“Sustained,” Judge Strouse said.

  “You have testified to a conversation you had with the police,” Mason said.

  “Well, of course, when things got coming to a head they wanted to know all about what had happened around the place. That was after they asked if they could look in unit sixteen to investigate a report they had had. I told them that they were welcome to go right ahead.”

  “All right,” Mason said. “Now, as a part of that same conversation, did the police ask you if you had noticed any other prowlers during the afternoon or evening?”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not proper cross-examination and hearsay,” Hadley said.

  Judge Strouse smiled. “Mr. Mason is now again invoking the rule that where part of a conversation has been brought out in direct examination, the entire conversation may be brought out on cross-examination. The witness may answer the question.”

  “Why, for the most part they kept asking me whether I’d heard any sound of a shot.”

  “I’m not talking about their primary interest,” Mason said. “I’m asking if they inquired of you as to whether you had noticed any prowlers during the afternoon or evening.”

  “Yes, sir, they did.”

  “And did you then tell them, as a part of that conversation, about this woman whom you had seen in unit twelve?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And what did you tell them?”

  “Oh, Your Honor,” Hadley said, “this is opening a door that is going to lead into matters which will confuse the issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with the case. We have no objection to Mr. Mason making Mr. Brems his own witness, if he wants to.

  “He can then ask him any questions he wants, subject, of course, to our objection that the evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

  “He doesn’t have to make Mr. Brems his own witness,” Judge Strouse ruled. “You have asked this witness on direct examination about a conversation he had with officers.”

  “Not a conversation. I simply asked him as to the effect of that conversation. Mr. Mason could have objected, if he had wanted to, on the ground that the question called for a conclusion of the witness.”

  “He didn’t want to,” Judge Strouse said, genially. “The legal effect is the same whether you ask the witness for his conclusion as to the conversation or whether you ask him to repeat the conversation word for word. The subject of the conversation came in on direct evidence. Mr. Mason can now have the entire conversation on cross-examination if he wants.”

  “But this isn’t related to the subject that the police were interested in,” Hadley objected. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the crime.”

  “How do you know it doesn’t?” Judge Strouse asked.

  “Because we know what happened.”

  Judge Strouse said, “Mr. Mason may have his theory as to what happened. The Court is going to give the defendant the benefit of the widest latitude in all matters pertaining to cross-examination. The witness may answer to the question.”

  “Go on,” Mason said. “What did you tell the officers about the woman in unit twelve?”

  “I told them there’d been a prowler in the unit.”

  “Did you use the word ‘prowler’?”

  “I have the idea I did.”

  “And what else did you tell them?”

  “I told them about talking with this woman.”

  “Did you tell them what the woman said?”

  “Here again, Your Honor, I must object,” Hadley said. “This is asking for hearsay evidence as to hearsay evidence. We are now getting into evidence of what some woman may have said to this witness and which conversation was in turn relayed to the officers. It is all very plainly hearsay.”

  “I will permit it on cross-examination,” Judge Strouse ruled. “Answer the question.”

  “Yes, I said that this woman had told me she was a friend of the person who had rented that unit. She said she’d been told to go in and wait in case her friend wasn’t at home.”

  “Can you describe that woman?” Mason asked.

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Not proper cross-examination,” Hadley said.

  “Sustained,” Judge Strouse ruled.

  Mason smiled. “Did you describe her to the officers at the time you had your conversation with them?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “How did you describe her to the officers?”

  “Same objection,” Hadley said.

  Judge Strouse smiled. “The objection is overruled. It is now shown to be a part of the conversation which Mr. Mason is entitled to inquire into.”

  “I told the police this woman was maybe twenty-eight or thirty, that she was a brunette, she had darkish gray eyes, she was rather tall … I mean she was tall for a woman, with long legs. She had a way about her when she walked. Sort of like a queen. You could see—”

  “Don’t describe her,” Hadley stormed at the witness. “Simply relate what you told the police.”

  “Yes, sir. That’s what I’m telling—just what I told the police,” Brems said, and then added gratuitously, “Of course, after that I found out it was all right.”

  “I ask that that last may go out as not being responsive to the question,” Mason said, “as being a voluntary statement of the witness.”

  “It may go out,” Judge Strouse ruled.

  “That’s all,” Mason said.

  Hadley, thoroughly angry, took the witness on redirect examination. “You told the police you thought this was a prowler?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Subsequently you found out you were mistaken, didn’t you?”

  “Objected to,” Mason said, “as leading and suggestive, not proper redirect examination. Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

  “The objection is sustained,” Judge Strouse said.

  “But,” shouted the exasperated assistant district attorney, “you subsequently told the police you knew it was all right, didn’t you?”

  “Objected to as not proper redirect examination,” Mason said, “and as not being a part of the conversation that was testified to by the witness.”

  Judge Strouse hesitated, then looked down at the witness. “When did you tell them this?”

  “The next day.”

  “The objection is sustained.”

  Hadley said, “You talked to the woman in unit twelve about it that same night, didn’t you?”

  “Objected to,” Mason said, “as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, calling for hearsay evidence, a conversation had without the presence or hearing of the defendant, not proper redirect examination.”

  “The objection is sustained,” Judge Strouse ruled.

  Hadley sat down in the chair, held a whispered conference with Hamilton Burger. The two men engaged in a vehement whispered argument; then Hadley tried another tack.

  “Did you, the same night, as a part of that same conversation, state to the police that after you had talked with the woman you were satisfied she was all right and was telling the truth?”

  “Yes, sir,” the witness said.

  “That’s all,” Hadley announced triumphantly.

  “Just a moment,” Mason said as Brems started to leave the stand. “One more question on re-cross-examination. Didn’t you also at the same time and as a part of the same conversation describe the woman to the police as a prowler?”

  “I believe I did. Yes, sir, at that time.”

  “That was the word you used—‘a prowler’?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  Mason smiled across at Hadley. “That’s all my re-cross-examination,” he said.

  “That’s all,” Hadley said sullenly.

  “Call your next witness,” Judge Strouse observed.

  Hadley called the manager of the drive-yourself car agency. He testified to the circumstances surrounding the renting of the car, the return of the car, the fact that the person returning it had not sought to cash in on the credit due on the deposit.

  “No questions,” Mason said.

  Another employee of the drive-yourself agency testified to having seen the car driven onto the agency parking lot around ten o’clock on the evening of April sixth. The car was, he said, driven by a young woman, who got out of the car and started toward the office. He did not pay any attention to her after that.

  “Cross-examine,” Hadley said.

  “Can you describe this woman?” Mason asked.

  “She was a good-looking woman.”

  “Can you describe her any better than that?” Mason asked, as some of the jurors smiled broadly.

  “Sure. She was in her twenties somewhere. She had … she was stacked!”

  “What’s that?” Judge Strouse asked.

  “She had a good figure,” the witness amended hastily.

  “Did you see her hair?”

  “She was blonde.”

  “Now then,” Mason asked, “I want to ask you a question, and I want you to think carefully before you answer it. Did you, at any time, see any baggage being taken out of the car after she parked it in the lot?”

  The man then shook his head. “No, sir, she didn’t take out a thing except herself.”

  “You’re certain?”

  “I’m certain.”

  “You saw her get out of the car?”

  “I’ll say I did.”

  There was a ripple of laughter in the courtroom.

  “That’s all,” Mason announced.

  “No further questions,” Hadley said.

  Hadley called a fingerprint expert, who testified to examining units fifteen and sixteen of The Staylonger Motel for fingerprints on the night of April sixth and the early morning of April seventh. He produced several latent prints which he had developed and which he classified as being “significant.”

  “And why do you class these as being significant?” Hadley asked.

  “Because,” the witness said, “I was able to develop matching fingerprints in the automobile concerning which the witness has just testified.”

  Hadley’s questions brought out that the witness had examined the rented automobile, had processed it for fingerprints, and had secured a number of prints matching those in units fifteen and sixteen of the motel where the body had been found, that some of these matching fingerprints were, beyond question, those of the defendant, Stewart G. Bedford.

  “Cross-examine,” Hadley announced.

  “Who left the other ‘matching’ prints that you found?” Mason asked the witness.

  “I assume that they were made by the blonde young woman who drove the car back to the agency and—”

  “You don’t know?”

  “No, sir, I do not. I do know that I secured and developed certain latent fingerprints in units fifteen and sixteen of the motel, that I secured certain latent prints from the automobile which has previously been described as having license number CXY 221, and that those prints in each instance were made by the same fingers that made the prints of Stewart G. Bedford on the police registration card when he was booked at police headquarters.”

  “And you found the prints which you have assumed were those left by the blonde young woman in both units fifteen and sixteen?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Where?”

  “In various places—on mirrors, on drinking glasses, on a doorknob.”

  “And those same fingerprints were on the automobile?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “In other words,” Mason said, “as far as your own observations are concerned, those other fingerprints could have been left by the murderer of Binney Denham?”

  “That’s objected to,” Hadley said. “It’s argumentative. It calls for a conclusion.”

  “He’s an expert witness,” Mason said. “I’m asking him for his conclusion. I’m limiting the question as far as his own observations are concerned.”

  Judge Strouse hesitated, said, “I’m going to permit the witness to answer the question.”

  The expert said, “As far as I know or as far as my observations are concerned, either one of them could have been the murderer.”

  “Or the murder could have been committed by someone else?” Mason asked.

  “That’s right.”

  “Thank you,” Mason told him. “That’s all.”

  Hamilton Burger indicated that he planned to examine the next witness.

  “Call Richard Judson,” he said.

  The bailiff called Richard Judson to the stand. Judson, an erect man with good shoulders, slim waist, a deep voice, and cold blue eyes which regarded the world with an air of a banker appraising a real estate loan, proved to be a police officer who had gone out to the Bedford residence on the tenth of April.

  “And what did you do at the Bedford residence?” Hamilton Burger asked.

  “I looked around.”

  “Where?”

  “Well, I looked around the grounds and the garage.”

  “Did you have a search warrant?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Did you serve the search warrant on anyone?”

  “There was no one home; no one was there to serve the warrant on.”

  “Where did you look first?”

  “In the garage.”

  “Where in the garage?”

  “All over the garage.”

  “Can you tell us a little more about the type of search you made?”

  “Well, there was a car in the garage. We looked over that pretty well. There were some tires. We looked around them, some old inner tubes—”

  “Now, you say ‘we.’ Who was with you?”

  “My partner.”

  “A police officer?”

  “Yes.”

  “Where else did you look?”

  “We looked every place in the garage. We looked up in the rafters, where there were some old boxes. We made a good job of searching the place.”

  “And then,” Hamilton Burger asked, “what did you do?”

  “There was a drain in the center of the garage floor—a perforated drain so that the garage floor could be washed off with a hose. There was a perforated plate which covered the drain. We unscrewed this plate, and looked down inside.”

  “And what did you find?”

  “We found a gun.”

  “What do you mean, a gun?”

  “I mean a .38 caliber Colt revolver.”

  “Do you have the number of that gun?”

  “I made a note of it, yes, sir.”

  “That was a memorandum you made at the time?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “That was made by you?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Do you have it with you?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What do your notes show?”

  The witness opened his notebook. “The gun was blued steel .38 caliber Colt revolver. It had five loaded cartridges in the cylinder and one empty, or exploded, cartridge case. The manufacturer’s number was 740818.”

  “What did you do with that revolver?”

  “I turned it over to Arthur Merriam.”

  “Who is he?”

  “He is one of the police experts on firearms and ballistics.”

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

  “Now as I understand it, you had a search warrant, Mr. Judson?” Mason asked.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And what premises were included in the search warrant?”

  “The house the grounds, the garage.”

  “There was no one home on whom you could serve this search warrant?”

  “No, sir, not at the time we made the search.”

  “When was the search warrant dated?”

  “I believe the eighth.”

  “You got it on the morning of the eighth?”

  “I don’t know the exact time of day.”

  “It was in the morning?”

  “I think perhaps it was.”

  “And after you got the search warrant what did you do?”

  “Put it in my pocket.”

  “And what did you do after that?”

  “I was working on the case.”

  “What did you do while you were, as you say, working on the case and after putting the search warrant in your pocket?”

  “I drove around looking things over.”

  “Actually, you drove out to the Bedford house, didn’t you?”

  “Well, we were working on the case, looking things over. We cruised around that vicinity.”

  “And then you parked your car, didn’t you?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “From a spot where you could see the garage?”

  “Well, yes.”

  “And you waited all that day, did you not?”

  “The rest of the day, yes, sir.”

  “And the next day you were back on the job again?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Same place?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you waited all that day?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And the next day you were back on the job again, weren’t you?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Same place?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you waited during that day until when?”

  “Oh, until about four o’clock in the afternoon.”

  “And then, from your surveillance, you knew that there was no one home, isn’t that right?”

  “Well, we saw Mrs. Bedford drive off.”

  “You then knew that there was no one home, didn’t you?”

  “Well, it’s hard to know anything like that.”

  “You had been keeping the house under surveillance?”

  “We had been, yes.”

  “For the purpose of finding a time when no one was home?”

  “Well, we were just keeping the place under surveillance to see who came and who went.”

  “And at the first opportunity, when you thought there was no one home, you went and searched the garage?”

  “Well … I guess that’s about right. You can call it that if you want to.”

  “And you searched the garage but didn’t search the house?”

  “No, sir, we didn’t search the house.”

  “You searched every inch of the garage, every nook and corner?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “You waited until you felt certain there was no one home, then you went out to make your search.”