Death, in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, had been almost instantaneous, produced by a stabbing wound from a knife with an eight-inch blade. The wound had penetrated the heart muscle, but there had been a relatively small external hemorrhage, most of the bleeding being internal.
In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the decedent had not moved from the time he was stabbed until death resulted, other than to collapse in his tracks and sprawl out on the floor.
Ormsby next introduced certified copies of the interlocutory judgment disposing of the property and awarding one of the lots on which the house had been built to Vivian Carson, the other lot to Loring Carson. He introduced a certified copy of the restraining order, restraining Loring Carson, his representatives, agents or assigns, from trespassing in any way on the property set aside to Vivian Carson.
Ormsby next called the surveyor, who testified briefly that he had been called by Vivian Carson; that he had been asked to have everything in readiness so that he could leave at a moment’s notice on a Saturday morning; that Vivian had called him, had had a locksmith who had opened the doors and made keys for the locks on her side of the house; that she had then instructed him to survey a line which was two inches inside her property line; that a construction crew had been waiting and that as soon as he had run a line through the house which was two inches inside of the line of property awarded to Vivian Carson, she had instructed the contractors to start stringing the fence.
The witness stated that he had remained on the job until the fence was completed, checking it with his transit; that he had gone to the opposite side of the house and had surveyed a line just two inches inside of the property line and had seen that when the fence was carried through the house the wire remained a uniform distance of two inches inside the property line.
“Did this defendant, Vivian Carson,” Ormsby asked the witness, “make any statement to you at that time as to why she desired the fence line to be kept two inches inside of her property line?”
“She did.”
“What did she say?”
“She said that if Morley Eden so much as put a finger on that fence it would constitute a trespass and a violation of the restraining order and she intended to have him cited for contempt.”
“Did she make any statement indicating how she felt toward the decedent, her former husband?”
“She said she hated the ground he walked on.”
“Did she make any other statement?”
“She said that he was a heel and a louse and nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”
Ormsby glanced significantly at the jury. “Would the witness mind repeating that last statement?” he asked. “What was it she said?”
“That nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”
“You may cross-examine,” Ormsby said.
Mason smiled at the witness. “Have you had any experience with divorce?” he asked.
“Not personally.”
“Among your friends?”
“Yes.”
“You’ve known other women who have obtained divorces from their husbands?”
“Yes.”
“And talked with some of them shortly after the divorce was granted, and while they were still in a bitter frame of mind?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Offhand,” Mason said, smiling affably, “about how many of those people have made statements to the effect that they’d like to stick a knife in their ex-husband or that he was a heel and a louse, or that they’d like to scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect?”
“Just a moment, just a moment,” Ormsby said, “that’s objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination. This witness isn’t an expert on divorce actions and I didn’t try to qualify him as such.”
Mason said, “I think if the Court please, it’s proper cross-examination. Of course if the prosecutor is afraid to have him answer the question I’ll withdraw it.”
Judge Fisk said, “That last remark is uncalled for.”
“I’m not afraid to have him answer the question,” Ormsby bristled. “I’m simply trying to keep the record straight.”
Judge Fisk said, “Well, I think I’ll sustain the objection. I doubt if it’s proper cross-examination. Are there any further questions?”
Mason, still smiling affably at the witness, said, “When the defendant, Vivian Carson, made that statement about wanting to stick a knife into her husband, did the tone of her voice differ in any way from any other somewhat similar comments you have heard from friends who had been divorced; comments such as ‘I’d like to scratch his eyes out,’ or, ‘if he ever comes around me again I’ll kill him,’ or words to that effect?”
“Now just a moment,” Ormsby said. “This is objected to as not proper cross-examination and on the same grounds as the other question and on the further ground that the Court has already ruled on the matter and that Counsel is guilty of misconduct and contemptuous conduct in trying to pursue this matter after the ruling.”
Judge Fisk thought for a moment, then slowly shook his head. “I don’t think,” he said, “that it’s the same question which was presented before. This question goes as to the tone of voice. I’m going to overrule the objection. The witness may answer.”
The witness, grinning back at Mason, said, “It was about the same tone of voice that the others have used. I don’t remember anyone stating particularly that she wanted to stick a knife in her husband, but I do remember one woman who said nothing would give her greater pleasure than to push her husband off a cliff — that is, her ex-husband.”
“And this was in about the same tone?” Mason asked.
“About the same tone of voice.”
“Now then,” Mason said, “of all your acquaintances, how many of those women whom you have heard after a divorce action express an opinion that they’d like to push their husband off a cliff or scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect, have actually pushed their former husbands off cliffs, scratched their eyes out, or committed any act of violence as far as you know?”
“Objected to. Not proper cross-examination,” Ormsby snapped.
“Sustained,” Judge Fisk said. “I permitted inquiry about the tone of voice but I think that’s as far as I’ll go.”
Mason turned to the jury with a smile which spoke volumes. “That’s all,” he said.
Some of the jurors smiled back at the lawyer.
Ormsby, enraged but coldly competent, said, “I will now call Lieutenant Tragg to the stand.”
Lieutenant Tragg, an expert in presenting his story so that it impressed the jury, took the stand and testified to what he had discovered at the scene of the murder, introducing photographs of the corpse, describing the physical surroundings.
“You noticed moisture near the body?” Ormsby asked.
“Yes, sir. There were two very well-defined patches of water.”
“About how big?”
“About as big as the palm of my hand.”
“And what were they on?”
“They were on the waxed tile floor.”
“How far from the body?”
“One of them was six and three-quarters inches from the nearest portion of the body; the other was twelve and one-half inches.”
“Did you do anything about testing this moisture to see if you could determine its source?”
“I did. The moisture was carefully drawn up into pipettes and analyzed to see whether the water could have come from the swimming pool. The swimming pool had a relatively large amount of chlorination. It had been serviced early that day.”
“And what did the analysis show in regard to the pools of water?”