“Would you recognize the skirt she was wearing if you saw it again?”
“I would, yes, sir.”
“Now, then,” Gloster said triumphantly, “I refer you to the People’s Exhibit D, the skirt and jacket which the sheriff has testified were found on board the yacht owned by the defendant, the Kathy-Kay, and ask you if you have ever seen these garments before.”
“Yes, sir, those are the things that Dorothy Fenner, the defendant, wore when she left the apartment.”
“And when she came back she wasn’t wearing those things?”
“No, sir, she was wearing her yachting clothes, a white turtle-necked knit sweater and yachting slacks and tennis shoes.”
“Now, did you notice anything about whether she was carrying a purse when she left the apartment?”
“Yes, sir, she was carrying her purse with her when she left the apartment house that night. I distinctly remember seeing the purse in her right hand.”
“And did she carry a purse when she returned and had the elevator brought down to the trunk room?”
“No, sir, she did not”
Gloster turned to Perry Mason with something of a smirk. “Now, then, Mr. Mason, go ahead and cross-examine.”
Mason said casually, as though the testimony of the witness had not surprised him with a series of body blows, “Oh, I have just a few questions. Just a moment, please.”
Mason, smiling affably, arose from his chair. His eyes were amused and tolerant, as he said, “As I understand it from your testimony, it was against the rules to permit Mr. Alder to go up to the apartment unannounced?”
“Yes, sir.”
“But you did it?”
“Yes, sir.”
“For five dollars?”
“Well, if you want to put it that way, yes.”
“A violation of the rules for five dollars,” Mason said, smiling.
The witness said defiantly, “All right.”
“Would you,” Mason asked, “have done it for four?”
There was a rippl® of laughter in the courtroom.
The witness was stubbornly silent
“Would you?” Mason asked.
“Oh, Your Honor,” Gloster said, “I object to that. The question is argumentative and it’s not proper cross-examination.”
“Well, I suppose it is argumentativeJudge Garey ruled, “but I think it’s within the scope of proper cross-examination.”
“Would you have done it for four?” Mason asked.
“I suppose so,” the witness said sullenly.
“For three?”
“Yes!” he shouted angrily.
“For two?”
"I don’t know.” The witness was sullen again.
"For one?” --Nor
Mason said, Thank you, Mr. Dixon, I was just getting the value which you place on your honor.”
Mason held the witness with his eyes, but the margin of his consciousness told him what was going on, the amusement of the spectators in the courtroom, the anger of the district attorney.
“Now, then,” Mason said, “when the defendant came in on the afternoon of the third, you had some conversation with her?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You told her there were about a million telephone calls?”
“Yes. Of course that was a figure of speech.”
“Exactly,” Mason said. “A witness who is as scrupulously careful of the truth as you are wouldn’t want the jury to believe that you had actually packed a million telephone slips into an ordinary key box.”
Mason’s smile was affable.
The witness squirmed.
“Now, then,” Mason said, “you had some little talk with the defendant at that time?”
“Oh… yes, I guess we did.”
“About how long did that conversation take?” Mason asked. “How long was she standing there chatting with you?”
“About five minutes, I would judge.”
“And then she took the elevator and went up in the elevator?”
That’s right.”
That was an automatic elevator?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And how long was this before this gentleman came in—the gentleman who gave you the five dollars for violating the rules?”
Dixon flushed.
“How long was it?”
“Oh, I would say it was about an hour or an hour and a htdf, something like that.”
“And how long before you saw the defendant going out?”
“Well, she went out about forty minutes after the man who had been to see her left—I guess… well, you can fig-ure it out.”
“Now, then,” Mason said, “just tell the jury exactly what you and the defendant talked about during this five-minute conversation, exactly what you said to her.”
“Your Honor,” Gloster shouted, jumping to his feet, “that is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial it’s not part of the res gestae it’s not proper cross-examination it calls for a self-serving declaration, and it’s utterly outside of the issues in this case.”
“Unless counsel can show that it has some specific bearing on the case,” Judge Garey said.
Mason smiled and said, “I believe, Your Honor, it is a rule of law that, when a witness on direct examination is asked as to a part of a conversation, the cross-examiner has the right to bring out the entire conversation.”
“That’s right,” Judge Garey said. “That is the general rule.”
“And I have no fault to find with it,” Gloster said, “which is the reason I was so careful to interrupt the witness every time he started to talk about that conversation. I didn’t want him to testify to it because I think it has no bearing on the case.”
“But,” Mason said, “you did ask him about the conversation, and he answered the question.”
“That is not true!” Gloster shouted. “I was particularly careful…”
“You asked the witness about what happened, and he told you that he told the defendant there were about a million telephone calls in her box—and I just asked the witness that question all over again to make sure there was no misunderstanding.”
Gloster, suddenly embarrassed, said lamely, “That’s not a conversation.”
“Well, it’s not a correspondence, it’s not clairvoyance, and it’s not telepathy. I don’t know what it is, if it isn’t a conversation,” Mason retorted.
Judge Garey frowned, then slowly nodded. “I guess,” he said, “that opens the door, if counsel for the defense wants to go into it”
“Your Honor,” Gloster said, “I happen to know what is back of all this. If we open this door, we will drag in innumerable and interminable side issues.”
“You should have thought of it before you opened the door then,” Judge Garey said. “Go ahead and answer the question,”
“Give all the conversatioh as nearly as you can,” Mason said to the witness, “what you said to her, and what she said to you.”
“Oh, Your Honor,” Gloster said, “this is ..
“The objection has been made, and a ruling has also been made,” Judge Garey pointed out, tartly.
“Your Honor, might I ask for a recess at this time? I think that … I would like to argue the matter with the Court outside of the hearing of the jury.”
“We have nothing to conceal,” Mason said. “If there was a conversation, we want it”
“All right,” Gloster said angrily. “I warn you that you may be able to get the conversation in but that isn’t going to open the door so that you can prove any of the things that were mentioned in the conversation. We’re going to object to anything corning into this case except the question of the murder of George S. Alder.”
“Why, certainly,” Mason said.
“Go ahead,” Judge Garey said to the witness, “answer the question. What was said?”
“Well,” Dixon said, “I congratulated her on having been released, and she told me that Mr. Alder had gone all to pieces under Mr. Mason’s cross-examination, and that the charge he had made that she had stolen some jewelry from him couldn’t be substantiated, and that he couldn’t even describe what the jewelry was that it was quite a triumph for her, and that she had an idea Mr. Alder would be trying to squirm out of a very embarrassing situation.”