Erle Gardner - The Case of the Borrowed Brunette

“Then why ask her if she had given the deceased permission to occupy her apartment?” Mason asked.

“It shows why he was there.”

“Exactly,” Mason said. “That is what I’m trying to show — why he was there.”

“I didn’t mean it that way, Your Honor,” Gulling said.

Mason said, “I did, Your Honor.”

“If the Court please,” Gulling exclaimed angrily, “I don’t want to have all these extraneous matters dragged into this case. If Mr. Mason has any defense he wishes to produce, he is at perfect liberty to do so. But, so far as my case is concerned, I merely want to show the identity of the dead man, the manner in which he met his death, and the fact that there is more than a probability that these defendants brought about that death in a deliberate, cold-blooded manner and for the purpose of perpetrating a theft.”

“Then by all means,” Mason said, “the court should know the reason why the defendants were in the apartment, and the reason why Hines was in the apartment.”

“As a part of your case, if you want — not as a part of mine,” Gulling snorted.

“Perhaps,” Mason said, “I can clear up the situation by pointing out to the Court that the witness has been asked about the permission she gave Hines to occupy her apartment. If that permission was in writing, then the writing itself is the best evidence and should be introduced. If the permission was oral, then — under a well-established rule of law — when the prosecution introduces a part of a conversation I have a right to introduce it all.”

Gulling was unmistakably angry now. “We’ll be here all winter, Your Honor, if all these minor matters are going to be dragged into the case.”

“I don’t think it’s exactly a minor matter,” Judge Lindale ruled. “I would have said that it was part of the defendant’s case, were it not that the witness has been asked about something that obviously was a conversation. I will rule that if this was a part of the conversation, counsel has a right to show all of the conversation on cross-examination. I would suggest you reframe your question, Mr. Mason.”

“Very well,” Mason said. Turning to the witness, he smiled. “You have stated that you gave Robert Hines permission to occupy your apartment?”

“Yes, sir.”

“That was in a conversation?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What else was said in that conversation?”

“Your Honor, I object to that,” Gulling said. “It is a blanket question — it calls for everything.”

“Exactly,” Mason said.

“Overruled.”

“Answer the question, Mrs. Reedley.”

Helen Reedley chose her words carefully, trying desperately to betray as few of the facts as possible. “I don’t remember the entire conversation. We had several conversations on the subject. But at the time when I gave Mr. Hines permission to occupy my apartment—”

“And if the court please,” Gulling interrupted, “it’s only that one conversation that we are interested in. Any earlier conversations or negotiations looking toward the giving of that permission must be brought out elsewhere. On cross-examination, all that may be brought out is what was said at that one conversation.”

“That is correct so far as the present ruling of the Court is concerned,” Judge Lindale said.

“Well, at that one conversation,” Helen Reedley said, “I told Mr. Hines he could occupy my apartment. I gave him a key to it, and we arranged that he would relay any telephone calls to me. In other words, if any telephone calls from my friends were received at that apartment, they would be relayed to Mr. Hines, who would in turn pass them on to me.”

“Anything else you can think of?” Mason asked.

“Not at that conversation,” she said. “No.”

“Any conversation about getting two women to occupy the apartment?”

“It was understood that Mr. Hines was to get someone to occupy the apartment.”

“To take your place?”

“Not exactly.”

“To use your name?”

“Well, yes.”

Mason said, “I’ll show you an advertisement that was published in a theatrical paper, and ask you if you consulted Mr. Hines about inserting it.”

“In that particular conversation,” Gulling amended.

“That’s right — in that particular conversation.”

“No, that was done by Mr. Hines without consulting me,” Helen Reedley said.

“Did you, at that conversation, have some understanding with Mr. Hines as to the type of woman who was to occupy your apartment? Specifically, that she was to be a brunette with certain definite physical characteristics?”

“Well... ”

“Yes or no?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“What were the specifications?”

“I gave him my measurements — height, weight, waist measure, and so forth.”

“Why?”

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

Judge Lindale was now plainly interested. He was leaning forward in his chair looking at the witness. “Do I understand,” he asked, “that you authorized Mr. Hines to use your apartment, that you gave him a key to your apartment, and that in addition it was arranged that he was to get a woman of your exact description to take your name and occupy your apartment?”

“Not at the conversation, if the Court please,” Gulling said. “It was the result of several conversations.”

“The court wants an answer to that one question,” Judge Lindale said. He sounded irritated.

“That was the general understanding,” Helen Reedley admitted.

“And Mr. Mason has asked this witness why that understanding was reached?”

“Yes, Your Honor,” Mason said.

“And that is what is objected to, if the Court please,” Gulling said; “because it was an understanding reached in prior conversations and did not have anything to do with this one conversation at which permission was given to occupy the apartment. If the Court please, the loophole through which the defense attorney has squirmed to bring out this matter on cross-examination is exceedingly small — an opening based on a technicality only. I feel that the opening should not be enlarged.”

“Well,” Judge Lindale said, “I think that Counsel is perhaps right — technically right. But at some stage of the proceedings the Court wants to find out why this impersonation was permitted.”

“Not an impersonation, Your Honor,” Gulling said.

“Well, what was it?” Judge Lindale said.

“It was merely a subletting of the apartment.”

“Humph!” Lindale snapped. “To a woman who had the physical appearance of the witness and who was to assume her name?”

“Well, yes, Your Honor.”

“If that isn’t an impersonation, I don’t know one when I see it,” Judge Lindale said. “However, the Court will limit the cross-examination to matters that were covered on direct examination. Proceed with your questions, Mr. Mason.”

“Now,” Mason said, “you have stated that you did not see Robert Dover Hines on the third, the day of the murder.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Are you certain of that?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where were you at twelve-thirty o’clock in the afternoon on that day?”

“I... I was at lunch.”

“Alone?”

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

Judge Lindale sighed. “Well, technically I suppose the objection may be well taken — unless it should appear that the witness lunched with the decedent Hines; and I take it, Mr. Mason, there is no contention that such was the case?”