“Here are some more questions, Della. Make a note of these. Three shots were fired from the fatal revolver. Two bullets have been found. The third bullet has not been found. In what is the third bullet embedded? And why is the third empty cartridge, the one which contained the bullet that is missing, of a different brand from the other shells in the gun?

  “Now here’s another question: Lutts got the information that connected my purchase of the stock in the Sylvan Glade Development Company with Sybil Harlan through a bank leak, but where did Enright Harlan get that information? He says Roxy got it from Mrs Doxey. Mrs Doxey denies that.”

  Mason said excitedly, “Type out that list of questions, Della. Let me have it. We’ll start considering all the various answers which will fit in with the facts. Della, we’re on the track of something!”

  His excitement reached Della Street. She jerked the cover off her typewriter, ratcheted in a sheet of paper and her fingers started flying over the keys.

  Mason, his face showing intense concentration, continued pacing the floor.

  Suddenly the lawyer reached for the telephone, dialled Paul Drake and said, “Paul, get a four-wheeled truck of the kind used by bellboys to transport baggage. Take the wheels off, remove all oil from the axles and put on some rosin or something so they’ll squeak to high heaven.

  “Pile some boards, a stool and a couple of hundred pounds of scrap iron on it, cover the whole thing with a cloth and be prepared to wheel it into court tomorrow when I give you a signal. Never mind why. Just get the stuff together.”

  And Mason was smiling as he hung up the telephone.

  Chapter Sixteen

  Judge Sedgwick frowned with obvious distaste as he surveyed the jammed courtroom.

  One of the newspaper columnists had made an analysis of Perry Mason’s strategy in the Case of the People versus Sybil Harlan, and that analysis had been so interesting, so deadly accurate that it attracted sensation-hungry spectators as honey attracts flies.

  The columnist had pointed out that Perry Mason undoubtedly had some ace up his sleeve, but also pointed out that the lawyer couldn’t be certain whether or not the district attorney would be able to trump his ace. Mason, therefore, in order to emphasize the one play that he had, was deliberately underplaying the rest of the case.

  If the lawyer had been completely without any high cards of his own, the columnist pointed out, he would necessarily have had to go into court objecting to this question and that question, moving to strike out answers as not being responsive, engaging in all of the technicalities of a person putting up a last-ditch legal fight.

  The columnist went on to point out that the house had been used as a veritable shooting gallery. The police had conducted experiments, the district attorney had conducted experiments, and there even were rumours that Perry Mason, as attorney for the defence, presumably checking some aspect of the case, had purchased a box of blank cartridges. There was, of course, no direct evidence as to what he had done with them, but readers could put two and two together.

  The defence attorney’s ace-in-the-hole was probably no part of his own case but would depend upon some masterly cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution. The last witness for the prosecution was Ezekiel Elkins, and Mason had shrewdly jockeyed the district attorney into such a position that Elkins had concluded his testimony on direct examination just as court had adjourned, so that Perry Mason would be able to start his spectacular cross-examination in the morning.

  There was, of course, the columnist pointed out, the possibility that Mason intended to recall one of the prosecution’s witnesses for further cross-examination, a strategy which had been followed quite frequently by the defence attorney. But in view of the fact that he had made virtually no objections and offered virtually no cross-examination, the possibility that be would recall a witness was, in the opinion of veteran courthouse attachés, rather unlikely.

  In any event, it was quite probable that the morning session of the court would be jam packed with fireworks.

  The Court went through the usual preliminary incidents, calling court to order, having the attorneys stipulate that the jurors were all present, that the defendant was in court. Then Judge Sedgwick glanced at the crowded courtroom. “The Court wishes to remind the spectators,” he said, “that this is a court of justice. It is not a theatre. The Court will tolerate no disturbances, no indication of public feeling in this matter. The Court will clear the courtroom if there is any violation of decorum.

  “Now then, Mr Mason, you may proceed with the cross-examination of the witness, Ezekiel Elkins. Mr Elkins, you will please resume your position on the stand.”

  Elkins settled down in the witness chair, cleared his throat, folded his hands and looked at Mason with calm, cold eyes. He had, of course, read the papers, knew what to expect, and gave every outward indication of being prepared for it.

  Mason arose to cross-examine the witness.

  “You are, or were, in a sense, a business partner of the decedent, George C Lutts?”

  “No.”

  “You were on the board of directors of the Sylvan Glade Development Company?”

  “Yes.”

  “You still are?”

  “Yes.”

  “You attended the meeting of the directors on the third of June of this year?”

  “Yes.”

  “At that meeting Mr Lutts announced that he had sold his holdings in the corporation?”

  “Yes.”

  “There had been an agreement among the directors that if anyone should desire to dispose of his holdings in the company, he would first give the other directors an opportunity to buy the stock?”

  “Yes.”

  “That agreement had not been reduced to writing?”

  “No.”

  “You resented the fact that Mr Lutts had sold his stock in violation of that agreement?”

  “No.”

  “Didn’t you say at the directors’ meeting that you thought it was a breach of the agreement?”

  “Yes.”

  “But you didn’t resent it?”

  “No.”

  Mason smiled at the witness. “You finished giving your direct testimony yesterday, Mr Elkins.”

  “Yes.”

  “Where were you last night?”

  “Oh, Your Honour,” Hamilton Burger said, “this is not proper cross-examination. It’s incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It’s an attempt to pry into the private affairs of the witness.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Sedgwick snapped.

  “Were you closeted with the district attorney for more than two hours last night?” Mason asked.

  Sedgwick glanced at the district attorney.

  “Your Honour, Your Honour,” Hamilton Burger said, “it’s incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It’s not proper cross-examination. If counsel is interested, I will admit that I talked with Mr Elkins last night. He had already given his direct testimony, and I wanted certain matters cleared up. There’s nothing illegal about a district attorney talking with his own witness.”

  Mason said, “I submit, Your Honour, that the objection by the district attorney was not made in good faith but was simply a framework which enabled him to make the statement he did for the purpose of influencing the jury.”

  “I resent that,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “The objection is overruled. The witness will answer the question. Counsel will refrain from personalities,” Judge Sedgwick said.

  “What was the question?” the witness asked.

  The court reporter read the question, “Were you closeted with the district attorney for more than two hours last night?”

  “No,” Elkins said.

  Mason smiled, “You mean you weren’t with him for as long as two hours?”

  “No.”

  “You were with him for two hours?”

  “Yes.”

  “More than that?”

  “Yes.”

  “As much as three hours?”

  “Yes.”

  “More than three hours?”

  “No.”

  Then Mason said, now sure of his ground, “What did you mean by saying that you weren’t closeted with the district attorney last night?”

  “We weren’t in a closet,” Elkins said.

  A ripple of laughter in the courtroom was silenced by the frowning of the judge.

  “I see,” Mason said. “Now, at the session with the district attorney which took place in his office rather than in a closet, you discussed your cross-examination and what you would say on the witness stand.”

  The witness fidgeted.

  Hamilton Burger, on his feet, said, “I certainly discussed his position as a witness and told him that he could expect, a most gruelling, desperate, last-ditch–”

  “That will do, Mr District Attorney. Sit down,” Judge Sedgwick said. “The witness is being interrogated, not the district attorney.”

  “Yes, Your Honour.”

  “We talked about many things,” Elkins said.

  “And isn’t it a fact,” Mason went on, “that your answers of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to my questions are because the district attorney warned you, in substance, that you might get into trouble if you volunteered any information or gave full answers; didn’t he say to you in effect that the way to confuse Perry Mason would be to listen to the questions with the utmost care and then answer them in the fewest possible words – answer yes or no wherever it was possible to do so?”

  Elkins, for the first time, lowered his eyes. He cleared his throat, glanced at the district attorney.

  Judge Sedgwick was also looking at the district attorney.

  Hamilton Burger started to get to his feet, then changed his mind and remained seated.

  “Can’t you answer that question?” Mason asked.

  “Well, he did say something like that,” Elkins admitted.

  “So,” Mason said, “this policy of yours of answering questions in the fewest possible words was suggested to you by the district attorney at a conference last night?”

  “I can answer questions any way I want to.”

  “Certainly,” Mason said, “certainly. But I am pointing out to you that this pattern of answering questions in the fewest possible words was suggested to you by the district attorney last night.”

  “We discussed it, yes.”

  “I am pointing out to you,” Mason said, “that this pattern of answering questions in the fewest possible words was suggested to you by the district attorney last night, was it not?”

  “Yes.”

  “And the district attorney told you that that would be the most sure way to confuse me in my cross-examination, didn’t he?”

  “He said that it would be the best defence I had.”

  “Best defence?” Mason said.

  “Yes.”

  “What do you have to defend yourself against?” Mason asked.

  “I have to support my testimony.”

  “In other words, having told a story you’re going to stand by it?”

  “It was the truth.”

  “So, you and the district attorney conspired last night to try and confuse me, so that you could support, at all costs, the story you had told.”

  “Oh, Your Honour,” Hamilton Burger said, “I should not be forced to sit through this. I have been rebuked by the Court for one of my objections, but I must insist that this use of the word ‘conspired’ is a definite distortion. I submit that this question has already been asked and answered in effect, that it is argumentative and not proper cross-examination. Counsel has made his point, and now he is arguing with the witness.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Sedgwick said. “I think you have covered this phase of the case, Mr Mason. Let’s get on with the cross-examination.”

  “Very well, Your Honour,” Mason said. He turned to the witness. “Now, you felt after you left that directors’ meeting that there was some move afoot in connection with the Sylvan Glade Development Company about which Lutts had information that you didn’t, isn’t that right, Mr Elkins?”

  “Quite naturally. I knew that if Lutts had received an offer at anywhere near the book value of the stock, he would have communicated with the others … so, I surmised … I will answer your question by simply saying yes.”

  Mason said, “Now, Mr Elkins, you and I will get along a lot better if you follow your own inclination, rather than remembering what the district attorney told you – to answer in as few words as possible.”

  Hamilton Burger said, “I submit, Your Honour, that the witness has a right to answer the questions in any way he sees fit.”

  “I am asking for legitimate information, Your Honour,” Mason said, “information to which the jury is entitled and to which my client is entitled. I am perfectly willing to agree that the witness may answer the questions any way he wants to, just so he answers the questions truthfully and completely. But I am pointing out to the witness that if he follows the habit of answering yes and no and answering in the fewest possible words, he is going to be on the stand a far longer time, and, in view of the circumstances and in view of the admission of the witness that these tactics were worked out in the district attorney’s office for the purpose of confusing me, I insist that I be given an opportunity to conduct a most searching cross-examination.”

  “You don’t need to make statements of that sort to the Court, Mr Mason,” Judge Sedgwick said. “No one is seeking to curtail your cross-examination. I may state that the Court understands the situation here and is going to give you the widest latitude in connection with your cross-examination. Now go ahead and cross-examine the witness.”

  “And,” Mason said, turning to Elkins, “you felt that the reason Lutts had not given the other directors the opportunity to buy his stock at the price he had been offered was that that price was so large he wanted to accept the offer before it could be withdrawn. That’s substantially what you thought?”

  “Yes.”

  “If there had been any such peculiar development in connection with the stock of the company, you wanted to get in on it, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “You decided to shadow Mr Lutts?”

  “I’ve already stated that.”

  “You made some considerable effort to see that your shadowing was unnoticed?”

  “Yes.”

  “Specifically, what did you do?”

  “Just what your question insinuated. I did everything I could to remain inconspicuous.”

  “You stayed in the office of the company while Mr Lutts was in there?”

  “Mr Lutts was in his private office. I stayed in the office of the company, yes.”

  “Could you see into Lutts’ office?”

  “Well, there was a frosted glass partition. I could see vague silhouettes.”

  “And then what?”

  “Then Regerson Neffs, another director in the company, entered the office and remained with Mr Lutts for a while.”

  “And then what?”

  “Then Mr Neffs went out.”

  “And what were you doing during this time?”

  “I pretended to be writing some memo on the stationery of the corporation.”

  “That was just a blind?”

  “Yes.”

  “So you could keep an eye on Mr Lutts?”

  “Yes.”

  “And what happened after Mr Neffs went out?”

  “Mr Lutts went into the office of his son-in-law, Herbert Doxey, who is the secretary of the corporation. He was holding some papers in his hand. As soon as he saw me sitting in that outer office, he hurriedly moved his hands so as to conceal the papers.”

  “And that gave you an idea that he might have been holding a duly endorsed certificate of stock?”

  “Yes.”

  “In other words, he was buying stock from Neffs, is that right?”

  “That’s what I surmised.”

  “So then what did you do?”

  “I thought perhaps I had aroused his suspicions. I went out to my car and parked it where I could see the entrance to the office.”

  “And you waited there until Lutts came out?”

  “Yes.”

  “He came out with Doxey?”

  “About three-five. They drove to a restaurant not too far away, where we sometimes eat, and I could see from the way Lutts ordered and ate that he was in very much of a hurry.”

  “What else did you notice?”

  “While there, he placed a telephone call.”

  “Made it or received it?”

  “Placed it. He went to the telephone booth. He was there for some time; then he came back.”

  “Do you know how many calls he made?”

  “One.”

  “Do you know whom he called?”

  “No. I could see his hand when he dialled the number, but I couldn’t see what number it was.”

  “You’re certain that he made only the one call?”

  “Yes.’’

  “You were watching him all the time?”

  “Yes.”

  “He received no call?”

  “No.”

  “What happened after he had completed his call?”

  “He bolted his lunch in very much of a hurry.”

  “Then what?”

  “Then Mr Lutts came out, apparently gave Doxey some last-minute instructions and got in his car.”

  “And you followed?”

  “I followed.”

  “And went where?”

  “I followed him to the beauty shop, where I waited until Mrs Harlan, the defendant in this case, came out.”

  Mason stood for a moment, regarding the witness in frowning concentration. “You then followed Lutts and the defendant out to a place near the turn-off to the property of the Sylvan Glade Development Company?”

  “Yes, sir. First, of course, there was that stop at the parking lot which I have testified to.”

  “And then you had this altercation and turned back?”

  “Yes.”

  “So then you had one eye swollen and you had lost track of Lutts and the defendant. You thought you knew where they were going, so you turned around and went back home?”

  “Not directly home.”