Erle Gardner - The Case of the Rolling Bones

“This testimony will be connected up,” Kittering said.

“Well,” Mason observed, “to save time, I won’t make the motion, but to get the record clear, I’ll ask a few questions... How do you determine the time of death when you are performing a post-mortem, Doctor?”

“Under circumstances such as this,” the doctor said, with acid hostility, “there are various methods. An examination of the stomach content where there is food in the stomach and data available as to the time of ingestion is by far the best method.”

“Acting,” Mason said, “on the assumption that dinner was served and eaten at eight-ten?”

“Acting on the assumption that dinner was served at eight-ten. Yes, sir.”

“But,” Mason pointed out, “your only knowledge of when dinner was eaten is predicated entirely upon what has been told you. Isn’t that right?”

The doctor raised his voice. “There are witnesses to prove it.”

“If it should turn out the witnesses are mistaken in their time, then you are mistaken in your time. Is that right?”

“The witness isn’t mistaken,” the doctor said. “I’ve talked with him personally.”

“But all you know of your own knowledge, Doctor, is that you performed an autopsy on a body, that death had occurred from eight to fourteen hours prior to the time you made your examination and within approximately two hours of the time the deceased partook of a meal consisting of certain specific articles of food?”

“You can put it that way if you want to,” the doctor snapped.

“Thank you, Doctor,” Mason said with a smile. “I want to. That’s all. You’re excused.”

“Jason Carrel will be the next witness,” Kittering announced.

Carrel, poker-faced, steady-eyed, came forward, raised his right hand, and was sworn. He gave his name and residence.

“Did you,” Kittering asked, “see a body at the funeral parlors of Breckenbridge & Manifred?”

“I did.”

“When was that?”

“On the morning of Saturday, the seventh.”

“And did you identify that body?”

“I did.”

“Had you been acquainted with that man during his lifetime?”

“Yes.”

“Under what name did you know him?”

“Under the name of John Milicant, a brother of Emily Milicant.”

“And do you know whether this defendant, Alden Leeds, your uncle, also knew the deceased?”

“Yes, he did.”

“Under what name?”

“Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness,” Mason said. “He can’t testify as to what his uncle knows.”

“Sustained.”

“Did you ever hear your uncle call him by name?”

“I did.”

“Under what name did your uncle address him?” Kittering asked triumphantly.

“As John Milicant.”

“You may inquire,” Kittering said.

“You have no particular affection for your uncle, the defendant in this case?” Mason inquired conversationally.

“On the contrary, I really care for him,” Carrel retorted. “I care enough for him so that I realized he was in danger of being victimized by an unscrupulous adventuress, and took steps to prevent him being stripped of his property.”

“And by the unscrupulous adventuress, you refer to Emily Milicant, the sister of the deceased?”

“I do.”

“Now then,” Mason said conversationally, “suppose that it should appear that the defendant in this case was not your uncle. Would that make any difference in connection with your testimony?”

“What do you mean?”

“Simply this. Suppose that in the event of his death — either by natural causes or in the gas chamber at San Quentin — you stood no chance of profiting, in other words, that you were not a natural heir of his and, therefore, not in a position to share in his estate or contest his will, would you continue your efforts to prevent his marriage or regard the possibility that he might be convicted of murder with equal satisfaction?”

Kittering jumped to his feet. “Your Honor,” he shouted. “Your Honor, this is outrageous! This is uncalled for. This is unethical and unprofessional. It is quite on a par with the tactics that counsel has used in...”

Judge Knox interrupted calmly to say, “The question is not temperate. It may not be considerate. Doubtless, it is not courteous, but it is legal. I know of no law which requires counsel to be courteous, temperate, or considerate with witnesses who testify adversely. The question goes to show motivation, bias, and a possible reason. Therefore, it will be allowed.”

“Answer the question,” Mason said.

“I care nothing whatever about my uncle’s money,” Carrel said in a low voice.

“But you did have him strong-armed out of an automobile in order to place him in an institution when you thought he was about to marry Emily Milicant.”

“I did that for his own good.”

“And your own good, your own advantage, didn’t enter into the matter at all?” Mason asked suavely.

Carrel hesitated a minute, fidgeted uneasily, then raised sullen eyes, and said, “No.”

“And you didn’t discuss with the other two relatives who cooperated with you in that action, the advisability of having your uncle committed to an institution so that you could prevent his marriage, prevent him making a valid will, and thereby insure your participation in the fruits of his lifelong savings?”

Carrel again fidgeted, and then said without looking up, “No.”

“There was no conversation to that effect?”

“No.”

“The matter wasn’t mentioned in your presence by any of the others?”

Again there was a long silence. Again Carrel answered without looking up, “No.”

“Your action in kidnaping your uncle was actuated by the loftiest motives and without any thought whatever for your own financial interest?”

“Objected to,” Kittering snapped. “Assuming facts not in evidence. I object particularly to the use of the word ‘kidnaping.’”

“Sustained,” Judge Knox said.

Mason smiled. “You have admitted that you attempted to have your uncle declared incompetent and placed in an institution?”

As the witness hesitated, Mason opened his brief case, and said, “I have here a copy of your sworn statement if you wish to refresh your recollection, Mr. Carrel.”

“Yes,” Carrel said, “I did.”

“And you tricked him into entering the grounds of an institution where two male nurses, at your request, forcibly dragged him from an automobile and detained him against his will?”

“It wasn’t at my request.”

“Oh, you had nothing to do with that?”

“No.”

“You asked Dr. Parkin C. Londonberry to have that done, didn’t you?”

“I asked him to give my uncle proper treatment.”

“And explained to him that by proper treatment, you meant that your uncle should be confined?”

“Well, yes — in a way.”

“Now, are you acquainted with an Inez Colton?”

“No,” Jason Carrel shouted.

“You don’t know her?”

“No.”

“Have never met her?”

“No.”

“Do you know anyone who lives in the apartment house where this decedent resided and where his body was found?”

“No.”

Mason regarded him with narrowed eyes. “You’re aware that you’re under oath, and that this is a murder case?”

“Naturally.”

“And your answers still stand?”

“Yes.”

“That,” Mason announced, “is all.”

Judge Knox, in a manner which plainly showed his complete disbelief, said, “Mr. Carrel, do you wish this court to understand that during the time you and your relatives were discussing the steps you were taking to have your uncle, the defendant in this case, declared incompetent, there was never at any time in your presence any conversation whatever as to the material advantages which would result in behalf of any of the relatives from preventing your uncle’s marriage, preventing him from making a valid will, or prevailing in your action to have him declared incompetent?”