Erle Gardner: The Case of the Shoplifter's Shoe

“I did.”

“And what name was it?”

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Sampson said. “Also, it’s hearsay. It makes no difference what name she was going under.”

“Sustained,” Judge Barnes ruled.

Mason frowned, as though in annoyance. Mason said, “I’ll try and get at it this way, Mr. Drake. Was there a person living in that apartment house known as Pete Chennery?”

“Yes, sir.”

“In what apartment did he live?”

“In apartment three-fourteen,” Drake said, before Sampson could object.

Sampson said, “Your Honor, I object to this. I move to strike out the answer until I have an opportunity to interpose an objection. I object on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, that it has nothing whatever to do with the present case.”

“I think the objection is well taken,” Judge Barnes said, “unless you can show some theory on which it would be admissible.”

Mason said irritably, “If the district attorney’s office will keep from throwing legal monkey wrenches into the machinery, I expect to show that Pete Chennery murdered Austin Cullens. I expect to show it by proof which...”

“That will do, Mr. Mason,” Judge Barnes interrupted. “You have no call to refer to Counsel as throwing legal monkey wrenches into the machinery. Counsel has interposed objections which, so far, the Court has deemed to be well taken. The Court has asked you only to explain why you consider this evidence relevant.”

“I will connect it up,” Mason said. “I will connect it up by proving that this defendant couldn’t have killed Austin Cullens because Pete Chennery did.”

Judge Barnes said, “This is a very unusual procedure.”

“It’s a very unusual case,” Mason said.

“For the moment, I will overrule the objection,” Judge Barnes said, “but will strike out so much of the answer as relating to the apartment where Pete Chennery lived. There is no evidence connecting Pete Chennery with Lone Bedford.”

“There is no evidence,” Mason said, “because the Prosecution won’t allow us to introduce that evidence.”

“The Prosecution has nothing to do with it,” Judge Barnes said. “It is the Court which is controlling the order of proof, you will proceed, Mr. Mason, and confine your remarks to the Court.”

“Very well,” Mason said. “I will ask you, Mr. Drake, whether or not you took, or caused to be taken under your supervision, photographs of latent fingerprints in the house in which Austin Cullens lived.”

“I did,”

“I will ask you whether you secured photographs of the finger-prints of Pete Chennery.”

Drake said, “I entered the apartment where he had been living. I developed latent fingerprints. I found there the fingerprints of a man which I assume were those of Pete Chennery because they were the only fingerprints which I found in any number in the apartment occupied by Pete Chennery.”

“Who was with you when you took these prints, Mr. Drake?”

“Sergeant Holcomb.”

“From those fingerprints, did you ascertain whether Pete Chennery had a criminal record?” Mason asked.

“I object to that,” Sampson said, “as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial on the further ground that no proper foundation has been laid, and as assuming a fact not in evidence. The witness himself has admitted that he doesn’t know that the fingerprints were those of Pete Chennery.”

Mason glanced up inquiringly at Judge Barnes.

Judge Barnes said, “The objection is sustained. After all, the question before the Court in this case is whether this defendant killed Austin Cullens. Within reasonable limitations, any evidence tending to prove that Cullens met his death at the hands of some other person is, of course, proper, but there must be limits to that, and the evidence must be adduced in proper form.”

“Of course, Your Honor,” Mason pointed out urbanely, “I’am but a private practicing attorney. This man is a private detective. We, neither of us, have available the facilities which are at the command of the district attorney’s office for making complete investigations.”

“I fully understand that,” Judge Barnes said, “but that is something which doesn’t concern this Court. This Court is only concerned with having evidence pertinent, proper, and admissible. What this witness may have assumed to be the case isn’t binding on the Prosecution.”

Mason said, “Well, perhaps I can get at it in another way. I’ll withdraw this witness temporarily and ask that Sergeant Holcomb be called as a witness for the Defense.”

Sergeant Holcomb came belligerently forward, his manner all too plainly indicating that he certainly didn’t intend to be of any assistance to the Defense.

“I will ask you,” Mason said, “if you have located the owner of the jewelry which was found in the bag which it is claimed belonged to the defendant in this case.”

“Objected to,” Sampson said, “as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It makes no difference who owned the jewelry.”

“But,” Mason said, “I thought it was the contention of the Prosecution that this jewelry had been taken from a chamois-skin belt found on the body of the decedent.”

“There is no such contention,” Sampson said. “The photograph of the body shows the position of the chamois-skin belt and its condition, but beyond a necessary inference, we have made no claim that...”

“I think the necessary inference is there,” Judge Barnes ruled. “The witness sought to make that inference even more pointed. I’m going to permit this question to be answered. Have you ascertained the owner of that jewelry, Sergeant Holcomb?”

“We have,” Sergeant Holcomb said sullenly.

“That jewelry had been stolen?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“From someone in New Orleans?”

“That’s right.”

“And an insurance company had offered a reward for the recovery of it?”

“Yes,” Sergeant Holcomb said shortly.

“And you, as one of the discoverers, have claimed a part of that reward?”

“Yes.”

“How much of the reward?”

“Objection to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” Sampson said. “It doesn’t go to show the interest or bias of the witness — in this case in the least.”

“Sustained,” Judge Barnes ruled.

Once more, Mason appeared nettled. “When you examined the premises, Sergeant,” he said, “immediately following the discovery of Mr. Cullens’ body, you found that a fuse had been blown out.”

“That’s right.”

“And did you ascertain what had caused the blowing out of that fuse?”

“Yes. An electric light globe had been unscrewed from one of the sockets. A copper penny had been inserted in the socket, and then the globe had been screwed back in. As soon as the electric switch was turned on, the fuse blew out.”

“Now then,” Mason asked, “did you test that copper penny for latent fingerprints?”

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

Judge Barnes frowned, then looked down at Sampson. “Is it,” he asked, “the position of the Prosecutor’s office that the defendant is not to have the advantage of any evidence uncovered by the police which may have indicated the crime was committed by some other person?”

Sampson said, “If the Court please, it’s the position of the Prosecutor’s office that we don’t want the issues clouded. There is absolutely no evidence in the case as it now stands tending to show that any person other than the defendant entered that house.”

“But, as I understand it,” Judge Barnes said, “it was your position at the time of your opening statement that robbery had been a motive and...”