Red Line Cabs, is equipped with a taximeter which starts in operation when you pull your flag down, is that right?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And that meter is coupled with the speedometer and a clockwork mechanism so the amount of the fare is registered?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And when you manipulate the flag at the termination of the trip, that causes the amount to be rung up on the meter in the nature of a register and a slip of paper comes out which you give to the customer?”

“Yes, sir. Most of them don’t take it, but the paper’s there.”

“And did that happen in this case, when you terminated the trip at the Union Station?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what did the defendant do, if anything?”

“She took the paper and put it in her purse.”

“Now then,” Hamilton Burger said, “I’m going to show you this piece of paper and ask you if you know what it is.”

“Yes, sir.”

“What is it?”

“It’s the receipt from my cab which I gave the defendant in this case.”

“When?”

“There at the Union Station.”

“At what time?”

“Oh, I reckon it was just a minute or two after five when we got there.”

“And what does that paper show?”

“It shows that this was trip nine-eighty-four, that it was my cab, number seven-sixty-one, that the amount of the meter was two dollars and ninety-five cents.”

“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger said.

The witness got up and started to leave the stand. “Just a moment,” Mason said. “With the indulgence of the Court, I have a few questions to ask on cross-examination.”

Judge Hoyt, who had been somewhat apprehensive, settled back with an expression of relief on his face.

“You recognize this slip?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“And you recognize the defendant?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You first saw the defendant that afternoon at the point you indicated on the map?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So far as you know, had you ever seen her before?”

“I never saw her before in all my life, as far as I know.”

“When did you see her next?” Mason asked, quite casually.

“When I was asked to pick her out of a lineup down at police headquarters.”

“When was that?”

“Sometime on the morning of the fourth, about ten or eleven o’clock.”

“Did you pick her out?”

“I certainly did.”

“You hadn’t seen her from the time you deposited her at the Union Station until you saw her again in that lineup?”

“That’s right.”

“Isn’t there a chance you’re mistaken?”

“None whatever.”

“Isn’t there a chance that some other time on the third you may have had this young woman in your cab and that you have confused her identity in your own mind?”

“None whatever.”

“You feel certain that you would have noticed this defendant if you had seen her again prior to the time you picked her out of the lineup?”

“You mean after I saw her out there when she got in the cab that afternoon?”

“Yes.”

“Sure, I’d have known her. I knew her the next morning when I picked her out of the lineup, didn’t I?”

“Now then,” Mason said, “you keep some sort of a record of your own, do you not, in regard to your trips?”

“That’s right. I make a note of all the trips I make.”

“And you telephone in to cab headquarters, announcing when you’re making a trip. In other words, you telephoned in when you started out to the country club?”

“That’s right.”

“And when you started back, you reported that you were coming back empty?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And then when you picked up a passenger, did you report that fact?”

“That’s right, and I marked the Union Station down on my trip sheet.”

“That’s right. You marked on your trip sheet the fact that you were going to the Union Station.”

“That’s right.”

“Do you have that sheet with you?”

“I do, yes, sir.”

“Let me look at it, please.”

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, not proper cross-examination and not the best evidence,” Hamilton Burger said. “That sheet is not part of the official records of the company, that sheet was never shown to the defendant. It is only the personal record of the witness. It has no proper bearing, nor were any questions asked about it on direct examination.”

“Overruled,” Judge Hoyt said.

Hamilton Burger smiled triumphantly. Now he had the record in such shape that the impartiality of the Court could not be questioned. Not only had Perry Mason not been curtailed in his cross-examination, but the Court had overruled the district attorney’s objection to one of Perry Mason’s questions.

“May I see the sheet, please?”

The witness took a folded sheet of paper from his pocket, handed it to Perry Mason, and said, “I keep this in connection with my own books. I check in with the trips at the taxicab company about once a week in order to make sure we’ve got them straight.”

“I see,” Mason said. “What time do you go to work?”

“Well, it varies, depending which shift I’m on.”

“On the third of this month what time did you go to work?”

“I went to work at four o’clock in the afternoon and got off at midnight.”

“So you’d picked up your cab around four o’clock?”

“Around there — actually, about ten minutes before four.”

“The trip to the country club was then your first trip of the afternoon?”

“No, that was the second trip. I’d picked up a man who wanted to go to the Jonathan Club. That was the first trip. Then I picked up this fare for the country club. That was a good trip.”

“How long did it take you to get out there?”

“Right around twenty minutes.”

“So then you had started that trip around four-ten in the afternoon?”

“I guess so, right around there.”

“And you had picked up your cab at what time?”

“Well, my partner who ran the cab before I did was a little early getting in, about ten minutes early — we like to have them right in on time, but of course you can’t help it sometimes when you’re out on a call. You have to learn to take things like that; if they’re not over ten or fifteen minutes late, nobody ever says anything. But we try to be on time or perhaps a little early. Of course, each driver wants to get as much use out of the cab as he can. I have to have it back in the lot there at twelve o’clock midnight. I want to get as much out of the bus as I can in the line of trips and tips, but I also want to give the next driver a break. If a man is over fifteen minutes late or if he makes a habit of being late, why then, you sometimes make trouble, but this time the man before me came in a little early.”

“So you started out a little before four. You had one fare, which took you to the Jonathan Club. Then where did you go?”

“Well, then I went down and got in line at the Biltmore Hotel. At that hour of the afternoon you can pick up a fare there without waiting very long. I waited there for about... oh, I don’t know... I guess for four or five minutes and then soon as I got in position the doorman gave me this fare with the big bag of golf clubs. I knew that was going to be a good trip as soon as I saw the golf clubs.”

“So,” Mason said, “the trip which you made with the woman that you think is the defendant would then have been the third trip of the day.”

“That’s right.”

“Now then,” Mason said, “I notice that when you took over this cab your sheet shows that you took it on at trip number nine-sixty-nine.”

“Well, that’s right if that’s what it shows.”

“And what would that mean?”

“That would mean that the man who’d checked out before me had had up to and including trip nine-sixty-eight. My first trip would be nine-sixty-nine.”

“That would mean the trip to the Jonathan Club.”

“That’s right.”

“Then your trip to the country club would have been trip nine-seventy.”

“That’s right.”

“And your trip with the defendant would have been nine-seventy-one.”

“I guess so. You’ve got the sheet. I haven’t.”

“Well, look at it, please,” Mason paid, walking over to the witness and showing him the sheet.

“Okay, I’m looking at it.”

“And that was correct? That was trip nine-seventy-one?”

“That’s correct. Trip nine-seventy-one she is.”

Mason said, “How does it happen, then, that this receipt you have identified as being the receipt you gave the defendant at the Union Station shows that it is for trip nine-eighty-four?”

“What?”

“Just a moment, just a moment,” Hamilton Burger shouted. “Just a moment. Let’s get this straight. Before the witness answers that question, I want to inspect the paper. I object to this method of interrogation. I object to the question as assuming facts not in evidence. I object to it as not being proper cross-examination.”

“It’s proper cross-examination,” Judge Hoyt said, “but the witness will refrain from answering until the Court and counsel have had an opportunity to examine those papers.”

Hamilton Burger strode angrily up to stand beside Perry Mason, his thick, powerful fingers all but snatched the paper from the hand of the witness, and he said to the clerk, “Where’s that taxi receipt? Let me take a look at that.”

“Just a moment,” the judge said, “the Court wants to look at those papers, too, Mr. Prosecutor.”

“Yes, Your Honor, of course, certainly.”

“Pass them up here, please.”

Hamilton Burger passed up the trip sheet and the taxicab receipt.

He said, “I submit, if the Court please, that there’s some technical error, something that can be explained. Perhaps it’s a misprint. I object to counsel asking questions about this trip sheet of this witness on the ground that they are argumentative. The facts speak for themselves. We’ll try to get this situation unscrambled later, without having the witness become hopelessly confused trying to explain some typographical error.”

Judge Hoyt said, “The objection to the question will be... well, just a moment. The Court will reserve ruling. The Court will ask the witness some questions, and the counsel for each side will refrain from interrupting.

“Mr. Keddie, do you understand this?” Judge Hoyt asked the witness.

“Well, I don’t understand how that number got on the receipt.”

“You understand your trip sheet?”

“Yes.”

“And is there a chance that your trip numbers on the trip sheet could have been in error?”

“Well, now let’s see. If I had made a mistake in copying down the trip number from the record on the meter, the real trip number that I should have copied would have been... let’s see... nine-eighty-one, and that would have been my first trip to the Jonathan Club. Then nine-eighty-two... now, now wait a minute, it would have been nine-eighty-two, my trip to the Jonathan Club. Nine-eighty-three would have been my trip out to the country club, and nine-eighty-four would have been my trip with this woman here. Now, it doesn’t seem I could have made a mistake and copied down nine-eighty-two — I mean, it doesn’t seem as though I could have copied nine-sixty-nine when I was trying to write nine-eighty-two.”

“Do you sometimes make mistakes?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“Well, I suppose I do. I’ve made mistakes. Sometimes I get a number wrong and sometimes I’ll plumb forget to put down a trip, but that doesn’t happen very often. The records are all checked over by the main office about once a week. We get in and check these things over. They keep track of where we are... well, you know how it is, there’s always a temptation for a cabbie to knock down if he can do it, and they try to keep their records so they show what the cabs are doing and what the drivers are doing and... well, so nobody can knock down on ’em.”

“Now let me see,” Judge Hoyt said. “If you had taken over at nine-sixty-nine, then you would have gone to the Jonathan Club on trip nine-seventy?”

“That’s right.”

“And this trip that you say you made with the defendant would then have been trip nine-seventy-one?”

“Well, that’s the way it should be, but that receipt sure shows nine-eighty-four.”

Hamilton Burger said, “Now just a minute, just a minute.”

The judge said, “Don’t interrupt me. I’m trying to check these things. Let’s see, I’m going to count these trips on your trip sheet. This would have been trip nine-seventy-one... seventy-two... seventy-three... seventy-four... seventy-five...”

Judge Hoyt counted down the trips, turned the page, adjusted his glasses, frowned at the sheet, looked over at Hamilton Burger, and said to the witness, “Well, Mr. Keddie, I notice that what would have been trip number nine-eighty-four on your sheet if you had started out at trip number nine-sixty-nine, as you said you did, would have been a trip which you have marked ‘Looking at property’.”

“Let me see,” Keddie said.

He took the sheet of paper and frowned over it. “Well, now, just a minute,” he said. “Wait a minute. I can remember that trip. A couple of dames I picked up on North La Brea somewhere. They wanted to go look at some property. They told me to drive out and look at some property, and then they told me to drive down some street and all of a sudden one of ’em said, ‘Here it is. Stop right here.’ She started all at once yelling at me to stop. I stopped and they got out and paid off.”

“Was one of those women this defendant?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“Nope. I didn’t see her from the time I picked her up out there until I saw her in the lineup the next morning.”

“Are you sure?” the judge asked. “Do you remember? You say there were two women?”

“Well, now let’s see,” Keddie said. “One of those women was a little chunky and the other one... I can’t remember her very well, Judge. You pick up lots of people and—”

“The point is, can you swear that she wasn’t the defendant?”

“Well, I can’t remember her so clearly, but I never saw this defendant until the lineup the next morning — I mean, after that trip when I picked her up out there at that intersection.”

“Are you positive you never saw the defendant from the time you picked her up out there at the point indicated on this map until you saw her in the lineup the next morning?”

“Oh, if the Court please,” said Hamilton Burger, “I think now we are beginning to see the pattern of this—”

“Just a minute,” Judge Hoyt said. “Just a minute. I don’t want counsel for either side to interrupt me. I want to finish this line of questioning in my own way.”

“Yes, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

“I, too, would like to ask a question,” Mason told the Court.

“You may ask it when I finish,” Judge Hoyt snapped.

“I submit,” Mason said, “that in a matter of this sort, counsel should not be precluded from cross-examining the witness. My rights have been somewhat curtailed, and I—”

“The Court will do the questioning at this point,” Judge Hoyt said. “Counsel will be quiet.

“Now, I want to have this definitely understood,” Judge Hoyt continued, turning to the witness. “Is there any reasonable chance that this receipt, which was apparently taken from the defendant’s purse, is the receipt for a trip made later in the evening, the trip that you have referred to as the pickup of two women at North La Brea?”

The witness fidgeted a bit on the witness stand.

“Yes or no?” Hoyt asked.

“Yes, there is a chance,” the witness admitted.

“How much of a chance?”

“Well, if you’re going to put it that way, Judge, Your Honor, I suppose there’s a pretty good chance.”

“That’s what I wanted to know,” Judge Hoyt snapped.

“I want to ask a question,” Hamilton Burger said.

“I beg your pardon,” Mason told him. “I think I was cross-examining the witness. I haven’t finished with my cross-examination.”

“Well, I think I’m entitled to ask a question at this time, anyway, in order to get this thing straightened out for the Court,” Hamilton Burger said.

“The Court is quite able to straighten things out for itself, if they can be straightened,” Judge Hoyt said. “The Court doesn’t need a guardian or an interpreter.”

“Your Honor, I think the answer is obvious,” Hamilton Burger said. “This defendant undoubtedly knows one of the women who made that trip out from North La Brea and got this receipt from that woman. It’s very easy to see the way the thing was manipulated. The women cruised around without giving this taxi driver any definite directions. As soon as the meter had reached the amount of two dollars and ninety-five cents, these women got out, took the receipt and, undoubtedly, following the instructions of adroit counsel, delivered the receipt to the defendant so that it would be found in her purse, thereby laying a trap for the witness.

“That, Your Honor, not only constitutes unprofessional conduct, but it’s the strongest declaration of guilt we could possibly have because it shows that even at that time, the defendant knew she was going to be questioned about this trip and participated in arrangements to trap the law enforcement officers.”

“Do you have anything to say on that point, Mr. Mason?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“Why should I?” Mason asked. “That’s the district attorney’s theory. He isn’t under oath. He doesn’t know what happened. In the due course of time, at the proper time and place, I will show what happened. I will prove that this man has testified to certain things which simply aren’t so. He is the victim of his own mistaken recollection.”

Judge Hoyt stroked the angle of his chin. “Well,” he said, “you go ahead, Mr. Mason, and continue with your cross-examination. The Court will state, however, that this is a most unusual situation and one which the Court feels should be investigated.”

“I’ll say so,” Hamilton Burger muttered disgustedly.

Mason turned to the witness. “When you say that you picked up the defendant out there at the point you indicated on the map, around a quarter to five in the afternoon, did you pay particular attention to her clothes?”

“I did.”

“Did you pay particular attention to her face?”

“I noticed it was pale.”

“Did she have a hat, or was she bare headed?”

“She... well, now, wait a minute... I—”

“Don’t say unless you’re sure,” Mason said.

“To tell you the truth, I’m not sure.”

“Was she wearing earrings?”

“I don’t know.”

“Did she carry a handbag?”

“Yes, she carried a handbag, I know, because she took the money out of it.”

“Now, you noticed her face particularly?”

“I noticed it was pale.”

“And you say positively that it was this defendant?”

“Well... I thought it was this defendant.”

“But now that you think things over, there is a possibility that you have confused the face of that woman with the face of a woman who was in your cab later on in the evening, and when you saw the defendant in the lineup, you simply knew that her face was familiar and therefore picked her out.”

The cab driver again shifted his position.

“I don’t think that’s a fair question,” Hamilton Burger said.

“What’s unfair about it?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“He’s trying to trap the witness,” Burger said.

“He has a right to,” Judge Hoyt snapped. “Objection overruled. The witness will answer the question.”

The embarrassed taxi driver said, “Well, to tell you the truth, now you’ve got me confused and I don’t know just what did happen.”

“You now think there is a possibility that your memory played a trick on you?” Mason asked.

“It’s a possibility all right.”

“And that the time that you saw this defendant was later on in the evening, and the person you picked up there at approximately quarter to five might have been someone other than the defendant?”

“To tell you the truth, I don’t know what happened,” the cab driver said. “I thought I did, but now I don’t.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

Hamilton Burger pounced on the witness. “Now don’t let some smart lawyer mix you all up,” he said. “You know what you saw and what you didn’t see. Now, you saw the defendant on the third of this month.”

The witness hesitated.

“I saw her sometime on the third, all right, because I knew her on the fourth when I saw her in the lineup.”

Hamilton Burger said, “From the time you first saw her on the third, did you ever see her again until you saw her in the lineup on the fourth?”

“No,” the witness said. “I’m positive of that. I saw her once before I saw her in the lineup, but I never saw her twice.”

“Only once,” Hamilton Burger said.

“That’s right.”

“And to the best of your recollection, the time you first saw her was out there at the point that you have indicated on the map at around four-forty-five in the evening.”

“Well, that’s the way I did feel about it, but I’m kind of mixed up now. I’m sort of going around in circles. To tell you the truth, I don’t know when I saw her.”

“All right,” Hamilton Burger said disgustedly, “if that’s the way you want it.”

The district attorney walked back and dropped himself into his chair at the counsel table.

“In other words,” Mason said suavely, his voice friendly and informal, “when you say you don’t know just when you saw her, you mean you don’t know what time on the third you saw her.”

“That’s right, yes.”

“You just know that you saw her some time on the third, and therefore when you saw her face in the lineup on the fourth, it was familiar to you and so you picked her out.”

“I guess that’s what must have happened.”

“That’s your best recollection at the present time?” Mason asked.

“Now just a moment,” Hamilton Burger said. “That question is argumentative. A very apparent flimflam has been worked on this witness to get him confused and—”

“Are you making an objection to the Court?” Mason asked, his voice cracking like a whiplash.

“I am.”

“Make it to the Court then,” Mason said.

“I object, Your Honor. This is not proper cross-examination. It’s incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

“Overruled,” Judge Hoyt snapped.

“To tell you the truth, Judge,” the witness said, “the more I get to thinking of it, the more I feel that maybe she was one of those two women I picked up out there on La Brea. I’ve been sitting here watching her, the way she holds her head and... well, it could have been.”

“But,” Mason said, “You are positive that you only saw her once on the third?”

“Well, yes.”

“But you think the time you saw her was on the third trip you made after starting out, don’t you?” Hamilton Burger said.

“Objected to as leading and suggestive,” Mason said.

“Oh, Your Honor, this is on redirect examination,” Hamilton Burger protested.

“That doesn’t give you the right to put words into the mouth of your own witness. I don’t care what stage of the examination it is.”

“Nevertheless,” Judge Hoyt said, “this is a peculiar situation. I’m going to overrule the objection. I want the witness to answer, and I think he’s entitled to answer.”

“Well,” Keddie said, “to tell you the truth, I thought that she was this woman I picked up then. Now, I’m just not sure, and that’s all there is to it, but I do know that if she is the same woman I picked up out there by the country club, I’d have known her if I saw her a second time.”

“Then she couldn’t have been one of the women you picked up on North La Brea?”

“Not if she was the one I picked up by the country club.”

“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger said.

Mason, smiling affably, said, “Then as I understand it, if it turns out she was one of the women you picked up on La Brea, she couldn’t have been the woman you picked up out near the country club?”

“That’s right. If I ever saw that woman again, I’d have known her... like I did when I saw her in that lineup... only maybe the time I saw her on La Brea— Now wait a minute. I just don’t know.”

“You do know you saw this woman on the afternoon or evening of June third?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“And you only saw her once on that day?”

“That woman I picked up by the country club I only saw once on that day, that’s for sure.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

“No questions,” Hamilton Burger said disgustedly.

“Is there any more evidence, Mr. Burger?” Judge Hoyt asked.

Hamilton Burger said, “Well, Your Honor, I feel absolutely positive that the gun which has been introduced in evidence was purchased by the husband of this defendant, Mr. Enright A. Harlan. But, at the moment, I am not in a position to prove it.”

“May I ask why?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“Well, somebody signed the name Enright A. Harlan to the purchase slip and the firearms register, but apparently that is not the handwriting of Mr. Harlan. It would seem to be the handwriting of a woman.”

“The defendant?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“No, Your Honor, I am sorry to say that it is not the handwriting of the defendant. Apparently, some other woman signed the name of Enright A. Harlan. The dealer, at the present time, has no independent recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purchase.”

“Can you show possession of the gun?”

“The only way I could show possession of the gun is by the testimony of the husband, and, of course, I would be met with the prompt objection that in an action of this sort a husband can’t testify against his wife without the wife’s consent.”

“I see,” Judge Hoyt said, frowning thoughtfully.

“I think it’s quite apparent what happened here,” Hamilton Burger said. “A scheme was cooked up for the purpose of confusing this witness. I feel that this is a matter which the Court should look into. I think it is a contempt of Court.”

“I don’t see how you make a contempt of Court out of it,” Judge Hoyt said. “But it’s quite possible the Bar Association might be interested.”

Judge Hoyt glowered at Perry Mason.

“Why?” Perry Mason asked.

Judge Hoyt’s face deepened into a frown. “You should know why,” he said. “If your knowledge of legal ethics is so sketchy that you can’t see why without my explanation, you had better study legal ethics.”

“I’ve studied them,” Mason said. “I am entitled to cross-examine a witness. I am entitled to do anything that is legitimate for the purpose of testing the recollection of the witness. If this witness had been absolutely positive that the woman he picked up out there was the defendant, and if the defendant had again engaged this cab on the evening of the third, he would then have recognized her instantly and said, ‘Good evening, ma’am. I had you as a passenger earlier in the day.’”

“But she didn’t engage the cab again,” Hamilton Burger said. “Counsel was afraid to take that chance. That’s the unfair part of it. He had some other women engage the cab and then give the receipt to this defendant.”

“You’re making that as an accusation?” Mason asked.

“Yes, I’m making it as an accusation.”

“And you’re willing to state to this Court that the defendant was not in the cab on the evening of the third — we’re talking about legal ethics now, Mr. District Attorney; you’re making a representation of fact to the Court.”

“Well, now wait a minute,” Hamilton Burger sputtered, “I only know what the witness said.”

“And the witness said that he wasn’t sure. Now are you are going to tell the Court you are sure?”

“You’re not going to cross-examine me!” Hamilton Burger shouted.

“If you make statements of fact to the Court, I’m most certainly going to cross-examine you,” Mason said.

“Come, come, gentlemen,” Judge Hoyt said. “This is rapidly developing into a situation the Court doesn’t like.”

“Well,” Mason said, “I’m not going to let myself be accused of unprofessional conduct. If I had been preparing this case for the prosecution, if I had been confronted with a taxicab receipt numbered trip nine-eighty-four, I certainly would have checked to see what trip nine-eighty-four was.”

“Yes,” Judge Hoyt said. “I think the district attorney must admit that this entire situation has been predicated upon lax investigative work somewhere in the case. It is a peculiar situation that this receipt should have been introduced in evidence as the receipt for a particular trip.”

“Well, it was the same amount and the same date and the same cab, and in possession of the defendant,” Hamilton Burger blurted.

“Exactly,” Judge Hoyt said. “And the Court feels that under the circumstances, it certainly would have been in order to have checked it to find out what trip it was.”

Hamilton Burger started to say something, then apparently thought better of it.

Mason said, “If this witness had been telling the truth, if he could have made an absolute identification of the defendant, nothing that might have happened subsequently on the evening of the third could have confused him. If he permitted himself to become confused, it was because he wasn’t as positive of his identification as the authorities tried to make him think he was when he picked the defendant out of the lineup the next morning.”

“That, unfortunately, is now an inescapable conclusion,” Judge Hoyt said. “Regardless of how it happened, Mr. Prosecutor, you must admit that the testimony of this witness has become hopelessly impaired. You would hardly be in a position to use this witness in front of a jury to make an absolute identification.”

“I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it,” Hamilton Burger said angrily. “Right now, I’m interested in finding out how it happened that this trap was set. Your Honor must realize that if the defendant hadn’t had a guilty conscience, she wouldn’t have manipulated things so that there would have been this unforeseen development.”

“I’m not too certain,” Judge Hoyt said. “How do we know that this witness didn’t confuse the faces of two people who got in his cab on the third of the month?”

“Well, of course,” Hamilton Burger said angrily, “if that’s going to be the Court’s attitude—”

“The Court’s attitude is determined from the testimony, Mr. Prosecutor,” the judge interrupted coldly.

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“Now, proceed.”

Hamilton Burger appeared undecided.

“Of course,” Judge Hoyt said, “in a preliminary examination you only need to show that a crime has been committed and that there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant has committed that crime. However, in the present state of the proof, the evidence is entirely circumstantial and the evidence which is before the Court is hopelessly contradictory.”

Hamilton Burger said, “I can dismiss this proceeding without prejudice and I can then file another complaint.”

“Or you can go before the grand jury and ask for an indictment and avoid a preliminary examination altogether,” Judge Hoyt suggested.

“Of course,” Hamilton Burger said, “that is exactly what counsel was trying to bring about. The more opportunities he has to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, the more opportunities he has for finding some minor inconsistency which can be distorted and magnified into something that is out of all proportion to its significance.”

“Is there any proof that the defendant was riding in the automobile with the decedent when it was driven up to that house?” Judge Hoyt asked. “Were there any latent fingerprints of the defendant in the automobile?”

Hamilton Burger said shamefacedly, “Frankly, Your Honor, we didn’t look. We felt that the positive identification of this cab driver, putting the defendant at the scene of the crime, was all we needed, particularly when we learned the weapon in the case had been sold to her husband. It wasn’t until we started checking that we realized the signature on the firearms registration was that of another person, who had evidently been sent to pick up the gun for Mr. Harlan.”

“Well, what do you want to do with this case?” Judge Hoyt asked.

“I’d like to have the defendant bound over,” Hamilton Burger said tentatively.

Judge Hoyt shook his head. “Not unless you have some additional evidence.”

“Well, I don’t want the Court to turn the defendant loose,” Burger said.

Judge Hoyt showed his exasperation. “I have been endeavoring to give you every consideration, Mr. Prosecutor. I appreciate your position, and the Court feels that there may have been some very ingenious device used here at least to confuse the identification. However, the fact remains that the identification is confused. Now, if you want to dismiss the case before the Court rules on it, go ahead and dismiss it.”

“I move to dismiss this case,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Very well, the case is dismissed; the defendant is discharged from custody.”

“I’m going to ask the Court to order the defendant to remain in custody until I can get other proceedings.”

Judge Hoyt shook his head. “You can have the defendant arrested on a warrant, if you wish. Or you can have her arrested on suspicion of murder while you are waiting for the grand jury to act. As far as the Court is concerned, once the proceedings are dismissed the defendant is discharged from custody.”

“Very well, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Court’s adjourned,” Judge Hoyt snapped.

As soon as the judge had arisen from the bench, the prosecutor marched out of the courtroom, his face livid with anger.

Perry Mason grinned at Sybil Harlan. “Well,” he said, “that’s the first round.”

“What do I do now?” she asked.

“Wait here,” Mason said. “You’re going to be rearrested.”

“And I sit here and wait for that?”

“Sure.”

“What about that taxi driver?”

Mason said, “By the time Hamilton Burger gets him in front of a jury, he’ll have changed his story all around. But we’ll have this transcript on which we can impeach him, and that will keep his testimony somewhat in line. After he’s thought it over, he’ll state that, giving the matter second thought, he feels that you probably were one of the two women who got in the taxicab later on in the evening and that you also were the one whom he took to the Union Station.”

“What will you do if he says that?”

Mason grinned. “I’ll ask him how it happened that when the matter was fresh in his mind he was so positive that you hadn’t again entered the cab. I’ll give him a bad time. Who signed for the gun that your husband bought?”

“I think it was his secretary.”

“Well,” Mason said, “they’ll find out who signed his name. They’ll serve a subpoena on her, put her on the stand, and have her identify her signature. They’ll ask her what she did with the gun she received, and she’ll be forced to say that she gave it to your husband.”

“Then what?”

“By that time,” Mason said, “we’ll have tried to find out something else to do. In the meantime, I’m going to—”

Enright Harlan pushed open the gate that separated the space reserved for lawyers and came striding toward them.

Sybil Harlan gave him one brief glance and then, as she saw the expression on his face, stiffened as though bracing herself against the physical impact of a blow.

“I’ve just heard something, Sybil,” he said.

“Well?”

“Mrs. Doxey, the daughter of George Lutts, told Roxy Claffin that you were the one who furnished Perry Mason with the money to buy a stock interest in the Sylvan Glade Development Company, so you could throw a monkey wrench in the machinery.”

“Now, just a minute,” Mason said. “Take it easy.”

Harlan didn’t even look at the lawyer but stood looking straight at his wife. “Is it true, Sybil?”

“Hold on a minute,” Mason said. “We have a bunch of newspaper reporters back there. This is a hell of a time to start a family row.”

“Will you deny it?” Enright Harlan asked.

Sybil met his eyes. “Do we have to discuss it now, Enny?”

“Yes.”

“No, I won’t deny it. It’s true. She was trying to steal something very dear to me, and I decided I’d give her something to think of.”

“You’re doing Roxy a great wrong, Sybil. She can’t control her emotions any more than anyone. Love comes and love goes. It isn’t something you can turn on and off whenever you want to, like a water faucet. You don’t have that much control of your emotions. But Roxy would never have done anything underhanded.”

“Oh no, oh no, not that little minx! Of course not! Certainly not! All right, I retained Mr. Mason. Now what?”

“I’m sorry,” Enright Harlan said coldly, and turned away.

“Wait a minute, Harlan,” Mason said, “Come back here.”

Harlan paused, looked over his shoulder.

“You don’t want to do a trick like that,” Mason told him. “You can’t add that handicap to the load your wife’s carrying. Newspaper reporters are watching you. If they see you turn away like this, they’ll—”

“Let the whole world see me turn away,” Harlan said and deliberately turned his back.

As he walked out of the courtroom, a couple of alert photographers, looking for a dramatic picture, snapped his angry features.

Mason moved around so that temporarily his body concealed Sybil Harlan’s face. “Don’t cry,” he said. “Remember, we’re playing poker. Chin up. Can you manage a smile?”

“Hell no,” she said. “I can’t keep from crying for over thirty seconds. Get that matron! Let me get out of here.”

Mason caught Della Street’s eye. “Go with her, Della. Get her out of here.”

“What are you going to do?” Della Street asked.

“Divert the attention of those reporters,” Mason said, striding after Enright Harlan.

Mason caught up with Harlan as the tight-lipped husband was waiting at the elevators.

“Harlan!” he called.

Harlan spun on his heel, looked coldly at Mason. “What is it this time?”

Mason, conscious of the reporters crowding him from behind, said, “You can’t get away with it that easy.”

“What do you mean?”

Mason said, “Your wife asked you a simple question. She’s entitled to an answer. How did that gun get out of your possession and up at the scene of the murder?”

Enright Harlan, thrown entirely off balance, said, “What the... what the hell are you trying to do?”

“As your wife’s lawyer, I’m trying to find out who killed George C. Lutts.”

“Then you’d better ask the person who killed him!”

“This question I’m asking you. You can’t keep walking out on it.”

The elevator came to a stop. Enright Harlan hesitated for a moment, then shouldered his way into the crowded elevator without a word.

Mason turned back toward the courtroom. Newspaper reporters blocked his way. “What about the gun, Mr. Mason? What were you insinuating? What’s cooking? Are Harlan and his wife at odds?”

Mason said, “I’m trying to find out about certain evidence, that’s all.”

“What about the gun? Why did you ask Harlan that question?”

“Because the district attorney says it’s his gun.”

“Well,” one of the reporters said, “his wife could have taken it.”

“And so could Harlan,” Mason said.

“Good Lord, he’s standing back of his wife. You don’t mean to insinuate that he—”

“He gave that gun to someone,” Mason said. “I’d like to find out who it was,” and pushed past the reporters. He met Della Street coming out of the courtroom, drew her to one side. “Everything under control?”

“Yes, she didn’t cry until after she got out of the courtroom.”

“Say anything?” Mason asked.

Della Street said, “She looked at me and said, ‘That’s what I get for underestimating an adversary. Let them kill me now.’ She was white and shaking.”

“All right,” Mason told her, “now we know what the district attorney’s case is and we can go to work.”