Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Daring Divorcee

“Yes.”

“What is the name of this secretary?”

“Rosalie Blackburn.”

“What did you tell her over the telephone?”

“I told her to go to my locker, after getting a key from my desk, to take my golf clubs out of my golf bag, to turn it upside down and she would find a package wrapped in paper in the golf bag, that she was to bring me that package.”

“To Mr. Mason’s office?”

“Yes.”

“And she did this?”

“I don’t know.”

“What do you mean, you don’t know?”

“I don’t know whether she did what I had told her to or not.”

“You do know that she appeared at Mason’s office with package, do you not?”

“Yes.”

“That was the same package which you had put in the golf bag?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, it contained the same article you had put in there, didn’t it?”

“I don’t know.”

“What do you mean, you don’t know?”

“I took no means of identifying the article which was in there.”

“That article was a gun, wasn’t it?”

“The package I put in there contained a gun, yes.”

“And that was the same gun you had taken from Mr. Mason’s office, wasn’t it?”

“I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer might incriminate me.”

“But you admit you put a package in your golf bag?”

“Yes.”

“And that package contained a gun.”

“Yes.”

“And that package was taken out of the golf bag by your secretary?”

“Objected to,” Mason said, “as calling for a conclusion of the witness.”

“Sustained.”

“But you did instruct your secretary to take the package from the golf bag.”

“Yes.”

“And bring it to Mr. Mason’s office.”

“Yes.”

“And she did so?”

“I don’t know.”

“Weren’t you there? Didn’t she deliver the package to you?”

“She delivered a package to me, but I have no way of knowing whether it was the same package that I put in the golf bag. I will add by way of explanation that I had taken steps to identify the contents of that package by carefully sealing the paper and affixing a label to the outside identifying the contents of the package. When the package was delivered to me the seals had been cut, the package had been opened, and I have no way of knowing whether the contents of the package had been substituted.”

“The article that you put in the package was a gun, was it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“A thirty-eight-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And that was the same gun you got from Mr. Mason’s office?”

“I refuse to answer on the ground that to do so may incriminate me.”

“All right. Now, we’ll go back to your meeting with the defendant. Isn’t it a fact that your trip to Mr. Mason’s office was inspired by something the defendant had told you?”

The witness hesitated.

“Well,” Ellis pressed, “isn’t that a fact? Go on, answer the question.”

“I refuse to answer on the ground that to do so may incriminate me.”

“Now, if the Court please,” Ellis said, “it is quite apparent that the witness is attempting to hide behind his constitutional rights and is availing himself of them when there is no legal reason for him to do so. It may be perfectly proper for him to refuse to commit himself in connection with a burglary of Mr. Mason’s office, but as far as his conversation with the defendant is concerned, it was not a privileged conversation and there was certainly nothing that would incriminate him in relating that conversation.”

“May I be heard?” Mason asked.

“Certainly,” Judge Fallon said.

“If it should appear,” Mason said, “that the defendant and this witness conspired to get some evidence from my office, then the taking of the gun would be an overt act which would make him guilty of a separate crime, the crime of criminal conspiracy. Taking the gun is one thing, conspiring to take it is another. They are both crimes.”

“That’s splitting hairs,” Ellis said.

“No, it isn’t,” Mason said. “Whenever you people draw up an information or a complaint against a person you put in just as many counts as you can think of. You put in a count of criminal conspiracy and you put in a count of the criminal act. Then you try to talk a jury into returning a verdict of guilty on every count in the indictment. You claim each count is a separate crime, that you don’t make the law, you only enforce it, that if the legislature has chosen to make it a crime to conspire to commit an unlawful act and a defendant conspires to commit such an act and then does commit the act, he’s guilty of two separate crimes.

“Now, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.”

Judge Fallon twisted his lips in the ghost of a smile.

“I think the point is well taken,” he ruled. “I fail to see that the conversation is pertinent or relevant unless it had to do with some aspect of this crime, and if it does it may well be that the defendant and the witness did conspire to do certain things and the witness has grounds to feel that answering the question would tend to involve him in a crime of conspiracy.”

“All right,” Ellis said, savagely turning to the witness, “you wrapped a gun in paper and put it in the golf bag, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Had you ever seen that gun before?”

“Before what?”

“Before you put it in the golf bag.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where?”

“I refuse to answer on the ground that the question may incriminate me.”

“Had you ever seen it prior to the fifth of this month?”

“I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you know?”

“Because I don’t know whether this was the same gun I saw or not.”

“You saw a gun that was like it in appearance?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”

“I can’t recall all the places I have seen similar gun. The company undoubtedly manufactures hundreds of thousands of these guns and I have seen them in display cases in sporting goods stores, and in various other places.”

“And,” Ellis said, leveling an accusing forefinger at the witness, “some of those ‘other places’ included a woman’s handbag, did it not?”

“Yes.”

“What woman?”

The witness hung his head. “Mrs. Hastings,” he said.

“Aha!” Ellis said. “Now, after all this painful agony on examination you admit that you saw this gun in the handbag of the defendant.”

“Now, just a moment, if the Court please,” Mason said. “I object to the side comments by counsel and also to the question itself. The witness didn’t say he had seen this gun in the defendant’s handbag.”

Morton Ellis said, “It could have been the same gun, for all he knows.”

“And it could have been a different gun, for all you know,” Mason said.

“I’m going to sustain the objection to the question in its present form,” Judge Fallon said.

“Very well,” Morton Ellis said, “we’ll let it go at that. Now then, was any statement made to you as to where the gun came from?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What was the statement?”

“Mrs. Hastings said that her husband had given it to her and told her to keep it in her handbag, that he believed in women having some form of protection when they were out alone at night. If she should have a blow-out or car trouble of some sort she would be completely helpless stalled by the side of the road.”

“That,” Morton Ellis announced triumphantly, “is all.”

“Just a moment,” Mason said. “I have a question or two on cross-examination. You have said that you saw such a gun in the handbag of Mrs. Hastings?”