The Case of the Spurious Spinster

Chapter 11

As Judge Burton Elmer entered the courtroom from chambers and stood for a moment while the bailiff proclaimed that court was in session, interested spectators noticed that Hamilton Burger, the district attorney, had seated himself at the right of his deputy, Harrison Flanders. Word had spread around through the county offices like wildfire that this was one case where Perry Mason’s client would be proven guilty so thoroughly that there could be no possibility the lawyer could win his case. Her ultimate conviction was considered a mathematical certainty, and there was not the slightest question that she would be bound over to the Superior Court after the hearing in Judge Elmer’s court.

Moreover, it was rumored that immediately following Judge Elmer’s order binding the defendant over to the Superior Court for trial, Perry Mason would be charged with having concealed material evidence and proceedings would be instituted against him.

One of the prominent columnists had gone so far as to predict in the morning paper that the case itself would be over in Judge Elmer’s court within two hours, and that before night the lawyer would find himself in almost as much trouble as his client.

Hamilton Burger’s demeanor indicated the solemnity of one who is officiating at a trial which can only result in the death sentence.

“People versus Susan Fisher,” Judge Elmer said.

“Ready for the People,” Harrison Flanders said.

“Ready for the defendant,” Mason announced.

Flanders proceeded with the deft skill of a veteran trial attorney to lay the foundation of the case. He introduced evidence of the crime; the discovery of the body of Ken Lowry within a very short time after he had met his death; the introduction of maps and diagrams showing the exact location of the discovery; the identification of the body by a member of the family; the background of his employment by the Mojave Monarch Gold Mining and Exploration Company; the fact that this company was a subsidiary of the Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company.

When Flanders had finished with the last of the preliminary witnesses he made a bold stroke.

“Call Endicott Campbell to the stand,” he said.

Endicott Campbell came forward, was sworn, gave his name, residence, and his occupation as the General Manager of the Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company.

“Did you know Kenneth Lowry, the decedent?” Flanders asked.

“I had met him briefly shortly before his death.”

“Were you familiar with the company, which to save time, we shall call the Mojave Monarch Mining Company?”

“In a general way.”

“What do you mean by that answer?”

“The company of which I am manager sent remittances to the Mojave Monarch Mining Company for the purpose of underwriting operations.”

“Do you know how much money had been sent this subsidiary during the last year?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How much?”

“Two hundred and seven thousand, five hundred and thirty-six dollars and eighty-five cents.”

“That is reflected on the books of the Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company?”

“It is.”

“Was there some unusual development in connection with this Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company, which to save time I will refer to as the Corning Company?”

“There was.”

“What?”

“Amelia Corning, the owner of some ninety per cent of the stock in the company, who has lived in South America for some years, was corning to this city for a personal inspection of the affairs of the company and the subsidiary companies.”

“You’re acquainted with the defendant?”

“Yes.”

“She was in your employ?”

“That’s right.”

“For how long?”

“For a period of something over eighteen months.”

“What was her capacity?”

“She was employed as my assistant. She was more than a secretary. She cooperated with me in running the affairs of the company”

“Calling your attention to Saturday, the third of this month, did you have a conversation with the defendant?”

“I most certainly did.”

“Where did that conversation take place?”

“Over the telephone.”

“Are you familiar with the voice of the defendant so that you can be sure it was the defendant who was talking?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What was the nature of the conversation? What did she say?”

“She told me that Miss Corning, who was not due until Monday, the fifth, had actually arrived unexpectedly on the third; that she had been trying to get hold of me and—”

“Now wait a minute. You say that ‘she’ had been trying to get hold of you. Do you mean Miss Corning or the defendant?”

“The defendant said that she, the defendant, had been trying to get hold of me but had been unable to reach me.”

“What else did she state?”

“She stated that my son, Carleton, aged seven, had been at the office with his governess, Elizabeth Dow, and had shown her a shoe box which he had claimed belonged to me; that she had inspected the contents of this shoe box and found that it was apparently filled with one-hundred-dollar bills, representing a large sum of money; that she had placed this shoe box in the safe without counting the money.”

“What else?”

“She further went on to tell me that Miss Corning had had her come to the airport and then she had taken Miss Corning to the hotel, following which Miss Corning had gone to the office and had spent some considerable time there going over the records and had actually removed some of the records from the office.”

“All this was on Saturday, the third?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, did you subsequently ascertain whether or not this was true?”

“I ascertained that at least in part it was not true.”

“What did you ascertain was not true?”

“My son did not give her any box or any other receptacle containing any money, and Miss Corning was not at the office. A woman who claimed to be Miss Corning did register at the hotel and the defendant did conspire with this woman to turn over to her—”

“Just a moment,” Mason interrupted, “I object to the word ‘conspire’ as being a conclusion of the witness and ask that it may be stricken.”

“It will go out,” Judge Elmer said. “Just relate the conversation and what happened as you know it.”

“Well,” Campbell said, “I, of course, made arrangements to get in touch with the defendant immediately and to get in touch with this Miss Corning. The person who was posing as Miss Corning promptly disappeared, the defendant showed up with Mr. Mason as her attorney and there was, I may say, a complete lack of cooperation as far as giving me any further information about the shoe box or container — whatever it was — that held a large sum of money.”

“Now then, shortly prior to this time, had you been in touch with Ken Lowry, the decedent?”

“I had, and I also got in touch with him again immediately after this incident.”

“What did you do?”

“I drove to Mojave.”

“And interviewed Mr. Lowry?”

“Yes.”

“This, then, was the second time you had met him personally?”

“Yes. The first time was around noon on Saturday, the third. The second time was nearly one o’clock in the morning on the fourth. That second conference lasted for about an hour.”

“Was there some reason for not having met him prior to the third?”

“I had been instructed to concentrate on the real-estate end of the Corning Company’s activities and not to bother myself with the Mojave mine. I had been particularly instructed to leave this company entirely in the hands of Mr. Lowry.”

“Who gave you those instructions?”

“Miss Corning.”

“How?”

“In a conference over long-distance telephone.”

“Now, you sent some two hundred and seven thousand dollars from the Corning Company to the Mojave Monarch during the past year. Were there any returns from that company?”

“Not directly to the Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company, but rather to a subsidiary company. I was advised by Miss Corning that the subsidiary company would make an accounting at the proper time.”

“Now, when you saw Mr. Lowry, did you have any conversation with him about his activities?”

“I did.”

“And what did he tell you with reference to money which had been forwarded by him or what he had done with the money which had been sent him by the Corning Mining Company?”

“Objected to,” Mason said. “Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not the best evidence; calling for hearsay and for a conversation not within the hearing of the defendant.”

“If the Court please,” Flanders said, “this is part of the res gestae. This discloses the reason that Lowry was murdered. This was an official conversation between an employee of the company and the manager.”

“I don’t care how official it was,” Mason said. “It wasn’t binding on this defendant. Moreover, it is now quite apparent that Lowry wasn’t in the employ of the Corning Company in any way. He was receiving money from the Corning Company and quite apparently from the testimony he was doing something with it other than sending it to the Corning Company.”

“That’s exactly the point I want to prove,” Flanders said.

“Prove it by competent evidence then,” Mason snapped.

“I think the point is well taken,” Judge Elmer said. “I suppose it’s a matter of bookkeeping record, isn’t it?”

“As a matter of fact, it is not,” Flanders said. “It is a peculiar situation and it is because of this situation that Lowry was murdered. We can show by several persons what Lowry did with the money that was received.”

“You can show what he claimed he did with it,” Mason said, “but what he claimed isn’t binding on this defendant.”

“I think I will sustain the objection,” Judge Elmer said.

“Very well,” Flanders said, his manner ostentatiously indicating disappointment, but it was quite evident from Burger’s manner that he had anticipated the ruling.

“Did you have a subsequent conversation that day with Mr. Lowry, a conversation which took place after you left Mojave?”

“I did.”

“What time was that conversation?”

“Around five o’clock in the afternoon.”

“Was that conversation a personal conversation or a telephone conversation?”

“It was over the telephone.”

“What did Mr. Lowry say?”

“He told me that Mr. Mason and his secretary—”

“Now just a minute,” Mason said, “I wish to interpose an objection to that conversation as hearsay, as being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and no proper foundation laid. There is no indication that the defendant was present or that this conversation, in whole or in part, was ever relayed to the defendant.”

“I am referring to a conversation which took place between the decedent and this witness,” Flanders said, “relating to statements which were made by Mr. Mason as attorney for this defendant.”

Judge Elmer shook his head. “Unless you can show that this conversation was communicated to the defendant, or that she was present, or heard the conversation, the objection will be sustained.”

“Very well,” Flanders said. “Now, did you have any conversation with the defendant personally about this shoe box filled with money?”

“I most certainly did.”

“Who was present at that conversation?”

“The defendant, Perry Mason acting as her attorney, and Miss Della Street, Perry Mason’s secretary.”

“And what was said?”

“I told her that there was no shoe box filled with money in the safe at the office as she had advised me was the case.”

“And what did she have to say with reference to that?”

“Nothing, except to insist that my son had given her a shoe box.”

“Your son is how old?”

“Seven years old.”

“His name?”

“Carleton.”

“And when did the defendant tell you the shoe box had been given to her?”

“She said that morning at the office Carleton, accompanied by his governess, Elizabeth Dow, had delivered the shoe box to her; that she had inspected it and found that it was filled with hundred-dollar bills.”

“Cross-examine,” Flanders said.

“You went to the office before this conversation you had with us to search for that shoe box?” Mason asked.

“I did.”

“Why?”

“She told me that my son had given it to her and stated that it was mine. I certainly wanted to investigate, both as a father and as an official of the company.”

“And you were unable to find any such shoe box in the safe?”

“That is right.”

“You opened the safe to look?”

“Yes.”

“Was anyone with you?”

“No.”

“Then it is only your word against hers.”

Endicott Campbell gave himself the luxury of a triumphant grin. “So far, Mr. Mason,” he said sarcastically, “it is my word against hers, and so far, at least, I am not accused of killing anyone to cover my defalcations.”

Mason bowed. “So far,” he said. “Thank you, that’s all for the moment.”

“Call your next witness,” Judge Elmer said.

“Call Elizabeth Dow,” Flanders said.

Elizabeth Dow, a woman who had an angular figure which she made no attempt to improve in any way, came striding flat-footed to the witness stand. She sat with immobile features as she awaited questions after giving her name, address, and occupation.

“You are familiar with Carleton Campbell, the seven-year-old son of Endicott Campbell, the witness who has just testified?”

“Yes.”

“Do you have some official connection with him?”

“I am his governess.”

“Were you such on Saturday, the third of this month?”

“Yes.”

“Did you take him to the office of the Corning Mining Company on the morning of the third?”

“I did.”

“Who was there?”

“Susan Fisher, the defendant.”

“Was there some conversation between Susan and Carleton?”

“Yes.”

“You overheard this conversation?”

“Yes. Some of it.”

“Was Carleton carrying anything when he came to the office?”

“Yes.”

“What was it?”

“A shoe box.”

“Do you know of your own knowledge what was in that shoe box?”

“I do.”

“What was it?”

“A pair of black patent-leather dress shoes belonging to Endicott Campbell.”

“How do you know what was in there?”

“There was some conversation before we left the house between Carleton and his father about a treasure box and Carleton asked his father if he could trade treasures. Carleton thought he had his father’s permission to take this shoe box.”

“There was only the one box?”

“That’s right, only the one box that Carleton took from the house.”

“Now, how do you know what was in it?”

“After we were in the automobile I took occasion to untie the box when Carleton was not looking. I wanted to find out just what was in it because naturally I felt in a way responsible.”

“What was in it?”

“As I have stated, just a pair of black shoes.”

“That’s all. You may inquire,” Harrison Flanders said with a little bow to Perry Mason.

“You were driving the car at the time?” Mason asked.

“I was not driving the car,” she said. “I was in the car behind the steering wheel. I started the car, then I asked Carleton where his coat was. He had forgotten and left it in the house. I told him to go and get it. While he was in the house getting the coat I took occasion to untie the box.”

“The box was tied up?”

“Yes.”

“What was it tied with?”

“Some sort of a cord. I think it was a piece of fish line.”

“And you looked inside the box?”

“I did.”

“And then tied it up again?”

“Yes.”

“And from there, where did you drive?”

“Directly to the office.”

“Why did you go to the office?”

“I knew that the defendant intended to be there and I wanted to ask her to keep an eye on Carleton while I did some personal errands. I asked her to do that as a favor to me.”

“And she consented?”

“Yes.”

“Now, is there any chance that the shoe box could have been substituted at any time?”

“Not before we got to the office, no, sir. Carleton had that same shoe box with him and took it into the office. Any substitution would necessarily have been made by the defendant.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

“Call Frank Golden,” Flanders said.

Golden was sworn and gave his occupation as proprietor of a branch of the We Rent M Car Company.

“Directing your attention to Sunday, the fourth of this month, did you see the defendant?”

“I did.”

“Did you have any conversation with her?”

“Yes.”

“And did you complete any transaction with her?”

“Yes.”

“What was the transaction?”

“I rented her one of our units, a car designated on our books as Car Number 19.”

“What time did you rent that car to her?”

“At six thirty.”

“And did she return it to you?”

“Yes.”

“At what time?”

“Our records show that it was eight fifteen.”

“And that car was designated on your books as Car Number 19?”

“Yes.”

“Is there a number painted on that car?”

“There is. It is rather inconspicuous but it has a painted figure of Number 19.”

“Later on that evening did you have occasion to rent that car to anyone else?”

“Yes.”

“Who?”

“To Mr. Perry Mason, the attorney for the defendant.”

“What time was that?”

“Just before I was closing. Sometime around — oh, a few minutes before eleven. I put it on the books as ten-thirty because that’s the official time of closing.”

“When you saw the defendant how was she dressed?”

“She was wearing a raincoat, a sweater, slacks, and a man’s hat; a broadbrimmed hat that was pulled down over her eyes. I thought at first she was a man but after she talked with me I saw, of course, she was a woman. And then of course I identified her from her driver’s license.”

“She showed you her driver’s license?”

“Yes. That’s necessary in order to rent a car.”

“And your records show the name on that driver’s license?”

“Yes, sir. The name of Susan Fisher, the defendant in this case.”

“When did you finally get the car back again?”

“It was on the afternoon of the fifth. It was returned by the police. I was notified that the police had taken possession of the car.”

“That’s all. You may inquire,” Flanders said.

“No questions.”

“Call Myrton Abert,” Flanders said.

Myrton Abert gave his address and occupation and testified that after midnight, Sunday, at an hour around 12:30 to 1 o’clock Monday morning, he had been called by Perry Mason and Paul Drake to take fingerprints from a car; that he had noted the license number of the car and also the number 19 painted in an inconspicuous place. That he had lifted a series of fingerprints and delivered them to Perry Mason; that he had stipulated, however, that in the event the car was concerned in any crime he would make the information available to the police and that he had taken photographs of the fingerprints; that those photographs had been turned over to the police; but that prior to the time they had been turned over to the police, the police had appeared with a set of fingerprints purporting to come from Ken Lowry, the decedent, and that one of those fingerprints — that of the right middle finger — coincided with a latent print which had been lifted from the automobile on the back of the rearview mirror; that the witness was a fingerprint identification expert and had made the identification; that there could be no question that this print had been made by the middle finger of the right hand of the decedent.

“Cross-examine,” Flanders snapped.

“No questions,” Mason said.

“Call Lieutenant Tragg,” Flanders said.

Lt. Tragg took the stand, testified to receiving a phone call from Perry Mason reporting the finding of a body at the place shown in the map indicating an area on Mulholland Drive; that he had first ordered a radio car to proceed to the place at once and see that the evidence was preserved. Then he himself with a deputy coroner, a photographer, and a technical expert had gone to the place; that there they found the body of Kenneth Lowry.

Tragg introduced various photographs and identified them.

“How long had the body been there? How long since death had taken place?”

“A very short time,” Lt. Tragg said. “I will leave it to the autopsy surgeon to fix the exact time, but death had been quite recent.”

“Now then, did you, in the course of your examination, look for automobile tracks in the vicinity of the body?”

“I did.”

“What did you find?”

“I found where a car had been driven over a rather faint roadway leading into the place where the body was found. I carefully traced the tracks of that car and made a moulage showing the tracks. I was able to get good tracks of all four of the tires on the car. They had rather distinctive treads.”

“Were the tires all the same?”

“No, sir. The tires consisted of two different makes, two different types of tread. Those on the front were one make, those on the back were another make; and there was, moreover, a distinctive gouge on the tire on the right front which left a very distinct individual track.”

“Did you subsequently find an automobile equipped with tires which matched the moulage?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What automobile was it?”

“Automobile Number 19, owned by the We Rent M Car Company. I found this automobile parked in the parking lot of Mr. Mason’s office building and Mr. Mason admitted to me that the car had been placed there by him, that he had rented it the night before from the car-rental company.”

“You may inquire,” Flanders said.

Mason’s eyes narrowed. “Lieutenant, when did you find these tracks?”

“The night we discovered the body.”

“How long after you discovered the body?”

“Only a few minutes, while you, I believe, were waiting at the service station.”

“You said nothing to me about finding these tracks.”

“No, sir.”

“Why not?”

“I didn’t realize I was under any duty to report to you as to what the police found, Mr. Mason.”

“That’s a ll,” Mason said.

Flanders called Sophia Elliott to the stand. Sophia Elliott testified that she was the sister of Miss Corning, that she had traveled from South America, that she had gone to the suite of her sister at the Arthenium Hotel and that when she reached the suite she found the door open and found it occupied by Perry Mason and his secretary; that after some talk she had suggested that the door be closed and that Mr. Mason and his secretary leave and they would be notified in the event Miss Corning wanted to see them.

The man who operated the freight elevator testified to receiving twenty-five dollars for the purpose of smuggling Miss Corning out of the building.

Then came Harrison Flanders’ surprise witness.

“I will call Carlotta Ames Jackson.”

Mrs. Jackson proved to be a rather snippy, needle-nosed, nervous individual who was evidently enjoying the attention she had attracted.

“Where were you on the night of Sunday, the fourth of this month?” Flanders inquired.

“I was in the alley, back of the freight entrance of the Arthenium Hotel.”

“How did you happen to be there?”

“I work in the hotel. I am a chambermaid. I come out of the back entrance and walk down the alley every night when I get off work.”

“You were walking down there this night?”

“Yes.”

“Did you notice anything unusual?”

“Yes.”

“Describe it, please.”

“I saw a woman in a wheelchair there in the alley. There is no sidewalk in the alley and this woman had her wheelchair right against the wall. It was an unusual place for a woman in a wheelchair and I started forward to speak to her.”

“Did you speak to her?”

“No.”

“Why?”

“Because a car turned into the alley, drove on past me and stopped right beside this woman. The driver of the car got out, helped the woman into the car, the wheelchair was folded up and put in the car and the car drove away.”

“Did you see the driver of the car?”

“Yes.”

“Was it a man or a woman?”

“It was a woman.”

“Can you describe her?”

“She was wearing a raincoat, a sweater, slacks, and a man’s hat which was pulled down over the eyes.”

“Did you at any time see this woman’s face?”

“Yes.”

“How close were you to the woman at the time you saw her face?”

“I guess about twenty feet.”

“Had you ever seen that woman before?”

“Not to my knowledge.”

“Did you ever see her again?”

“Yes.”

“When did you see her again?”

“At the police station.”

“Who showed her to you?”

“There was a line-up of five women. I picked this woman out of the line-up.”

“And who was this woman, if you know?”

“The defendant, the woman sitting there, Susan Fisher.”

Susan Fisher gasped with horrified dismay.

“Did you have an opportunity to observe the make of the automobile?”

“Indeed I did.”

“Have you seen that automobile since?”

“Yes. I subsequently identified it at the We Rent M Car Company. It had a number 19 painted on it to designate it.”

“You may inquire,” Flanders said with exaggerated courtesy, to Perry Mason.

Mason arose to face the witness. “Did you get the license number of this automobile at the time you first saw it?”

“I thought I did.”

“You thought you did?”

“Yes, I’m quite sure I did.”

“Did you write it down on anything?”

“No.”

“You trusted to memory?”

“Yes, and I forgot it. By the time I was told that what I had seen might be of great importance in a murder case, I found I couldn’t recall the license number.”

“Did you see the number 19 on this car at the time it drove in the alley?”

“No.”

“It was dark at the time?”

“It was dark.”

“Were you standing near the car?”

“Within about twenty feet.”

“You kept on walking?”

“No, I stood still.”

“Why?”

“So I could see better.”

“Couldn’t you have seen better if you had been nearer?”

“Perhaps.”

“Then why didn’t you keep on walking?”

“I... Well, I just wanted to see what was going on, that’s all.”

“You are inclined to be curious as to things that go on around you, Mrs. Jackson?”

“I am not!”

“Then this was a new departure for you?”

“I don’t know what you mean by that.”

“Ordinarily you are not interested in things that go on around you?”

“Ordinarily I am interested in what I see.”

“And try to remember those things?”

“Sometimes.”

“You say that you identified the defendant in a line-up.”

“Yes.”

“Had you ever seen her before the line-up?”

“That time in the alley.”

“Never before that?”

“Well, I had a glimpse of her when she was being escorted into the show-up room.”

“Had you seen her picture prior to that time?”

“Yes. Police had shown me her picture and asked if that was the young woman I saw.”

“And you told them it was?”

“I told them I... Well, I told them I thought it was.”

“Did you first tell them that you couldn’t be sure?”

“Well, of course. A body can’t take a look at a picture and—”

“I’m asking you,” Mason said, “if you first told them you couldn’t be sure.”

“Yes.”

“Did you first tell them you didn’t think that was the girl?”

“Well, I may have.”

“But after you saw her in the line-up after the police had first let you get what you call a glimpse of her, you were positive?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see the number 19 painted on the car at the time you saw it in the alley?”

“No, that was later.”

“And how did you identify the car?”

“By its general appearance.”

“That car was one of a popular make of automobile?”

“Yes.”

“There are thousands and thousands of those cars of that same make and model, identical in appearance in every way, on the streets of Los Angeles?”

“Well, I don’t know about thousands and thousands, but... well, anyway, I’m satisfied now it was the same car.”

“You’re satisfied?” Mason said.

“Yes.”

“How many conversations have you had with the police?”

“Oh, several.”

“And with the district attorney’s office?”

“Several.”

“As many as ten with the police?”

“I guess so, first and last.”

“As many as ten with the district attorney’s?”

“No, only about five with the district attorney’s.”

“Now let’s see,” Mason said. “As I understand it, you weren’t quite so positive at the time the police first interrogated you but with the passing of time you became more positive. Is that right?”

“Yes.”

“You weren’t positive the first time you were interrogated?”

“Well... No, I don’t suppose I was. I told them I wasn’t entirely sure. I had to keep thinking of it and a little more would come back to me each time I’d think of it.”

“So with each conversation you had with the officers you became more positive?”

“Yes.”

“That was the object of their conversation with you?”

“I don’t know what the object was.”

“But they had about ten conversations with you.”

“Yes.”

“And with each conversation you became more positive.”

“Yes.”

“So you weren’t quite as positive at the time of the ninth as you were at the time of the tenth, or as you are now.”

Hamilton Burger arose. “Your Honor,” he said, “that is browbeating the witness. That’s pettifogging. That’s not legitimate cross-examination. That’s not what she said at all.”

“That is exactly what she said,” Mason retorted. “She said she was more positive with each conversation and she had at least ten conversations. Therefore it follows that she wasn’t as positive at the time of the ninth conversation as she was at the time of the tenth.”

“I think I will overrule the objection,” Judge Elmer said, smiling.

Hamilton Burger slowly seated himself.

“Now that the district attorney’s objection has warned you of the trap, can you answer the question?” Mason asked. “Were you less positive at the time of the ninth conversation than you are now?”

“Well, that isn’t the way I meant it.”

“Never mind what you meant,” Mason said, “I’m asking you a question. Answer it yes or no.”

“No. I was positive at the time of the ninth conversation.”

“Then why did you have the tenth?”

“I don’t know.”

“And why did you say you were more positive at the time of each succeeding conversation?”

“Well, I wasn’t referring particularly to the time between the ninth and the tenth.”

“All right, we’ll go back to the eighth time,” Mason said. “Were you more positive at the time of the tenth conversation than you were at the time of the eighth conversation?”

“Yes,” the witness snapped angrily.

“And more positive at the time of the seventh than you were at the time of the sixth?”

“Yes.”

“And more positive at the time of the fifth than you were at the time of the fourth?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “That’s all.”

Judge Elmer looked at the clock. “It is a few minutes after the hour of the noon adjournment,” he said. “Does the prosecution anticipate there will be much more evidence?”

“No, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Court will adjourn until two o’clock this afternoon,” Judge Elmer said. “I have a brief matter which I am taking up at one-thirty but I expect it will be concluded by two o’clock so that we can continue with this case. Court is adjourned and the defendant is remanded to custody.”