“Yes, sir.”

  “It now appears without contradiction that during the evening of October seventh your father gave the defendant Stephanie Falkner the gun we have described as the Holster Gun, that he later on went to the safe and put the gun we have referred to as the Safe Gun in his holster.

  “It also appears that one of these three guns was the murder weapon and it is now in court as Exhibit Number 30. You understand these facts?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Very well. I now want to ask you about the weapon your father gave you which we will refer to as the Junior Gun. I am going to ask you whether on the eighth day of October of this year you gave Mr. Perry Mason this gun?”

  “I did.”

  “Did Mr. Mason have it in his hands?”

  “He did. Yes, sir.”

  “Did Mr. Mason do anything with that gun?”

  “Yes.”

  “What?”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.

  “I propose to connect it up,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “I think we should have something more than the district attorney’s statement that he proposes to connect it up,” Mason said. “I would like to ask the witness a question simply on that phase of the case.”

  “Very well,” Judge Decker said.

  “Was that gun,” Mason asked, “the one we are referring to as the Junior Gun, the same gun which I now show you and which has been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 30?”

  The witness said, “Definitely not. It was a gun exactly like this, in appearance, but it wasn’t this gun.”

  “In that case, if the Court please,” Mason said, “anything that the witness might have done with any other gun is certainly not binding on this defendant, and is entirely outside the issues of this case.”

  “I think that is correct,” Judge Decker said. “The objection is sustained.”

  Hamilton Burger said angrily, “Well, I’ll get at it in another way. You see this gun People’s Exhibit Number 30?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Have you ever seen that gun before?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “When?”

  “Perry Mason handed it to me.”

  “When?”

  “On the eighth day of October of this year.”

  “And what did you do with that gun?”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said. “Whatever I did is not binding on the defendant.”

  “The Court is inclined to overrule that objection,” Judge Decker said. “It now appears that the witness has identified the gun positively, the gun which is Exhibit Number 30.”

  “What did you do with that gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.

  “I took it to the apartment of Stephanie Falkner.”

  “The defendant in this case?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And then what did you do?”

  “I didn’t do very much. I stood there like a bump on a log, while Mr. Mason recited some rigmarole to the effect that the defendant was in danger of some sort and that I was bringing her a gun that she could use for defense.”

  “Now you say that Mr. Mason handed you this gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “When?”

  “On the eighth day of October of this year.”

  “Where?”

  “Out at my place of business.”

  “Prior to that time had you handed Mr. Mason a gun?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And what gun was that?”

  “It was the gun we are referring to as the Junior Gun. It was identical in appearance with the one that I am now holding, which is the murder weapon, and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30.”

  “You gave Mr. Mason that gun which we are calling the Junior Gun?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And what did Mr. Mason do with that gun?”

  “He discharged that gun.”

  “You mean he fired it?”

  “Yes, sir. The bullet ploughed into my desk.”

  “I show you a photograph which purports to be a picture of a desk with a long furrow stretching along it, and ask you if you know what that picture represents?”

  “That is the desk in my office approximately as it exists today. It is a picture of the desk immediately after Perry Mason had fired this shot into it.”

  “And then what happened?”

  “Then during the confusion incident to firing that shot, Mr. Mason substituted this gun, which I hold in my hand, and which is People’s Exhibit Number 30, in place of the gun I had handed him which we are calling the Junior Gun. He handed the murder gun back to me under such circumstances that I would think it was the Junior Gun and suggested that I give it to Stephanie Falkner.”

  “And by so doing apparently accounted for the discharged shell in the cylinder of the gun, and also at the same time sought to establish the fact that the murder gun, Exhibit 30, had been in your possession during the time the murder had been committed? Is that right?”

  “Objected to as argumentative,” Mason said, “and I assign the asking of the question as misconduct.”

  “The objection is well taken,” Judge Decker said, “and the district attorney is admonished to refrain from such questions. That is purely argumentative and calls for a conclusion of the witness as to what happened. The jurors will disregard the question and will not draw any inference from it. Now proceed, Mr. District Attorney, and please ask questions which are within the scope of the issues and are proper.”

  Hamilton Burger flushed at the rebuke of the Court, turned to Perry Mason and said, “Cross-examine.”

  Mason said, “You have testified that I substituted this murder gun, Exhibit 30, for the Junior Gun which you had given me?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Did you see me do that?”

  “Certainly not. You did it when you had created so much excitement through the discharge of the Junior Gun that you were able to do it without anyone seeing you.”

  “Then how do you know I did it if you didn’t see me do it?”

  “It is a matter of simply putting two and two together.”

  “In other words, you have reached a conclusion in your own mind as to what must have happened?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Then you are testifying not as to any fact concerning which you know, but only as to a conclusion which you have drawn from certain facts?”

  “From certain inescapable facts,” Garvin said.

  “But nevertheless your testimony concerning the substitution of the gun is a conclusion?”

  “A conclusion based on inescapable facts.”

  Mason smiled at the frowning judge and said, “Your Honor, I move to strike out the evidence of this witness in regard to the substitution of the guns on the ground that it is a conclusion.”

  “The motion is granted,” Judge Decker snapped. “It should be quite apparent that the district attorney must have been familiar with the testimony of this witness and must have known that the witness’s testimony was based on a conclusion.”

  “Just a moment, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said. “I think the Court is being unduly harsh with the prosecution on this matter. If the Court will permit me, I will again examine this witness and establish facts which, as the witness has stated, are irrefutable. They lead to an inescapable conclusion.”

  “Let the jurors draw that conclusion then,” Judge Decker said. “Don’t put on witnesses who will testify as an absolute fact to conclusions which they have drawn.”

  Hamilton Burger, his face flushed, turned to the witness. “You have stated that you gave Mr. Mason a gun?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “You have stated that it was not this gun, the murder weapon, Exhibit Number 30, but the gun we are referring to as the Junior Gun, is that right?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “How do you know the Junior Gun which you gave him was not the murder weapon, Exhibit 30?”

  “I know it was not because the evidence shows that this gun which I am holding in my hand was used to kill George Casselman on the evening of October seventh of this year. It was absolutely impossible for the Junior Gun which I gave Mr. Mason to have been so used.”

  “Why was it impossible?”

  “Objected to,” Mason said, “as being an attempt to cross-examine the prosecution’s own witness. I move to strike out the statement that it was impossible that the gun he handed me could have been the murder weapon on the ground that that is a conclusion of the witness and is not responsive to the question.”

  “The motion is granted,” Judge Decker snapped.

  “But, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger protested, “I certainly am entitled to show …”

  “You are entitled to show facts, and nothing but facts.”

  “Very well,” Hamilton Burger said. “You gave Mr. Mason a gun?”

  “Yes, sir. I gave him the weapon we are designating as the Junior Gun.”

  “Where did you get the gun?”

  “From a drawer in my desk.”

  “Where did you get the gun before that?”

  “From my father. He gave it to me.”

  “When?”

  “Sometime around last Christmas. I think it was a Christmas present.”

  “Where was that gun on October seventh?”

  “In my possession.”

  “During all of the time on October seventh?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What did you do with that gun?”

  “I gave it to Perry Mason.”

  “And what did Perry Mason do with it?”

  “He discharged it.”

  “And then what happened?”

  “Then Mr. Mason handed me a gun and suggested I take that to Stephanie Falkner.”

  “Was that the same gun you handed Mr. Mason?”

  “No.”

  “Now just a moment,” Judge Decker said. “You have drawn the conclusion that it could not have been the gun? Isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “The answer will be stricken. The prosecution will kindly refrain from leading this witness into a position where an opinion or a conclusion is offered as evidence. Now just state the facts.”

  “Very well, I had this gun in my possession. I gave it to Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason fired the gun. Then he handed me back a gun, and asked me to deliver that gun to Stephanie Falkner. I did.”

  “What did she do with the gun?”

  “She placed it on a table in the living room in her apartment.”

  “Then what did you do?”

  “Then Mr. Mason and I left the apartment.”

  “Then what happened?”

  “As we started across the lobby, we saw two officers entering the apartment house.”

  “Do you know those officers?”

  “I do now. I didn’t then.”

  “What were their names?”

  “Sergeant Holcomb and Lieutenant Tragg.”

  “Now the gun that you gave Mr. Mason had been in your possession, you say, all during the seventh of October of this year?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said triumphantly to Perry Mason.

  Mason arose to his feet, faced the witness. “You say that the gun you gave me had been in your possession all of the seventh of October?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “You had been out to lunch?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Did you take the gun with you?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Where was it?”

  “In my desk drawer.”

  “Was the desk locked?”

  “No, sir.”

  “You consider that that was being in your possession?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Where were you on the evening of October seventh?”

  “I was calling on a customer about a car deal.”

  “Did you have the gun with you?”

  “The gun was in my desk.”

  “When did you take it out of your desk?”

  “After the conference was over. I returned to my office, took some cash out of the safe, and slipped the gun into my pocket.”

  “And then took it home?”

  “Yes.”

  “What time was it that you took it home?”

  “About nine-thirty or ten o’clock, as nearly as I can judge.”

  “You had recently been married?”

  “Yes.”

  “Did you keep the gun in your pocket after you got home?”

  “No, sir. I took it upstairs and put it on the dresser.”

  “What time did you go to bed that night?”

  “About half an hour after I got home.”

  “What did you do with the gun?”

  “I left it on the dresser.”

  “Was your office locked on the evening of the seventh of October?”

  “Yes.”

  “Who has a key to that office?”

  “I have a key. My father has a key, my secretary has a key, and the janitor has a key.”

  “Did your wife have a key?”

  The witness hesitated, then said in a surly voice, “Yes, my wife had a key.”

  “And what did you do when you got up the next morning?”

  “I dressed and had breakfast, I shaved, I cleaned my teeth,” the witness all but shouted in his anger.

  “And then what?”

  “Then I went to my office.”

  “And did you take the gun with you?”

  The witness started to say something, then suddenly stopped, checked himself, thought for a moment, said, “I—As a matter of fact, I did not.”

  “What did you do with that gun, the one we have been referring to as the Junior Gun?”

  “I left it on the dresser in my house.”

  “And then?” Mason asked.

  “Then my wife telephoned and I asked her to bring the gun to me.”

  “So,” Mason said, “you assume that the gun which you handed me was the same gun which you took home on the night of October seventh. Is that right?”

  “There was only one gun. My wife took it off the dresser.”

  “How do you know she took it off the dresser?”

  “Well, why … of course, I wasn’t there.”

  “Exactly,” Mason said. “So for all you know you may have handed me the murder weapon which could have been given you by your wife.”

  The witness jumped from the stand.

  “That’s a lie! I resent that!!!”

  “Sit down,” Judge Decker said. “The witness will sit down and remain in order.”

  Hamilton Burger said, “If the Court please, that last question was argumentative, it was not proper cross-examination, it contained a dastardly insinuation, it …”

  “And as far as this witness knows,” Judge Decker said, “it is true. The witness may resent it if he likes, but Mr. Mason is representing a defendant in a murder case. The objection is overruled.”

  “Now then, if the Court please,” Mason said, “I again move to strike out all of the evidence in this case concerning the identity of the gun which was handed me by the defendant because it is now apparent that the entire testimony was based on hearsay testimony.”

  “I’ll connect it up! I’ll connect it up,” Hamilton Burger shouted.

  “How will you connect it up?” Judge Decker asked.

  “By putting the wife of this witness on the stand.”

  Judge Decker shook his head. “The jurors will be permitted to consider the testimony of this witness insofar as it relates to what the witness did. But as far as the identity of the weapon which was handed Mr. Mason is concerned, it now appears that all testimony along that line was founded upon hearsay evidence and it will go out.”

  Judge Decker turned to the discomfited district attorney. “Now, Mr. Prosecutor,” he said, “if the Court might make a suggestion, it would seem that a bullet was fired from whatever weapon Mr. Mason had in his hand. That bullet certainly didn’t fade into thin air. You have a ballistic expert here who has testified, and test bullets have been fired from this gun which is Exhibit 30. It would certainly seem to the Court that there would be no great difficulty in demonstrating whether the weapon which was discharged either accidentally or otherwise by Mr. Perry Mason at that time was Exhibit 30, or was some other weapon.”

  “We can’t prove it, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “Why not?” Judge Decker asked.

  “Because someone took that bullet as a souvenir.”

  “Didn’t the police take it?” Judge Decker asked sharply.

  “No, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “Very well,” Judge Decker snapped, “you can’t penalize the defendant in this case because of the negligence of the police. The ruling of the Court will stand.”

  “I have no further questions of this witness,” Mason said affably.

  “You may leave the witness stand,” Judge Decker said. “That’s all, Mr. Garvin.”

  Garvin, his face livid, passed close to Perry Mason on his way from the courtroom. “I’ll kill you for this,” he said under his breath as he walked past the lawyer.

  “Just a moment, Your Honor,” Mason said. “I do have one more question of this witness. Will you please return to the stand, Mr. Garvin?”

  Garvin hesitated.

  “Return to the stand,” Judge Decker ordered.

  Garvin retraced his steps to the stand.

  “As you were just about to leave the courtroom, and as you walked past me just now,” Mason said, “you said something to me. What was it?”

  “Oh, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said. “I object. This is no part of the case. Whatever the witness’s personal feelings toward Perry Mason may have been, they certainly can’t affect the prosecution. I will confess that I have been and am very exasperated over the manner in which this entire hocus-pocus was handled.”

  “Your feelings don’t enter into it,” Judge Decker said. “You’re not on the stand. The defense has every right to prove any bias on the part of the witness.”