Brian Freemantle - The Namedropper

‘I think, Mr Bartle, that this is something about which I have to reflect further.’ Turning to the other side of the court Pullinger said, I think you have established your point, Mr Beckwith.’

‘With respect, your honour, I have a few more questions.’

A frown flickered across the judge’s face. ‘Let’s move along, Mr Beckwith.’

‘Dr Chapman,’ resumed the lawyer. ‘Studying as I have your professional qualifications, I noticed also that you attended Harvard, as did Alfred Appleton? You were contemporaries, in fact?’

‘Yes.’ There was a fresh tightening to Chapman’s face.

‘Did you know Mr Appleton at Harvard?’

‘We were acquainted.’

‘How were you acquainted?’

‘We shared a mutual interest.’

‘In sailing?’ queried Beckwith.

‘Which I’m sure you already knew,’ flared the other man, giving way at last to anger.

‘I did indeed, Dr Chapman. But the court didn’t until now. Have you continued to sail with Mr Appleton?’

‘Yes.’

‘So how would you describe yourself? As an acquaintance or as a friend?’

There was yet another pause before the man said, ‘As a friend, I suppose.’ The voice was quieter, controlled again.

‘Did you attend your friend’s marriage, to Alyce Bellamy?’

‘Yes.’

‘How would you describe Alyce Appleton, nee Bellamy, as an acquaintance or as a friend?’

‘Your honour!’ protested Bartle.

‘I agree,’ said Pullinger. ‘I think you have extended this examination sufficiently, Mr Beckwith. Is it your intention to call Dr Lewell?’

‘It most definitely is, your honour.’

‘I shall permit it, on the grounds of fairness, but not with the same latitude as I have with this witness. Is that clear?’

‘Very clear,’ said Beckwith.

‘Then I don’t expect the need to remind you.’

Dr Jane Lewell’s qualifications were not as extensive as those of either George Abrahams or Mark Chapman, but did include those of microbiology and gynaecology. She was a tall, thin woman, her face dominated by heavy, thick-rimmed spectacles. There appeared little attempt at make-up, nor to colour the greyness in her hair which she wore very short, cropped to the nape of her neck. Jordan’s immediate impression, when she began responding to his lawyer’s questions in a flat although confident voice, was that she was setting out to be as monosyllabic as the specialist doctor who had preceded her. It was quickly confirmed in a series of staccato, yes or no answers, despite Beckwith adjusting his questions to achieve fuller responses. Pullinger’s mounting impatience came to its head after she agreed that Leanne Jefferies had suffered a chlamydia infection with Peter Wolfson’s interrupting admission that her first, inadequate report had been a strictly accurate diagnosis according to his limited remit.

‘So there we have it!’ insisted Pullinger. ‘Both expert witnesses adhered to the very strictest letter of their legally permissible instructions – instructions that remain very much in the forefront of my mind – that had their evidence been presented in its original form could have seriously misled myself and a subsequent jury, but for the intervention of Mr Beckwith. It is now established for the benefit of subsequent proceedings that both Alfred Appleton and Leanne Jefferies suffered a venereal infection. Is this matter now concluded to your satisfaction, Mr Beckwith? It most certainty is to mine.’

‘With respect, your honour, I have questions to this witness that will occupy no more than five further minutes.’

‘Which I will time to the precise second,’ said the judge.

‘The domicile of Ms Leanne Jefferies is 3200, East 106th Street, apartment 38b, Manhattan, is it not?’

‘Yes.’

‘Are you Ms Leanne Jefferies’ gynaecologist?’

‘No.’

‘Had she been a patient of yours prior to her coming to you for the examination we are discussing today?’

‘No.’

‘According to what has been indicated here today, it was Peter Wolfson, her attorney, who made the appointment, with its very specific remit, for Leanne Jefferies to be examined by you?’

‘Yes.’

‘Until this occasion, has Peter Wolfson had clients examined by you?’

‘No.’

‘Did you not think it strange that a woman domiciled in Manhattan should be asked to travel all the way to Boston for an examination for which there are…’ Reverting to theatrics, Beckwith consulted papers on the table in front of him. ‘There are to my rough calculation twenty consultants with qualifications matching yours within thirty minutes, even allowing for the worst traffic?’

For the first time the woman lapsed into the previously familiar hesitations. Finally she said, ‘Yes.’

‘Did you ask her?’

‘Your time is rapidly running out, Mr Beckwith,’ warned the judge.

‘Dr Lewell?’ hurried Beckwith.

‘No, I did not ask her.’

‘How friendly, professionally or otherwise, are you with Dr Chapman?’

‘You will answer that question and that will be the end of your examination,’ ordered Pullinger.

‘We are friends, professionally and socially,’ said the woman.

The chambers of Judge Hubert Pullinger were as frigidly austere as the man himself, wallpapered practically from floor to ceiling with legal books, each precisely in its regulated, indexed place, scribbled notes in the centre of an otherwise unmarked blotter, pens in a regimented holder beside a telephone console. The chesterfield, with matching chairs, was in red oxhide and unoccupied because Pullinger kept the four lawyers standing before him, his attention totally concentrated upon David Bartle and Peter Wolfson. The only physical indication of Pullinger’s fury was the involuntary tap of an index finger, as if he were keeping occasional time with the sticky tick of the mahogany-cased grandfather clock creating the sole sound in the room, apart from the asthmatic rasp of Reid’s breathing.

The judge still wore his robes and when he finally spoke, eyes now lowered over his prepared notes, the tightly controlled voice was so quiet that at first, until they adjusted, both Bartle and Reid strained forward to hear properly.

‘Throughout the course of this outrageous day I have almost lost count of the offences that you, Mr Bartle, and you, Mr Wolfson, have caused and inflicted upon my court. The most obvious is contempt, the worst to which I believe I have ever been subjected in twenty-five years upon this bench. There is no mitigation or explanation that I will accept from either of you. I have been minded to abandon the full case before it officially opens – which is why I have interrupted the current application before its completion – to report you both to your respective state regulatory and licensing authorities, with the recommendation that you both be subject to official enquiry into your total lack of professionalism. That is still a course open to me and one I might choose to pursue. In deciding to postpone that decision I am mindful of the inconvenience and costs that would be caused your clients, as well as those of Mr Beckwith and Mr Reid. I find no reason why any of them should suffer because of your conduct. When the court resumes, however, I intend advising both doctors who appeared as your expert witnesses that I shall complain to their licensing authorities, dissatisfied as I am with the explanations both have offered. It is I who decide the interpretation and application of the law, not either of you with the sleight of hand of snake-oil salesmen…’

Pullinger paused, clearing his throat after such an uninterrupted diatribe. ‘As both of you would appear to need guidance in law, I will remind you that the course I have chosen today, to address you as I am now doing, is highly unusual and might even be construed as undue and premature bias, although I give you my absolute assurance that this is not nor ever will be the case. It does, however, open the way for both or either of you to object to my continuing to hear any more of this current application or the divorce itself and apply for a new judge. That would, of course, require me to justify this meeting, which I am fully prepared to do. I will continue this recess to enable you both to consider your course of action and discuss it with whomever you choose – and to advise Drs Chapman and Lewell of what I have told you – but warn you that if you decide to continue I will not tolerate any more of the behaviour to which I and my court have been subjected. This meeting is concluded.’