Erle Gardner - The Case of the Shoplifter's Shoe

“I did. About eight o’clock.”

“And who was with you, if anyone?”

“Miss Eva Tannis.”

“And what did you do?”

“We drove to the ninety-one hundred block on St. Rupert Boulevard. Miss Tannis was driving the automobile. She parked at the curb in front of Mr. Cullens’ house.”

“You could see the house at that time?”

“Yes, of course.”

“Were there any lights in the house?”

“Not at that time, no.”

“Then what happened?”

“I was just about to get out of the car, when I saw some lights on the windows. My wife — Miss Tannis thought it was a flashlight...”

“Never mind what anyone else thought,” Sampson said hastily- “Just what did you see yourself, Mr. Golding?”

“I saw a flicker of light on the window. I saw that on two or three occasions; then I heard two shots; then I saw a woman run out of the front door of the house, and run toward my automobile.”

“Did you recognize that woman?”

“I did.”

“Who was she?”

Amidst a silence in which a pin could have been heard to drop, Golding raised a dramatic forefinger and pointed it at Sarah Breel. “She was the defendant in this case,” he said.

“The woman sitting there?” Sampson asked.

“Yes.”

“What did she do?”

“She ran toward my automobile. Miss Tannis said that...”

“Never mind what anyone else said,” Sampson interrupted. “What did you do, if anything?”

“I sat in the car while Miss Tannis drove it away.”

“Where was the defendant when you last saw her?”

“About six feet from the curb, running toward the street.”

“Running rapidly?”

“Yes.”

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

“Why did you and Miss Tannis drive away so hurriedly?” Mason asked.

“Because we didn’t want to see Mrs. Breel.”

“And you didn’t want Mrs. Breel to see you?”

“No.”

“Why?”

“Simply because I wanted to see Mr. Cullens without having anyone else present.”

“You operate a gambling establishment in connection with your restaurant?” Mason asked.

Sampson was on his feet. “Your Honor,” he said, “that is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. It is improper cross-examination it is an attempt to discredit the witness in the eyes of the jury by submitting him to...”

“The objection is sustained,” Judge Barnes interrupted to rule.

Mason smiled, and said, “I’ll reframe the question. Your Honor. Mr. Golding, isn’t it a fact that earlier in the evening Mr. Cullens had advised you that George Trent had pledged certain diamonds with you to cover a financial loss which he had incurred at the gambling tables in your establishment at The Golden Platter?”

“Your Honor,” Sampson said, “I object to this question, and I assign the asking of it as misconduct. I suggest that counsel be admonished by the Court. The Court has already ruled that...”

“The Court has ruled nothing of the sort,” Judge Barnes said. “The first question might have been considered as an attempt to embarrass the witness by casting reflections upon his character in connection with an extraneous matter. As the present question is worded, it relates entirely to a conversation which took place between Mr. Cullens and this witness on the night of the murder. The witness has already testified that he saw Cullens at that time, and counsel has a right on cross-examination to go into what was said, insofar as it may have any bearing on the present case. The objection is overruled, the witness will answer the question.”

Sampson slowly sat down. Golding, with his face calmly expressionless, said, “That is substantially correct, sir.”

“And George Trent had lost money over your gambling tables at The Golden Platter?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And had pledged certain diamonds as collateral, in order to secure his gambling debt with you?”

“No, sir.”

“He hadn’t?”

“No, sir, he hadn’t.”

“Do I understand that you had not received any diamonds whatever from Mr. Trent, pledged as collateral security for gambling losses?”

“No, sir.”

“Or for any other losses?”

“No, sir.”

“Or to cover any loans?”

“No, sir.”

“Or any indebtedness of any sort?”

“No, sir.”

“Are you certain that you didn’t enter the residence of Austin Cullens at St. Rupert Boulevard?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You had only parked the car at the curb, and hadn’t left the car?”

“That’s right.”

“Are you certain that the bag, which was found lying on the street about where your car was parked, hadn’t been tossed from your car?”

“It had not.”

“And the gun, which the witness, Diggers, has testified about, wasn’t that in your possession at some time during the evening in question?”

“It was not.”

“And you didn’t drop it or throw it from your sedan?”

“No, sir.”

“Nor did Miss Tannis?”

“No, sir.”

“But,” Mason said, eyeing him steadily, “you were, by your own admission, on St. Rupert Boulevard, within a few feet of the house in which Austin Cullens resided, on the night of the murder. You were there at a time when you heard two shots fired, which sounds apparently came from the house?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you are unable to give any explanation as to what you were doing there, other than the statement which you have just made to this jury?”

“That’s right.”

“And your car was a blue sedan with a crumpled rear fender?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you knew that the witness, Diggers, had told the police about seeing such a car parked there at the curb the night of the murder?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you immediately got rid of that car?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Why?”

“Because I didn’t want to be called as a witness.”

“Why not?”

“I wanted to keep out of the whole business. I’m a gambler. I knew that would be brought out somehow. You’ve done it now. That’s going to ruin my business. I’ll be closed up.”

“Your desire to keep out of it wasn’t because you were mixed up in the murder itself?”

“No, sir.”

Mason said, “That’s all.”

“Call Sergeant Holcomb,” Sampson said.

Sergeant Holcomb came striding to the witness stand. His manner clearly indicated that he had a sneering contempt for the defendant and her counsel. He was a man who knew what he was going to testify to, and didn’t intend to let any attorney confuse him. He was sworn and gave his name, address and occupation to the court reporter. He sat down in the witness chair and crossed his legs, after the manner of one who is thoroughly at his ease, amid familiar surroundings. He glanced at Larry Sampson, and his manner said very plainly, “All right, young man, go ahead.”

Sampson started building up his case with Sergeant Holcomb. The Sergeant testified to finding the body of Austin Cullens, testified to the presence of Perry Mason and Paul Drake, a private detective, at the scene of the crime, to the copper coin in the light socket. One by one, he identified photographs showing the room, the body, the red smears leading from the body to the corridor. Later on, Sampson would use those photographs with telling effect. He’d compare the size and shape of the stains in the corridor with the size and shape of the stains on the sole of Mrs. Breel’s left shoe. Right now, he wanted to get the evidence in, and minimize the effect of it as much as possible so that he could crash it home to the jury with dramatic force. And so, the long line of photographs were identified and received in evidence. Then he brought up the fatal bullet.